Research, part of a Special Feature on Global Water Governance: Challenges and Future Scope Missing Links in Global Water Governance: a Processes-Oriented Analysis

Over the past decade, the policy and scholarly communities have increasingly recognized the need for governance of water-related issues at the global level. There has been major progress in the achievement of international goals related to the provision of basic water and some progress on sanitation services. However, the water challenge is much broader than securing supply. Doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of some of the existing governance processes, in the face of trends such as the unsustainable use of water resources, the increasing pressure imposed by climate change, or the implications of population growth for water use in food and energy production. Conflicts between different water uses and users are increasing, and the state of the aquatic environment is further declining. Inequity in access to basic water and sanitation services is still an issue. We argue that missing links in the trajectories of policy development are one major reason for the relative ineffectiveness of global water governance. To identify these critical links, a framework is used to examine how core governance processes are performed and linked. Special attention is given to the role of leadership, representativeness, legitimacy, and comprehensiveness, which we take to be critical characteristics of the processes that underpin effective trajectories of policy development and implementation. The relevance of the identified categories is illustrated with examples from three important policy arenas in global water governance: the effort to address access to water and sanitation, currently through the Millennium Development Goals; the controversy over large dams; and the links between climate change and water resources management. Exploratory analyses of successes and failures in each domain are used to identify implications and propose improvements for more effective and legitimate action.

[1]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Global Water Governance: Challenges and Future Scope UN-Water and its Role in Global Water Governance , 2013 .

[2]  C. Folke,et al.  Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries : Emerging governance of climate change—ocean acidification—marine biodiversity , 2012 .

[3]  S. Beck Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation , 2011 .

[4]  J Papathanasiou,et al.  Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Nicolás L. Gutiérrez,et al.  Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries , 2011, Nature.

[6]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from Aspiration to Practice , 2011 .

[7]  Jonathan G. S. Koppell World Rule: Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance , 2010 .

[8]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes , 2009 .

[9]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Governance and the Global Water System: A Theoretical Exploration , 2008, Understanding Global Cooperation.

[10]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Social Learning and Water Resources Management , 2007 .

[11]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Social Learning in Water Resources Management Social Learning in European River-Basin Management: Barriers and Fostering Mechanisms from 10 River Basins , 2007 .

[12]  Michael Zürn,et al.  Analyzing International Environmental Regimes: From Case Study to Database , 2006 .

[13]  R. Mitchell Problem Structure, Institutional Design, and the Relative Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements , 2006, Global Environmental Politics.

[14]  N. Harrison Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm , 2006 .

[15]  Jaymie R. Meliker,et al.  Governing water: Contentious transnational politics and global institution building , 2006 .

[16]  Yannis Papadopoulos,et al.  Governance and democracy : comparing national, European and international experiences , 2006 .

[17]  V. Timmer,et al.  Civil Society Actors as Catalysts for Transnational Social Learning , 2006 .

[18]  P. Gleick,et al.  Large International Water Meetings: Time for a Reappraisal , 2005 .

[19]  A. Biswas Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment , 2004 .

[20]  J. Scholte Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance , 2004, Government and Opposition.

[21]  Peter Bridgman,et al.  The Australian Policy Handbook , 1998 .

[22]  O. Young Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance , 1998 .

[23]  James N. Rosenau,et al.  Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics , 1992 .

[24]  N. Dubash Viewpoint – Reflections on the WCD as a Mechanism of Global Governance , 2010 .

[25]  W. Lam Governing the Commons , 2010 .

[26]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Resilience-Based Stewardship: Strategies for Navigating Sustainable Pathways in a Changing World , 2009 .

[27]  W. Scheumann How Global Norms for Large Dams Reach Decision-Makers , 2008 .

[28]  Klaus Dingwerth,et al.  The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams? , 2005 .

[29]  E. Ostrom Understanding Institutional Diversity , 2005 .

[30]  M. Finnemore,et al.  Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics , 2004 .

[31]  L. Hooghe,et al.  Multi-Level Governance and European Integration , 2001 .

[32]  John W. Kingdon Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .