Your search found 3 records
1 Apgar, J. M.; Cohen, P. J.; Ratner, B. D.; de Silva, Sanjiv; Buisson, Marie-Charlotte; Longley, C.; Bastakoti, Ram C.; Mapedza, Everisto. 2017. Identifying opportunities to improve governance of aquatic agricultural systems through participatory action research. Ecology and Society, 22(1):1-13. [doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08929-220109]
Aquatic environment ; Agricultural systems ; Equity ; Participatory approaches ; Collective action ; Research ; Governance ; Authorities ; Resource management ; Floodplains ; Living standards ; Ownership ; Stakeholders ; Accountability ; Ecological factors / Zambia / Solomon Islands / Bangladesh / Cambodia
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H047980)
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss1/art9/ES-2016-8929.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H047980.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H047980.pdf
(156 KB)
Challenges of governance often constitute critical obstacles to efforts to equitably improve livelihoods in social-ecological systems. Yet, just as often, these challenges go unspoken, or are viewed as fixed parts of the context, beyond the scope of influence of agricultural, development, or natural resource management initiatives. What does it take to get governance obstacles and opportunities out in the open, creating the space for constructive dialogue and collective action that can help to address them? We respond to this question by comparing experiences of participatory action research (PAR) in coastal and floodplain systems in four countries (Zambia, Solomon Islands, Bangladesh, and Cambodia) with a focus on understanding how to build more equitable governance arrangements. We found that governance improvement was often an implicit or secondary objective of initiatives that initially sought to address more technical natural resource or livelihood-related development challenges. We argue that using PAR principles of ownership, equity, shared analysis, and feedback built trust and helped to identify and act upon opportunities to address more difficult-to-shift dimensions of governance particularly in terms of stakeholder representation, distribution of authority, and accountability. Our findings suggest that the engaged and embedded approach of researcher-facilitators can help move from identifying opportunities for governance change to supporting stakeholders as they build more equitable governance arrangements.
2 van Koppen, Barbara; Schreiner, B. 2018. A hybrid approach to decolonize formal water law in Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 45p. (IWMI Research Report 173) [doi: https://doi.org/10.5337/2018.219]
Legislation ; Legal pluralism ; Customary law ; Water law ; Water resources ; Water users ; Water use ; Water rights ; Water management ; Water allocation ; Water policy ; Water governance ; Water distribution ; Water security ; Colonialism ; Economic aspects ; State intervention ; Authorities ; Investment ; Rural population ; Political aspects ; Regulations ; Small scale systems ; Equity ; Marginalization / Africa / South Africa / Kenya / Malawi / Uganda / Zimbabwe
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: IWMI Record No: H048956)
(639 KB)
In recent decades, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have pursued national water permit systems, derived from the colonial era and reinforced by “global best practice.” These systems have proved logistically impossible to manage and have worsened inequality in water access. A new study conducted by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and Pegasys Institute, with support from the UK government, traces the origins of these systems, and describes their implementation and consequences for rural smallholders in five countries – Kenya, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe. The authors of this report propose a hybrid water use rights system to decolonize Africa’s water law, lighten the administrative burden on the state and make legal access to water more equitable. This would strengthen smallholder irrigation, which is vital for boosting Africa’s food production and making it more resilient in the face of worsening drought.
3 Lordkipanidze, M.; Bressers, H.; Lulofs, K. 2020. Comparative assessment of water governance in protected areas. Water, 12(3):740. [doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030740]
Water governance ; Protected areas ; Ecosystems ; Resilience ; Comparative analysis ; National parks ; Water scarcity ; Drought ; Policies ; Authorities ; Case studies / Netherlands / United Kingdom / Alde Feanen National Park / Drents-Friese Wold National Park / Weerribben-Wieden National Park
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H049579)
(2.86 MB) (2.86 MB)
This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the governance systems of nature areas in relation to resilience measures in the field of water and nature management. The main question is to identify the key characteristics of governance that influence the resilience of the selected areas. The purpose of this comparative study is to understand and explain how aspects within the governance context influence the success of policy initiatives or measures towards resilience goals. For comparison, the hierarchic method is used. The results of the five case studies are compared: four cases from the Netherlands and one from UK. For the assessment of the governance of selected areas the governance assessment tool is used to systematically assess the relevant elements and qualities of the governance contexts and to understand the circumstances for the implementation of adaptive measures. The results of the comparison reveal different combinations of the governance qualities creating, to some extent, the setting for the resilience of the areas in which external factors and continuous interaction between layers of the governance system influence the adaptive capacity of the governance to manage resilience.
Powered by DB/Text WebPublisher, from
