Search

Collaborative approaches are being promoted as inclusive forums for bringing state and non-state interests together to solve complex environmental problems. Networks have been recognized through previous research as important ways to involve stakeholders in such forums with members participating in knowledge creation and sharing as part of deliberative processes. Less well understood is the effectiveness of network creation and promotion by external actors, especially in relation to knowledge creation and sharing. A case study approach was used to evaluate the efforts of a farm organization to organize a provincially-cohesive network of locally-elected agricultural representatives in Ontario, Canada. Network structure and function were evaluated using a combination of participant observation and Social Network Analysis as part of a mixed methods research approach. The results indicate that stakeholder network development can be actively supported, and that knowledge creation and sharing in these networks occurs within a complex structure of local and provincial-scale relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural resource industries are increasingly significant actors in environmental decision-making. Possessing vast institutional and technical capacity, firms have an important role to play in ‘new’ governance strategies such as collaboration. These strategies are often based upon assumptions of equitable influence. This paper investigates the nature of resource industry participation in collaborative water governance in Canada, and the potential consequences of that participation as investigated using power theory. The study used comparative cases to reveal that resource industries are able to shape collaboration, and the issues collaborated upon, at multiple analytical levels both internal and external to the collaborative process in ways not available to other actors. Analysis also revealed that resource industry participation in collaboration did not reflect a commitment to engage in shared learning and the reexamination of values and interests as presupposed by collaborative theory. Collaboration is thus challenged in producing equitable, representative outcomes when resource industries participate.ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHERCopyright of Journal of Environmental Planning & Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses a formal systematic review to examine the extent to which literature discussing collaborative approaches to water governance reflects understanding and awareness of power-related considerations. It makes the case that an analytical approach grounded in theory on power can facilitate assessment of the factors affecting collaboration by identifying the multiscalar, interrelated mechanisms through which power affects collaborative processes and outcomes. Through the review process, it became apparent that fully accounting for power will better enable scholars to link together seemingly disparate conditions for collaborative success (e.g., inclusion, decision-making power, capacity). A power-based approach also incorporates broad socioeconomic factors that fundamentally shape processes but often lie outside the analytical scope of local or regional studies on collaboration. Accounting for power, in the forms and scales identified, will result in better -designed, more effective collaborative approaches to water governance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Watershed boundaries are widely accepted by many water practitioners and researchers as the de facto ideal boundary for both water management and governance activities. In governance, watershed boundaries are typically considered an effective way to integrate the social, political, and environmental systems they encompass. However, the utility and authenticity of the watershed boundary for water governance should not be assumed. Instead, both scholars and practitioners ought to carefully consider the circumstances under which watershed boundaries provide an appropriate frame for governance. The purpose of this paper is to identify how water governance can transcend the watershed boundary. An empirical case study of governance for water in Ontario, Canada, reveals boundary-related challenges. In this case, issues relating to boundary selection, accountability, participation and empowerment, policysheds and problemsheds reveal the strengths and weaknesses of relying on watershed boundaries as a frame of reference for governance. The case also highlights promising alternatives that are being used to transcend the watershed boundary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the crucial role of knowledge production in environmental decision-making, previous research provides limited practical insight into the knowledge-related outcomes that can be achieved through collaboration, or the associated determinants of success. In this multiple case study, knowledge production is analysed in a collaborative water allocation planning process in South Australia. A theoretical framework was developed and used to systematically evaluate and compare knowledge-related processes and outcome criteria across four planning catchments. Data sources included 62 semi-structured interviews, documents and personal observations. Most of the theorised outcomes were achieved across the cases; however, only one case had generated widespread acceptance among participants of the knowledge that was used to develop the water allocation plan. Comparing processes across the cases revealed key factors that influenced their outcomes. Ultimately, community participants across the cases had limited involvement in technical investigations, suggesting the need to re-examine expectations about the potential for joint fact-finding within collaborative processes that are limited in scope and duration and nested within broader state-driven processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Initiatives aimed at protecting aquatic ecosystems often prove difficult to implement-particularly in water-stressed, semi-arid regions where the demand for water for human consumption is high. This article reports on an investigation of the factors that shaped the development and implementation of policies for aquatic ecosystem protection in the Oldman River Basin (ORB), a crucial watershed in semi-arid southern Alberta. The analysis reveals critical cultural and historical considerations that confront those attempting to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems in the ORB and highlights specific factors that influence implementation of measures to protect it. In addition to the most basic consideration-demand for water exceeds supplies-eight specific factors that influenced aquatic ecosystem protection in this region are identified and evaluated. These include (1) clarity of actors' roles/ jurisdictional responsibilities; (2) communication; (3) definition of key terms; (4) funding and organizational capacity; (5) leadership; (6) legal standing; (7) data and monitoring; and (8) public education. We argue that while these factors are important, critical cultural and historical considerations that influence water policy in the province also must be addressed in any efforts to protect aquatic ecosystems in southern Alberta. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural trade poses dilemmas for adaptive water governance as farmers and irrigation systems become integrated into global food value chains and are affected by their ongoing dynamics. The benefits and risks of agricultural trade and agrarian transitions are unevenly distributed, giving rise to complex interdependencies and externalities. Despite these growing linkages, the understanding of agricultural markets and their influence on water conflict and cooperation remains limited and dependent on context, which can lead to seemingly contradictory evidence. Progress has been hampered by boundary problems, disputed concepts, measurement issues, and divergent normative perspectives. Addressing these challenges will require that water governance scholars account more explicitly for agricultural trade when diagnosing collective action problems and assessing different modes of adaptive water governance. Drawing on the common-pool resource governance literature, we distinguish three separate, but interrelated, conceptual perspectives examining agricultural trade as an external factor in water governance: (1) market integration as a disturbance, (2) market integration as an opportunity, and (3) agricultural trade as a form of telecoupling with nested externalities. We compare these perspectives in terms of the externalities involved, their major claims about the relationship between market integration and collective action in the context of irrigation governance, and the broader implications for adaptive water governance. The comparison demonstrates the prevalence of institutional misfits and the common struggle of boundary shifting, i.e., matching water governance to the expanding problem-shed associated with agricultural markets. Institutional fit offers one important lens through which to consider the shifting boundaries (and actors) relevant for water governance, the scope and limits for strengthening fit through social learning, and the importance of nested governance to address nested externalities. These insights point the way for an agenda of research that examines the evolution of agricultural trade and adaptive water governance and pays explicit attention to the politics and power relations that shape who wins and loses and the different levers and entry points to improve management of the associated transitions and trade-offs. We conclude by arguing that future research should identify and examine pathways of adaptive water governance that strengthen processes of social learning and institutional nesting to address the external pressures and opportunities created by global food value chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]