five sentences? Just FIVE = 5?

Status: Published

C. Knieper, G. Holtz, B. Kastens, C. Pahl-Wostl (2010) Analysing water governance in heterogeneous case studies: Experiences with a database approach Environmental Science & Policy. 13(7):592-603

Knieper, Holtz, and Kastens are graduate students (staff members) with Pahl-Wostl who chairs the Resources Management research group at University of Osnabrueck, Institute of Environmental Systems Research, Osnabrueck, Germany where she has over 100 publications and currently administers 8 projects. In this article they further review the application of the Management Transition Framework (MTF) as a comprehensive analysis tool of water management through the review of two flood management case studies. These additional cases will be added to the MTF relational database, to expand it for supporting more detailed analysis of water governance technologies. The process of creating a shared language through the MTF for defining the governance processes enhances future empirical evaluations with the database. However, this is addressed specifically to professionals developing with these tools. as they found in this case, professionals involved can use the same tools and language but document governance processes at many different levels of detail which makes future comparisons more complicated.

weavers leadership web

Author: (c) June 17, 2011 1:19 AM Eric Weaver

Status: Published

Ben Orlove and Steven C. Caton (2010) Water Sustainability: Anthropological Approaches and Prospects.  Annual Review of Anthropology. 39:401–15

Ben Orlov an anthropologist who earned a BA from Harvard University and an MA and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley., has since the 1970s, conducted field work in the places like the Peruvian Andes, East Africa, the Italian Alps, and Australia collaborated with Steve Caton Professor of Contemporary Arab Studies in the Department of Anthropology Program at Harvard University.  These anthropologists provide detailed insight into Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) which has become a central theme for water governance internationally as a “total social fact.”  They begin with a review of the two central themes for water of connectivity and materiality in context with human and environmental uses and then expand this into the five analysis issues of value, equity, governance, politics, and knowledge.  From here they discuss the various perspective of water regimes, watersheds and waterscapes and how these are all intertwined with IWRM which often goes beyond them.  Orlove and Caton conclude by presenting to the professional water audience that future explorations of water in all these contexts must go beyond just the consumer and must be studied ethnographically through a combination of approaches that are determined case by case based on the connections and materials involved with in the water: "regime," "shed" and “scape” configuration.

weavers leadership web

Author: (c) June 17, 2011 1:29 AM Eric Weaver

Status: Published

Milman and Scott (2010) Beneath the surface: international institutions and management of the United States Mexico transboundary Santa Cruz aquifer. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2010, volume 28, pages 528 - 551

Christopher A Scott is an Asst. Research Professor, in the School of Geography and Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, with Anita Milman as a graduate student in his program.  They examined the Santa Cruz aquifer along the Arizona and Mexico boarder to understand polycentric management methods for transboundary groundwaters.  The exploration begins with the three-Cs: “competence, compatibility, and capacity” (as discussed by Young 2002, pages 98-100) which is used to determine how “regulations” and “regulators” are intertwined in the area through an array of acronyms.  Their analysis “identified specific gaps, overlaps, and ambiguities that arise from the polycentric and evolving nature of the intranational institutional environment in both the US and Mexico and explained how these reduce the competence, compatibility, and capacity of each country to address transboundary groundwater management.”  Other water management professionals must recognize that states rarely have “complete control” over there water resources and that their management methods must be more decentralized, addressing private sector participation, and marketable property rights.

Young O R, 2002 The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)

weavers leadership web

Author:(c) June 17, 2011 1:31 AM Eric Weaver

Status: Published

Bandaragoda, D. J. and Babel, Mukand S.(2010) Institutional development for IWRM: an international perspective, International Journal of River Basin Management, 8: 3, 215 — 224, First published on: 01 July 2010

Bandaragoda, is the Retired Regional Director for International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI)'s South East Asia Regional Office and Senior Management Specialist for nine years in IIMI's Pakistan program based in Lahore after serving as a member of the Sri Lankan administrative service while MUKAND S. BABEL, is a Associate Professor, Water Engineering & Management at the Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand.   Together they document the development of integrated water resources management (IWRM) through the United Nations Conference on Water in the Mar del Plata (1977), the International Conference on Water and Environment (1992), the Second World Water Forum (2000), the International Conference on Freshwater (2001), the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, and the Third World Water Forum (2003) which made IWRM central to global politics.  They discussed IWRM’s zenith with “The fourth World Water Forum in Mexico in 2006 dealt with sharing experience and finding ways to further the implementation of IWRM” before Bandaragoda and Babel went back into the concept’s history to note that China addressed water management back in the twentieth century BC.  After completing the historical review the authors reviewed current applications and ambitions attempts in Asia which resulted in critical questions:

1. Why have the water sector institutional reforms failed?
2. Is it necessary to have hydrologically based RBOs [river basin organization] for the promotion of IWRM?
3. Can the developed-country models of RBOs be successfully replicated in developing countries?

Although Bandaragoda and Babel claimed this review represents a “fairly bleak picture” professional water managers can benefit from these recommendations:

1. Pilot projects to establish sub-basin level stakeholder organizations were successful.
2. A clear water policy and related water laws are essential requirements to guide this collaborative arrangement.
3. Expensive institutional device such as RBOs is not necessary.
4. Local stakeholder involvement, an inter-sectoral representation is most essential.

weavers leadership web

Author:(c) June 17, 2011 12:37 AM Eric Weaver

Status: Published

Lubell, Mark and Lippert, Lucas (2011) Integrated regional water management: a study of collaboration or water politics-as-usual in California,USA  International Review of Administrative Sciences 2011 77: 76

Mark Lubell is a Professor at UC Davis who “focuses on human behavior and the role of governance institutions in solving collective action problems and facilitating cooperation" currently involved with "watershed management, environmental activism, agricultural best management practices, and institutional change in local governments” with Lucas Lippert an MS student who “conducted a survey of Bay Area stakeholders regarding their participation and attitudes towards IRWMP.”  Lubell and Lippert completed an evaluation of the IRWM development in San Francisco California specifically to inform other water management professionals of the importance of this collaborative model.  However, the majority of their reviews found that the old-guard set on the command and control paradigm would invariably circumvent and over ride any new stakeholder and cooperative collaboration that impeded their “politics-as-usual.”  Lubell and Lippert conclude by discerning the need to further research issues like “How much change, over what time span, is enough to continue investing in integrated approaches?”  Of course any research to reduce the fragmentation and encourage integration and collaboration is important while they found the IWRM “only make incremental changes in the short-run."

weavers leadership web

Author: (c) June 17, 2011 12:32 AM Eric Weaver

 

Status: Published

Weible, Christopher M. and Sabatier, Paul A.  (2009) Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystems. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(2)

Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier from the University of Colorado Denver found that collaborative approaches:  (and I quote from Page: 1)

• will mitigate conflict

• help integrate science and values

• policy subsystems are associated with convergence in some beliefs between rival coalitions

• policy participants are no more likely to rely on science-based, empirical beliefs in collaborative than in adversarial policy subsystems.

Weible and Sabatier "use the advocacy coalition framework (ACF; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sabatier & Weible, 2007) to compare adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems concerning (i) convergence in beliefs regarding both water quality problems and Comments from page 1 continued on next page agreement with policy proposals; and (ii) the relative use of empirical versus normative beliefs in supporting policy proposals."  Thus they Conclude (clipped directly from Page: 14)

• This long-term shift toward science suggests learning has occurred in the Basin and supports Weiss’s (1977) enlightenment function that science slowly accumulates like sedimentation in the minds of decision makers.

• Changes in beliefs, for example, might not result from the emergence of a collaborative subsystem but rather from turnover in policy participants or to other unknown factors. [$$$ is my personal experience].

• Political events in the Basin, however, show the same trends found across many environmental policy subsystems: a shift from adversarial processes … to collaborative processes.

• Analysis finds that in a collaborative policy subsystem some beliefs converge between coalitions, suggesting the mitigation of conflict to more intermediate levels.

Sabatier Paul A., and Hank Jenkins-Smith, eds. (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. (Boulder, Co: Westview, 1993), 290pp.

Sabatier Paul A., and Christopher M. Weible. (2007) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edn, ed. Paul A. Sabatier. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 189–220.

Weiss, Carol. (1977) Research for Policy’s Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research. Policy Analysis 3 (Fall): 531–45.

weavers leadership web
Author: (c) June 17, 2011 2:04 AM Eric Weaver