Abstract
Gupta, J., A. Akhmouch, W. Cosgrove, Z. Hurwitz, J. Maestu, and O. Ünver. 2013. Policymakers’ reflections on water governance issues. Ecology and Society 18(1): 35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05086-180135
Highlights
Academics often take an abstract approach to analyzing governance
This essay aims to assess the concerns of policy makers based on our policy work, policy-related research work, and our day-to-day experiences in terms of three questions: What are the perceived major issues for water governance? What are the major challenges in the structure of the existing global water governance approach? What is the vision for improving global water governance? This essay combines views from governmental, hybrid, inter- and non-governmental policy makers
It argues that water covers so many issues, aspects, and sectors that a key challenge is whether water should be governed as a sector or as a cross-cutting issue. It looks at how this challenge plays out within the United Nations system and leads to specific goal setting, while missing an overall visionary approach and a legally binding system of governance; within the hybrid arena, where it leads to inclusive discussion but not necessarily triggering consensus decisions; within nation states, where it has led to a loss of focus and a multitude of gaps and overlaps; and within transnational cooperative projects, where it has led to multiple interpretations of what is good practice
Summary
Academics often take an abstract approach to analyzing governance. They have their own academic logic, theories, and methodological routes and are often disconnected from the real-life problems faced by policy makers from government, hybrid bodies, and inter- and non-governmental organizations (IGOs and NGOs, respectively). It is easier to explain the links between water and energy, agriculture, development, security and others and, more recently, between water–energy–food–climate change and its subsets to those outside the water field, than to use the integrated water resource management (IWRM) concept The former approach may be a more diplomatic way to explain to others that they need to take water issues into account in their planning process. The GWP, founded in 1996, focused on developing the conceptual framework of IWRM based on the Dublin Principles (International Conference on Water and the Environment 1992) and establishing regional Technical Advisory Committees as start engines for raising awareness on IWRM in the regions It defined IWRM as “the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare without compromising the sustainability of vital environmental systems.”. Administrative Gap : Geographical “Mismatch” between hydrological and administrative boundaries Information Gap: Asymmetries of information (quantity, quality, type) between different stakeholders involved in water policy, either voluntary or not Accountability Gap : Difficulty to ensure the transparency of practices across the different constituencies Objective Gap: Different rationalities creating obstacles for adopting convergent targets
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
