Essay 2

From WEPGN The Big Questions

Jump to: navigation, search

Please leave all feedback under the "Comments" section followed by your signature. Click the "Edit" button to the right of the comment title to access editing features.

Contents

[edit] How can knowledge of communities' experiences with water challenges contribute to improved governance processes that better serve local constituents?

[edit]
The Fragmentation – Connectivity Conundrum: Focusing Water Governance Research in Canada

[edit] Authors

Darwin Horning, MCIP, R.P.P., PhD Candidate
Senior Planner, Ph.D. Candidate, Researcher
The University of British Columbia
3333 University Way, Kelowna, British Columbia


Dr. John Janmaat
Associate Professor of Economics and RIC Chair in Water Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability
Economics (unit 8), I.K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences
The University of British Columbia
3333 University Way, Kelowna, British Columbia


[edit] Abstract

Relationships between actors (people) and institutions play a pivotal role in the challenging task of managing water resources sustainably. These relationships form a complicated network(s) of diverse communities both within and external to the formal institutions and often with competing interests. A failure to understand these social underpinnings has contributed to the ongoing challenge of developing effective water governance regimes.


[edit] Essay

Water practitioners are experiencing increasing challenges in the race to preserve and maintain rapidly dwindling high-quality water sources in Canada and globally, in the face of escalating climate change impacts, rising development pressure and bioaccumulation of harmful pollutants. True Water sustainability has proven difficult to attain, as demonstrated by the many failing water regimes around the world (Keskin and Varis, 2012). This decline in both water quantity and quality is mainly attributed to a prolonged crisis of ineffectual water governance (Global Water Partnership 2000). Due to the social, economic and environmental costs associated with ineffective water governance there is strong incentive to better understand how existing and new models might provide for improved outcomes and what role institutions play in these better outcomes. Improved water governance outcomes are often characterised by complex and dynamic governance arrangements, and increased water institution interplay (van de Meene et al., 2009). Understanding what role connectivity plays in institutional interplay is essential to understanding the component pieces of water governance and how each affects the other in a larger collective tasked with managing a limited and valuable resource. Lautze et al., (2011) in their meta survey of water governance (definitions) identified three key emerging aspects: 1) governance is consistently viewed as the process of decision making; 2) the process of decision making takes place through the agency of institutions; and 3) both the process and the institutions are comprised of multiple actors (Lautze et al., 2011). Understanding the interrelationships between these, the process, institutions, and actors, will enable us to begin to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the decision making process within water governance, enhancing the prospects for future sustainability within our water systems.


Much of the water governance research over the past decade has been focused by the perceived failure of centralized water governance systems. This assessment has led in turn to a widespread call for collaborative, adaptive and distributed (CAD) models and their many variations as a panacea for all water woes (Horning and Bauer, pending). There is, however, more recent evidence indicating that CAD models, in isolation, are not necessarily a cure-all. In Grafton et al.’s (2013) study of four major mid-latitude watersheds, Colorado (United States), Yellow (China), Murray-Darling Downs (Australia), and the Orange-Sengu (Africa), the more collaborative, less-centralized Colorado and Orange-Sengu systems appeared to be less effective at sustainable water governance than the more centrally oriented models of the Yellow (centralized) and the Murray-Darling Downs (centralized-market oriented) watersheds, particularly when considering increased water conservation and allocation to ecological needs.


Empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of any one model over another, however, remains inconclusive (Huitema et al., 2009), highlighting the ongoing challenge associated with policy development and implementation. One of the more recent evolutions in water governance theory has been the recognition that ‘one-size-does-not-fit-all’. There is a growing recognition that no one model of governance is a panacea for all water woes, necessitating a new approach to water governance, one that acknowledging the multiple levels and nested nature of water institutions and the rapidly changing environments in which they must operate. There has been a growing interest in inter and intra communication within these multifaceted water networks and the impacts that connectivity has on institutional and ultimately whole water system performance (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008).


It is well recognized that the level of complexity within our water governance systems is increasing due in large part to the expanding number of water institutions and the interrelationships (connectivity) that develop (or not) between these institutions (Paul-Wostl et al., 2012; Huitema et al., 2009). Contributing to this complexity is the often diverse and overlapping jurisdictional context in which water is managed. Responsibilities for fundamental aspects of water such as water quality and quantity often reside in disassociated institutions, promoting fragmentation. Often, a persistent level of fragmentation exists due to factors associated with the interrelated nature of governance of water and other areas such as land-use planning, conservation, and industrial-economic development, resulting in increased potential for institutional misalignment and institutional inertia (Paul-Wostl, 2011; Edelenbos et al., 2013). Specialization within water governance sub-areas such as water quality, water distribution, waste-water management, and drought and flood management can and often does contribute to fragmentation in water governance (Edelenbos et al., 2013).


Institutional inertia is one of the key drivers for increased levels of fragmentation within water governance. Pahl-Wostl et al. argue that, “Paradigm transition will see fractious and contentious debate as vested interests in the old paradigm are defended and the call of radicalism motivates adherence to the new paradigm” (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2011, p. 851). Keskinen and Varis (2012, pg. 50), in their study of institutional collaboration at the basin level in Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake, also identified vested interests and mono-focused watershed governance as key drivers for institutional inertia, “Where the discussion about the most suitable forms of management revolved around commonly accepted ideals of cooperation and sustainability, the actual drivers for institutional reform are strongly influenced by the existing institutions and their political rivalries and interests” .


Vested interests are a by-product from technical infrastructure and actor networks which have co-evolved over long periods, establishing interests invested in sustaining the current governance configuration (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2011). Pahl-Wostl et al. (2011, pg. 549) describes this embedded inertia as, “strong path-dependence and inertia stabilizing system configurations”, resulting in a paralysis to change. Keskinen and Varis (2012, pg. 50) argue that any change to address embedded institutional inertia should involve a process which specifically investigates “the existing institutions, including the way the differing scales, levels and boundaries within the basin affect their relations” .


Addressing institutional inertia within the Canadian context poses some unique challenges, particularly from a structural perspective. Bakker and Cook (2011) argue that Canada’s highly decentralized approach to water governance has created integration challenges resulting in a high degree of fragmentation. More recent calls for dispersed (local control) governance, however, highlight the fact that interdependent relationships among diverse organizations can at times create balanced and legitimate solutions (Edelenbos et al., 2013; Lubell and Lippert, 2011). Water governance outcomes which are either balanced or fragmented, are often determined by the level of connectivity of all the institutions that are, or should be involved in the resource decision making process. Historically, however, the focus for water governance improvements have tended to key-in on sub-aspects of the water regime rather than connecting to, and operating in, a broader, more whole-system manner (Lubell and Lippert, 2011).


Connectivity has been the focus of several recent water governance research studies, particularly those employing social network analyses. This research often investigates specific characteristics of network connectivity including, relationship types or ties, strength and frequency of ties, and directionality. Each of these characteristics identifies aspects of connectivity that ultimately inform us of the performance of the network as a whole. Key indicators of system performance—such as knowledge transfer, adaptability, fragmentation, innovation, and leadership—are all determined in-large part by actor/institutional characteristics and their respective connectivity. Considering the recent global trend towards more collaborative and subsidiary water governance models, it is becoming more evident that the diversity of actor/institutions involved in water governance decision making will only continue to increase emphasising the need to continue to find better ways to ensure whole system connectivity as a counter to fragmentation. Recent research findings have identified the connectivity of social networks as a common denominator amongst these rapidly changing water resource landscapes (Bodin and Crona, 2009; Gunderson, 1999; Hahn et al., 2006; Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2006; Grafton, 2005).


Edelenbos et al. (2013, pg. 349), in their work on water governance and connective capacity, recently identified the following water governance insights:

  1. Fragmentation is a persistent phenomenon in water governance that cannot be solved and ruled out, once and for all.
  2. Fragmentation, often seen as a barrier, also has a function associated with specialization and therefore deeper understanding of specific water governance aspects. This specialization comes at a cost of reduced coherence and interconnectivity in water governance.
  3. Connectivity also creates further barriers in the sense that as connections are made and boundaries are overcome, new boundaries are established that create further barriers to effective water governance.
  4. ‘Connective capacity’ in water governance is required to truly face the complex, compounded and dynamic character of water governance processes.

Edelenbos et al. (2013) offer constructive recommendations for addressing water governance fragmentation, as follows: being aware of the problems with existing boundaries in water governance; understanding the impacts of spanning (bridging) activities and structures; water governance that consists of people, organizations, and institutions must continually remain adaptive in all situations and contexts, and; be willing to, and capable of, engaging in complexity thinking. These insights are, however, challenged by the underlying need for a deeper level of understanding of how institutions (including organizations) develop, both formally and informally, how institutions collaborate and how institutions learn from a social perspective (Armitage et al., 2008). In essence, understanding how water institutions, and actors, connect and communicate via ‘institutional interplay’ (Sproule-Jones et al., 2008) is paramount to successful implementation of Edelenbos et al.’s recommendations.


Critical to this deeper level of understanding is the recognition that institutional connectivity is core to effecting good water governance outcomes. In Canada, the current focus remains at the structural scale of water governance, with theoretical advantage (Horning and Bauer, pending) driving the debate on best-fit approaches to designing effective water governance models. Water governance to date has been approached by applying interventionist strategies against pieces of the waterscape in isolation. These reductionist approaches have had limited success in stemming the decline of our water resources. This essay proposes a different approach, one that views water as a collection of pieces, much like a chain, all linked through a network of relationships. Any action on one piece of the water governance chain results in forces being applied to the rest of the system. This necessitates a deeper more multifaceted and comprehensive understanding of the interconnected nature of the actors, institutions, processes and contexts that constitute each unique water governance regime. Only then will we begin to achieve a whole systems understanding of the complex and dynamic nature of water governance and begin to address the ever widening science policy gap.


Of primary concern for future water sustainability is the continued efforts at addressing institutional inertia and fragmentation within Canada and globally. Establishing a transdisciplinary centre for water governance research focused specifically on the analysis of water-related institutions (organizations) and connectivity would provide a clear structural emphasis on the ‘fragmentation – connectivity’ challenge currently plaguing water governance. Water governance research is being conducted by a number of teams across Canada. Many of these teams are reaching out from their disciplinary foundation to include more diverse insights (see recent UBC – workshop, “What is ‘Healthy’ Water? Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Water Security”). There exists several rich knowledge bases within the social and behavioral sciences, business and organizational fields of study that could be drawn upon through a interdisciplinary approach to help inform a more holistic national water research agenda in Canada. The time is ripe to bridge these dispersed water governance efforts, bringing them together or linking them as, or within, a national research center. Developing and resourcing a transboundary centre would enable Canada to harness existing innovation and synergies across Canada, positioning Canada as a global leader in Integrated Sustainable Water Governance (ISWGR) research.

[edit] References

  1. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., and Plummer, M. ,(2008). Adaptive Co-management and the Paradox of Learning. Global Environmental Change, (18), 86-98.
  2. Bakker, K. and Cook. C., (2011). Water Governance in Canada: Innovation and fragmentation. Water Resources Development, 27(2), 275-289.
  3. Bodin, O., and Crona, B. I. (2009). The Role of Social Networks in natural Resource Governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environ. Change, (19), 366-374.
  4. Edelenbos, J., Bressers, N., and Scholten, P., (Eds.). (2013 ). Water Governance as Connective Capacity. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
  5. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. (20050. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources (30), 441-473.
  6. GWP (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management. Stockholm, Sweden. Global Water Partnership.
  7. Grafton, R.Q., (2005). Social Capital and Fisheries Governance. Ocean and Coastal Management, (48), 753–766.
  8. Grafton, R. Q., Pittock, J., Davis, R., Williams, J., Fu, G., Warburton, M., and Quiggin, J., (2013). Global Insights Into Water Resources, Climate Change and Governance. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 315-321.
  9. Gunderson, L.H., (1999). Resilience, Flexibility and Adaptive Management—Antidotes for Spurious Certitude? Conservation Ecology ,3.
  10. Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Johansson, K., (2006). Trust-building, Knowledge Generation and Organizational Innovations: The role of a bridging organization for adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology (34), 573–592.
  11. Horning and Bauer, (2014, pending). Water Governance for a Rapidly Changing World: From rhetoric to contextual insight. Water Alternatives.
  12. Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., and Yalcin, R. (2009). Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda). Ecology and Society 14(1), 1-19.
  13. Keskin, M., and Varis, O.,(2012). Institutional Cooperation at a Basin Level: For what, by whom? Lessons learned from Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake. Natural Resources Forum (36), 50-60.
  14. Lautze, J., De Silva, S., Giordano, M., and Sandford, L., (2011). Putting the Cart Before the Horse: Water governance and IWRM. Natural Resources Forum (35), 1-8.
  15. Lubell, M. and Lippert, L., (2011). Integrated Regional Water Management: A study of collaboration or water politics-as-usual in California. USA. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(1), 76-100.
  16. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C. and Holling C.S., (2006). Shooting the Rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 21.
  17. Paul-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., and Nikitina, E. (2012). From Applying Panacea to Mastering Complexity: Towards adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science and Policy,(23), 24-34.
  18. Pahl-Wostl, C., Jeffrey, P., and Isendahl, N. (2011). Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from aspiration to practice. Water Resource Manager, (25), 837-856.
  19. Sproule-Jones, M., Johns, C., & Heinmiller, B.T. (2008). Canadian Water Politics: Conflicts and institutions. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  20. van de Meene, S.J., Brown, R.R. and Farrelly, M.A., (2010). Capacity Attributes of Future Urban Water Management Regimes: Projections from Australian sustainability practitioners. Water Science and Technology, 61(9), 2241-50.

[edit] Comments

Click the "Edit" button to the right of the page to access editing features. Enter feedback below and follow with your signature. Please do not delete any previous comments and be sure to click the "Save Page" button below the text box once you are finished entering your feedback.

1.

Personal tools
Bookmark and Share