Search

We explore the social processes supporting transformation towards collaborative water governance in the uMngeni catchment, South Africa. Using Holling's adaptive cycle as a heuristic of phases (conservation, release, reorganisation and exploitation) present during transformation of social-ecological systems, we consider the role of learning, power, agency and structure during each phase of the evolution of the uMngeni Ecological Infrastructure Partnership (UEIP). The UEIP is a partnership between government, research institutions, and civil society groups that facilitates broader and more collaborative participation in water management. During the conservation phase, strong control power and institutional structure (denoted by a hierarchical governance mode embodying control and regulation by the State) limited the introduction of new ideas and reinforced single-loop learning. The release phase was triggered by a shock which weakened control power and permitted the introduction of new ideas thereby enabling double-loop learning. The changing conditions gave rise to protean power (defined as results of practices of agile actors coping with uncertainty) which enhanced the agency of key actors who began to mobilise others in a rapid phase of re-organisation. Triple-loop learning was evident in the exploitation phase as new collaborative institutions, that were better able to accommodate innovative ideas, began to emerge. We found the adaptive cycle helpful for delineating phases of change, while the four multi-faceted processes of learning, power, agency and structure proved useful in illuminating dynamics of change. This understanding may help to inform actions to steer transformations towards more sustainable and collaborative water governance in South Africa and elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through the lens of the 12 OECD Principles on Water Governance, this article examines six water resources and water services frameworks in Europe, Asia-Pacific, Africa and South America to understand enhancing and constraining contextual factors. Qualitative and quantitative methods are used to analyze each framework against four criteria: alignment; implementation; on-ground results; and policy impact. Four main target areas are identified for improving water governance: policy coherence; financing; managing trade-offs; and ensuring integrity and transparency by all decision makers and stakeholders. Suggestions are presented to support practical implementation of the principles through better government action and stakeholder involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]