Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

The concept of governance, and especially good governance, is pivotal to the achievement of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). The concepts of used in much of the current literature on IWRM indicate that it is often used in a contradictory way and sometimes used interchangeably with the word . This chapter proposes a Trialogue Model of governance that is structured around three groups of actors — government, society and science — and discusses the dynamic interactions between these groups. The interfaces between these three groups of actors, or actor-clusters, and the dynamics of their interactions, provide the basis for a critical assessment of governance as a concept. The chapter isolates four specific elements of scale that are relevant to governance: economic, political, administrative and international; as well as three structural aspects: mechanisms, processes and institutions. In addition, the chapter identifies four processes: articulating interests, exercising legal rights, discharging legal obligations and mediating disputes, and analyses the central role of norms and values in good governance. Finally, an analytical distinction is made between governance as a and governance as a , and a new definition of ecosystem governance is offered. Evidence is presented to demonstrate the highly dynamic nature of governance processes, with clear differences that distinguish mature democracies and fledgling democracies.

This introductory chapter provides a broad context for considering the ecosystem governance issues discussed in subsequent chapters. In an increasingly interconnected world, nations cannot alone solve many of the pressing social and environmental challenges. Establishing effective governance systems is gradually becoming recognised as fundamental to sustainable development although it remains a mystery to many. To provide some clarity to this esoteric subject this chapter examines what governance is, the various forms it can take, why more effective global governance is important, and some basic principles that underpin it.

At the Second World Water Forum in 2000, the problems relating to water around the world were described as a consequence of the lack of good governance in water. The Global Water Partnership defines water governance as the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and delivery of water services, at different levels of society.

As a contribution to good water governance, the GWPSA has been facilitating the development of Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency (IWRM/WE) Plans in Malawi and Zambia. Effective water governance is crucial for the implementation of IWRM. While the process is still ongoing, various lessons can be drawn in relation to water governance.

This chapter argues that, while governance may be seen to be dependent on three key clusters; Government, Society and Science and the interactions among them, there are no distinct boundaries among the three clusters. Further, lessons from the IWRM/WE process highlight the importance of scale and power relations to water governance. IWRM Plans are being developed for river systems and natural resources at the national scale, confined to national boundaries. However, the transboundary nature of water resources requires effective interactions between and across the different scales. International conventions, protocols, declarations and targets such as the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are some of the factors at the international scale that have a strong influence on the IWRM Planning process at the national scale. Another important issue is that of power relations among players at a given scale, and also between different scales. The way decisions and information is communicated from central government to local government and vice-versa or from the catchment to the sub-catchment scale is crucial to good water governance. These interactions and process are highlighted in this chapter.

The overarching problem behind the need for good ecosystem governance is the fact that human needs for water, food, energy, etc., generally demand manipulations of landscape components. Due to water’s role as the bloodstream of the biosphere, with many parallel functions in the landscape, and ecosystems’ water-dependence, ecosystems tend to get impacted by those manipulations. Societal activities that have to be incorporated in good ecosystem governance include land use change, water use, flow control, waste production, and alien species. Different distinctions have been highlighted: i.e. between avoidable and unavoidable manipulations, and between local ecological landscape components as opposed to the whole catchment as a composite ecosystem. There are also two contrasting time perspectives to keep in mind: repairing of already-manifested ecosystem degradation versus avoiding foreseeable future ecosystem degradation in a world living with change in response to strong societal driving forces. Local-scale ecosystems have to be protected by addressing their key water determinants; catchment-scale ecosystems by benefiting from water’s function as an integrator through efforts to orchestrate society-driven manipulations for internal compatibility. The latter involves trade-off striking and balancing of different interests, and will demand both well organised stakeholder participation, and the definition of bottom lines and resilience criteria to protect key ecosystems. Good ecosystem governance has been characterised as follows: WHAT to govern, i.e. human activities in the landscape, HOW to govern involves an array of consecutive steps: fact finding and problem analysis; strategic plan of action; tools to make such action possible, such as legislation, financing, competent institutions, stakeholder participation etc.; and tools to secure its implementation, such as incentives/sanctions, capacity building, media campaigns, etc. The road towards good ecosystem governance will be demanding due to the dominance, at present, of partial reality-conceptualisation. A shift in thinking is absolutely essential to get out of this trap. Good understanding will be needed in the three different systems: natural biophysical system, social system, and governance system. The Trialogue hypothesis could be improved by changing the ‘Science process’ corner of the triangular model into a ‘Biophysical process’ corner. Science processes will be needed for all the three components of the Trialogue.

The philosophy and principles of sustainable development offer African countries the alluring promise of being able to develop prosperous societies and economies without exhausting the natural resource-base on which these are based. However, urgent needs for social and economic relief, coupled with shortages of social, technical and economic resources, make it almost impossible for many of these countries to achieve this ideal in the short- to medium-term. Because sustainable development depends on the choices that society makes and the participative processes by which these choices are made, there is a clear need to ensure wide acceptance of the governance processes that are used in decision-making. Here, ‘good governance’ is recognised as a complex and multi-dimensional concept that incorporates a guiding philosophy or set of operating principles, a preferred process or way that people interact with each other, and a desired situation or outcome. The ‘Trialogue Model’ of the partnership between government, civil society and science offers useful insights into the attributes of good governance and the way that this underpins and facilitates prudent resource management. An examination of the approaches used by southern African countries to manage their water resources reveals that some SADC countries have entered a development phase that is characterised by shared systems of values and a growing alignment of national and regional policies, statutes and plans. This is well aligned with the philosophy of good governance, which requires full commitment from stakeholders at all levels of decision-making. Ultimately, the extent to which a governance system can be regarded as ‘good’ or ‘weak’ depends on whether or not the five key principles of good governance (openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence) are explicit in every decision-making process that affects the livelihoods of stakeholders.

This chapter examines the diverse array of processes of institution-building that have emerged in response to the increasingly transnational challenges of freshwater ecosystem governance. Although some of these processes reflect the traditional confines of interstate diplomacy, based on state-centred authority, others transcend the confines of a narrowly statist framework. Expert networks, based on a new knowledge paradigm of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and advocacy networks engaging controversies such as water infrastructure projects and water marketisation, have become increasingly important mechanisms for the generation of new water norms and the shaping of water-related governance practices.

This chapter discusses the role of institutions, both formal and informal, in ecosystem governance. The role of different forms of knowledge, and the ways in which these can be combined, are analysed, as is the role of civil society in ecosystem policy processes. Organisational structures, their aims, norms and values, are examined and the problems of cooperation between different institutional cultures are analysed. The chapter presents a number of Trialogues in the context of sustainability, epistemology, and policy processes, and discusses their relevance for ecosystem governance. Finally, a number of recommendations for future research are made.

Given the fact that the largest number of cases of shared water occur in aquifers, it is surprising that so little is written about this. The Trialogue Model of Governance assumes interfaces between three actor-clusters; Governance, Science and Society. International law plays a significant role in facilitating the quality of these interfaces by codifying norms and values to the extent that these can become building blocks of future cooperation. Within the IWRM paradigm, international law has the capacity to facilitate linkages at different levels. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the evolution from the traditional approach to groundwater in international law to the latest trends both at the International Law Commission and in environmental treaties. International law is not only about regulating international relations because core norms and values have the potential to be incorporated into national law.

Transboundary groundwater management in the North American countries of Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico is truly dynamic. Institutions such as the International Boundary and Water Commission (US-Mexico) and the International Joint Commission (US-Canada) were originally established to consider surface water. However, they have been adapted to consider groundwater, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, implemented in 1994, may prove to be applicable to groundwater, although in some cases may eventually prove inimical to the interests of border regions as the three countries attempt to manage their transboundary groundwater resources. These institutions, coupled with the ad hoc approach of individual stakeholder groups, illustrate that transboundary groundwater management is functioning quite well in North America. Eight case studies, involving both water quality and quantity, illustrate our premise. Seven of the studies describe very specific issues; the final one involves the groundwater resources of the Great Lakes basin of the US and Canada, and provides a brief discussion of some of the issues that might arise in this region.

Public service agencies are increasingly expected to adapt effectively and respond to dynamic and discontinuous changes in their external environments. Organisational culture is often presented as a strong determinant of both adaptation and responsiveness. In this paper, we provide a descriptive analysis of this claim. We base the paper on the view that agencies involved in managing the use of ecosystems have strong organisational cultures partly because of their origins, which are rooted in certain ethical and moral precepts. We suggest examining assumptions — the core of organisational culture — as a critical starting point in seeking adaptation, responsiveness and managing for change in such agencies. Explicit analysis of assumptions is critical for securing support for, and reducing prospects of resistance to change. The examination of assumptions also has an important role in harmonising the goals of society, science and government.