Analysing water governance: a tool for sustainability?
T. Franks MA, MICE and F. Cleaver PhD
Keywords: Government, management, sustainability, water supply
Managing global water resources and providing water services to the world’s people raises a continuing series of challenges, driven by increasing expectations, and a growing competition for water, which will be exacerbated by climate change. This paper explores how concepts of water governance and sustainability may help us to meet those challenges. Water governance is often equated with the role of government or management in the provision of water services. By contrast, we see governance as the system of actors, resources, mechanisms and processes, which mediate society’s access to water. A broad conceptual framework is presented for the analysis of water governance, based on linkages between the resources available to society, the mechanisms that shape access to water and the outcomes of those mechanisms, both for people and the ecosystem. These linkages are mediated both by stakeholders and by management processes. It is argued that this conceptual framework offers a robust analytical tool for planning for sustainability as it is able to account for the complexities of water governance (of contexts, stakeholders, arrangements and uses).
The paper concludes with observations about the ways in which the framework can be used to understand how different water governance arrangements produce variable outcomes in terms of sustainability .
1.
INTRODUCTION
Securing sustainable access to water without degrading or depleting the natural resource is critical to improving human welfare and achieving the millennium development goals. Despite considerable efforts to improve the coverage of water infrastructure (for multiple uses) in the past few decades, and a strong focus on establishing operation and maintenance arrangements, water access remains patchy and unreliable for many people. The global figure for non-functioning water infrastructure is often estimated as high as 50%, but there is growing recognition that the solution is not purely technological. In recent years considerable attention has been devoted to devising institutional and financial arrangements for the ongoing operating of water infrastructure. It is argued here that many of these approaches are limited in focus and that securing the sustainability of services is best understood within the overall context of water governance. Adopting a water governance perspective involves recognising the complex relationships between available societal resources, the specific arrangements or mechanisms for organising sustainability and the consequent outcomes for people’s wellbeing as well as for ecosystems. In this paper a conceptual framework is proposed for understanding water governance and sustainability. This framework makes it possible to recognise the complex and wide-ranging nature of the problem, but also facilitates the identification of specific
(interrelated) entry points for policy and practice. The intention is to reconcile the need for understanding of the big picture with the imperative to take specific actions to meet the challenges of sustainability. Identifying potential entry points for policy and practice can contribute to an ongoing and dynamic process of cultivating arrangements for sustainability, rather than offering once-and-forall solutions.
2.
THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNANCE
The concept of governance is now widely used in a range of different contexts and settings. Indeed, it has become so widely used that there is no longer much debate about its meaning, characteristics, and the particular set of values that its use implies. Nevertheless, it is quite a recent term which became of widespread interest only towards the end of the 20th century. Around this time it became clear that major changes in political and social systems, both at global and local levels, were forcing a re-think of the capacity of the nation state to govern the affairs of its citizens. At the global level, the forces of
1

globalisation, the flows of capital and labour across international boundaries and the increasing importance of trans-national corporations have steadily reduced the ability of individual governments to control their own affairs. Within state boundaries, governments have also seen their powers diminish in the face of increasing activity by citizens’ groups and non-governmental organisations in the third sector. These twin pressures from both above and below have led to what is sometimes referred to as ‘the hollowing out of the state’. While there is ongoing debate about the extent and direction of this trend, there seems little doubt that widespread changes in the political processes of nation states are taking place. Such changes are usually discussed under the heading of governance.
1
With this as background, it is possible to discern two distinct ways in which the concept of governance is commonly applied.
2 For some, governance continues to be primarily about the role and processes of government, and, by implication, about ‘good government’. Such ideas have been picked up and reflected strongly by governments in general, international financial institutions and aid agencies.
3 For example, the Kaufmann indicators developed for the World Bank 4 comprise voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, the rule of law and control of corruption, and have clear linkages to the role of government .
In a similar way, the UK’s Department for International Development focuses on governance as building states that are capable, responsive and accountable to their citizens.
5 For many who view governance from this perspective, (good) governance is often synonymous with the control of corruption.
A second distinctive use of the term governance has arisen from the corporate sector, originating with ideas of ‘corporate governance’. Ideas of governance are seen here as management, in the sense of the collective allocation of resources to achieve defined objectives, implying a purposive set of actions involving inputs, costs and benefits distributed amongst a number of actors. While its origins in corporate governance imply strategic management at senior levels, increasingly the concept is applied to quite mundane and commonplace issues, as in the case of ‘risk governance’ and ‘data governance’.
It can be readily appreciated that the association of governance with management has little in common with the subtleties of governance as a concept of how society runs its affairs, or even with governance as government. Nevertheless, in the case of the water sector, governance as management has particular resonance in view of the importance of water management.
In our view, neither governance as government nor governance as management reflects either the complexity or potential utility of the concept. The emerging challenges to the nation state, from both above and below, lead to the idea of governance as the way society in general organises itself and orders its affairs. This is typically encapsulated in the definition of the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP):
The exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.
6
Governance is a new concept, and therefore new ideas are emerging to replace the mainstream concepts of government and management. These new ideas 7 relate to the key resources such as institutions, knowledge and power, which underpin the way systems of governance work. For example, the mainstream view sees institutions as static, functionalist and formal, while ideas of governance (as opposed to government) suggest that institutions should be seen as arising from social interaction and process. In the same way, knowledge is no longer viewed as a unidirectional resource, transferred from the expert to the end-user, but as a resource to be discussed between stakeholders with different perspectives and perceptions. Power is not a commodity to be transacted between elites, but is a set of relations for negotiations between different groups through new mechanisms such as alternative dispute resolution. Working through these processes for the complex and intricate relationships of the water sector provides many interesting insights into the issues and challenges of governance more generally.
2

3.
WATER GOVERNANCE
Along with the increase in general use of the term governance, there is increasing interest and application of the concept of water governance. For example the Global Water Partnership’s toolbox has a section on ‘reforming institutions for better governance’, 8 with a strong emphasis on the institutional basis of water governance, and closely linked to integrated water resources management.
In a similar way UNESCO’s 2006 World Water Assessment Report devotes a complete chapter to water governance, in this case focussing on the role of national water policies, water rights, privatisation and corruption.
9 The chapter also discusses the processes of water governance through decentralisation of decision making, with an emphasis on information sharing and participation. Both of these approaches are typical of mainstream thinking on water governance. They draw strongly from a seminal work by Rogers and Hall, 10 which defined water governance as:
…the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society .
10
They also tend, in line with policy makers’ and practitioners’ interests, to view water governance in terms of the potential contribution it can make to integrated water resource management and water control. Following on from the focus of governments and international institutions on concepts of
‘good governance’ there is also commonly emphasis on the criteria for effective governance such as transparency, equity and accountability.
Drawing on work conducted over the period 2004–07, 11 a modified definition of water governance was developed, which built on the earlier work of Rogers and Hall but enhanced it to form the basis of analysis, understanding and diagnosis. In the 2007 formulation
Water governance is the system of actors, resources, mechanisms and processes which mediate society’s access to water .
12
While this follows Rogers and Hall’s work in thinking of water governance in terms of systems, the important features of this definition are its focus on the constituent elements and the linkages between them. Resources cover the whole range of material and non-material resources on which people can call to support their access to water, including institutional resources (as in the Global Water
Partnership’s formulation) but also extending to social structures, rights and entitlements, human capacities, economic and financial resources, technology and natural resources. People draw on these resources in a number of different ways and fashion from them specific mechanisms of access to water such as customer or user groups, payment mechanisms or other commercial arrangements, physical structures and delivery systems. It is important to distinguish between the resources available to society to manage water and the mechanisms that are actually in place, and which may draw on different resources in different ways at different times. The emphasis on resources implies that power is an integral element of water governance, as access and control of resources depends fundamentally on power relationships within society. Mechanisms of access result in outcomes, both for people and for ecosystems, which may in turn cause changes in the resources on which people can draw.
In the present authors’ conceptualisation of water governance, the linkages between resources, mechanisms and outcomes are mediated by the range of actors and agents with a stake in access to water, and the processes of management and practice which they use to control the mechanisms of access. Here the focus is on the day-to-day focus of practitioners on water management, operation and maintenance. These interactions may act in different ways. Actors and management practices may affect the constituent elements of water governance. In other situations changes in resources, mechanisms and outputs may result in different arrangements of actors and agents or new management practices. The framework suggests that the linkages are recursive. As the outcomes from a particular arrangement of water governance are experienced, they lead back in turn to changes in the resource endowment and consequent changes to the actors and mechanisms, which result in new and evolving forms of water governance.
The framework for water governance which arises from this conceptualisation is presented in Figure
1. This framework was first put forward by the present authors in their 2007 paper specifically to
3

address gendered outcomes for poor people in relation to basic supplies, support for livelihoods, social capital and political voice, within the context of the achievement of the millennium development goals for water. This paper also showed how the framework could be applied in a specific context (a river basin in Tanzania), illustrating how the concepts translate into actual arrangements and outcomes. These arrangements are shaped by social relationships and may reflect social divisions and identities. For example, the deployment of resources and mechanisms and the outcomes of governance arrangements are likely to be strongly gendered. Since then, the framework has been developed further to encompass outcomes not just for poor people but society in general. In addition the authors have taken the opportunity to incorporate emerging ideas of wellbeing, reflecting a synthesis of satisfaction of human needs, a feeling of contentment and freedom to be and act in ways one wishes without undue constraints. Water is essential to life, but it is clear that it provides considerably more than this basic need, in both rich and poor societies, and this range of outcomes is well represented in the concepts of livelihoods and wellbeing. This also explains why approaches to water governance may commonly provide rich insights into issues of governance more generally in society.
Figure 1 goes here
The importance of the framework is that it presents water governance as an open system of linked components. In the mainstream, as discussed above, water governance is often conceptualised simply as a list of attributes or themes without any attempt to understand how they link together or affect one another. The framework provides a way of analysing the components of the system and the linkages between them and therefore provides the potential for analysis, diagnosis and intervention to support better water governance and improved outcomes.
The framework brings together the idea of a spectrum of arrangements through which society manages its affairs, and the different levels at which these arrangements operate. It moves the focus away from government to the more general network of arrangements that impact on citizens’ lives. It implicitly recognises the importance of power through its reference to political systems. Specifically, in the water sector, its value lies in the fact that it expands the debate beyond the simplified dichotomy of the public/private sector, and encourages us to think of a network of agencies, organisations, stakeholder groups and individuals concerned in the management of water resources and the delivery of water services. For example, the formal hierarchical river basin organisation (the mainstream
‘managerial’ perspective) can be contrasted with the ideas of diffuse, dynamic and flexible multistakeholder platforms (the emerging ‘governance’ perspective), better suited for the articulation of a multiplicity of views. Such approaches are essential if we are to address the magnitude of the task of serving the unserved poor, particular in peri-urban and rural contexts, but are also necessary if richer societies are to manage their water resources sustainably.
In summary, the value of water governance as a concept is that it provides a way of addressing the problems of water development in a holistic and integrated approach, which builds on alliances and partnerships and does not put sole responsibility on individual stakeholders in the public, private or third sectors. It encourages a broad and deep analysis of the issues involved by highlighting the changing and flexible linkages between the different components of the system, and is equally relevant in both in rich and poor countries. In the next section we look at how the concepts are being used in a wide variety of contexts at the present time.
4.
APPLYING WATER GOVERNANCE
Understanding the dynamics of water governance in different settings enables us to identify some of the range of issues to be taken into account when planning for sustainability. Four recent papers illustrate the wide variety of contexts in which the concept of water governance can be applied. Each of these papers is analysing the provision of water services in different situations (rich and poor countries, urban and rural settings) but they all use the concept of water governance to address essential issues about how society organises itself to provide these services
4

Page and Bakker 13 investigate the approaches to participation and public involvement in the delivery of water services in England and Wales, both pre- and post-privatisation. Their focus is on the policy within the UK to incorporate market mechanisms into the arrangements, and the increasing role of the private sector. McGranahan and Satterthwaite 14 look at the issues facing the urban poor, predominantly in developing countries. In this case existing governance arrangements cover a wide range of situations, from large-scale public or private providers to informal street vendors. Laban 15 highlights the importance of rights-based approaches for supporting local water governance in the
Middle East. Neef 16 analyses the approaches to water governance in rural settings in a wide range of contexts (USA, Australia, Namibia, Central Asia). The focus is on the need for ‘participation’ but genuinely inclusive forms of participation are elusive in many contexts, particularly in poor countries.
Neef notes that the role of the state is a matter for continuing debate in water governance, as it is in governance systems more generally.
These four papers have been selected to illustrate the application of water governance because they cover a range of situations from rich to poor countries and urban to rural settings. They are typical of the large number of cases in which ‘governance’ is used as the underlying concept, with the implicit assumption that there is a common understanding of this concept. It is indeed true that all of these papers are working from a basic idea of governance as the systems, which society sets in place to provide access to water, rather than governance as normative criteria of capability, transparency and accountability (although aspects of this are addressed by McGranahan and Satterthwaite and by
Laban). Beyond this basic agreement on governance as systems, the papers offer very different entry points for analysis and it is here that the current authors’ framework can provide a platform for deeper understanding.
The framework presented in the previous section differentiates between resources, mechanisms and outcomes, mediated by actors and processes. The papers considered here focus primarily on resources, mechanisms and actors but generally do not distinguish between them. A common feature is the importance of institutional resources (public, private, community, formal and socially embedded) but other resources such as rights and knowledge are also recognised. This foundation in resources is, however, generally not directly acknowledged and there is greater interest in the mechanisms of access, which arise from the resources, such as the precise arrangements between citizen and supplier, the establishment of a forum for the representation of stakeholder interests or the exercise of rights. The value of the framework lies in its emphasis on the importance of the dynamic deployment of resources (both material and non-material) as the foundation of mechanisms of access, and specifically in the consideration of power in relation to the availability of resources. Even in the
‘advanced’ situation of the UK, where provision of water services is often analysed simply in terms of customer/supplier links, the analysis by Page and Bakker 13 illustrates that power relationships
(between citizens, the state and the private sector) are a significant factor, as represented by the changing role of customer groups.
5.
SUSTAINABILITY: A WICKED PROBLEM
Governance and sustainability dilemmas poses multiple practical challenges and development approaches are often hampered by instrumental over-simplifications. Those concerned with policy and practice often shy away from the complexity of water/people relationships, for fear of becoming paralysed by the multiple, apparently endless, challenges of securing sustainable water services.
17
Reducing interventions to over-simplified one-off and highly localised ‘solutions’ or replicating ‘best practice’ is, however, unlikely to contribute to long-term sustainability. Ways need to be found to understand and work with complexity to meet the challenge of sustainability. In the context of this paper it is useful to consider the challenge of securing sustainability as a ‘wicked problem’. The concept of ‘wicked problems’ coined by Rittel and Weber in 1973 18 has more recently come to prominence in analysis of complex environmental problems.
19 These are problems that, to a degree, defy definition, where potential analyses and solutions differ, where there is unlikely to be an agreed end point. They are unlikely to be resolved by science or technology alone as they cannot be separated
5

from issues of values, equity and social justice.
20 Water governance and sustainability fit this definition; the current paper selectively focuses on three wicked characteristics for illustrative purposes. These are (a) the multiple perspectives on the nature of the problem, (b) the socially complex nature and unclear boundaries of the problem and (c) the lack of one clear end point when the problem can be said to be ‘solved’.
Wicked problems are characterised as difficult to define with a multitude of stakeholder perspectives and competing values. Such characteristics are very evident in competing claims and priorities for water for domestic or productive uses, or to preserve ecosystems. Is the purpose of establishing sustainability financial (to ensure the efficiency of water services) or social (the effectiveness of those services in securing positive health, livelihood and wellbeing outcomes)? The differing values stakeholders hold over outcomes and ways of achieving them is well reflected in the debate about private sector participation in water delivery and management in which advocates may claim increased efficiency and coverage while critics see detrimental effects on the water poor, and on the environment.
21,22
The socially complex nature of the water sustainability challenge is partly a consequence of multiple viewpoints. People and water relationships are defined by unequal inter-dependencies; between different groups of people and between people, technology, natural resources and society.
23
Relationships around water are thus socially entwined and multi-scalar; Molden 24 identifies three dimensions of plurality, encompassing multiple stakeholders, a variety of uses of water and plural institutional arrangements to regulate them. Multi-dimensional complexity means that arrangements for accessing and managing water are likely to be variable, dynamic, and critically related to other issues such as access to land and the exercise of political power.
There is therefore unlikely to be a single or final ‘solution’ to water sustainability. Ensuring adequately functioning and affordable water supplies, and balancing the needs of people with the environment is likely to involve continuous and variable effort over indefinite time periods.
Variability (performance of technology, of rainfall, of demand) and unpredictability (environmental and economic shocks) may increase the pressure on arrangements for sustainability and require the constant exercise of flexible and adaptive approaches to problem solving. Arrangements for sustainability may in themselves generate unanticipated and undesirable consequences.
The complexity or ‘wicked’ nature of the problem of water service sustainability seems obvious. The nature of policy making and the exigencies of practice (the need for action and clarity of direction, within short timescales and with limited resources) often mean, however, that complex problems are
‘locked down’ or ‘tamed’. Problems are narrowly defined, with unidimensional solutions suggested as once-and-for-all answers. For water governance, ‘locking down’ tends to result in a focus on effective management or on responsive government while at the more local level many claims are made for the role of tariffs or for community management in securing sustainability. The framework suggested here addresses the need to place such single ‘solutions’ within a broader context and to develop a critical awareness of their likely interaction, the possibility of unanticipated consequences and of negative as well as positive outcomes.
6.
SUSTAINABLE OUTCOMES FROM WATER GOVERNANCE
Understanding the likely impacts of suggested water governance ‘solutions’ can be furthered by clarification of the nature of sustainability. Like governance, the concept of sustainability is now so widely used that its meaning and application is no longer discussed. Nevertheless, it is now usefully possible to distinguish between two distinct but related concepts
( a ) sustainable outcomes from (project) interventions, in the sense that the intended benefits from the initial investment extend into the future (the narrow concept of sustainability)
( b ) sustainable development, commonly taken to refer to the balancing of economic, environmental and social outcomes over the long-term (the wide concept of sustainability).
6

The sustainability of benefits from project initiatives and the need to build sustainable service delivery within time-bound projects, has long been a subject of interest and concern to those working in the water sector. Brikke, 25 , for example defined a number of criteria for assessing the sustainability of service delivery in rural water supply and sanitation systems, including the continuation of the service beyond the lifetime of the technology and the ability to maintain the system and meet costs at the local level. Many of these criteria have their origins in engineering concerns arising from project approaches, and the widespread perception that well designed and implemented projects have often failed to yield benefits that last beyond the completion of project funding. The discussions around sustainable development, by contrast, have been informed by a much wider set of concerns, which have come to take centre stage since the publication of ‘Our Common Future’ in 1987 26 and the subsequent Earth summit in 1992, and which have been given added impetus by current concerns over climate change.
The framework for water governance presented in this paper incorporates considerations of sustainability particularly through its linkage of outcomes to the system of resources, mechanisms, actors and processes. The outcomes from the system will be sustainable (or not) depending on the way the linkages are made, the distribution of benefits amongst the actors (comprising both economic and social outcomes) and the impact on ecosystems (environmental outcomes). The outcomes for people occur in different domains, from the most fundamental level of access to basic services, through contributions to livelihoods and wellbeing, to the potential for social cohesion and political voice to participate fully in the processes of sustainable development. The impact on ecosystems follows directly from the wise (or unwise) stewardship of water resources arising from water governance.
Numerous examples can be found of examination and analysis of sustainable development of water resources and services from the perspective of water governance. For example, Wong 27 contrasts the multi-dimensions of sustainability in poor nations (rights, community involvement, appropriate technology, patterns of ownership, efficiency of water use) with a perceived mono-dimension of water governance in England and Wales, with its heavy reliance on market instruments. In a similar way,
Kain et al.
28 review the contribution of knowledge management through multi-criteria decision-aids to sustainable water management. Even in the well-resourced and technologically advanced context in which these aids are utilised, the paper notes the importance of participation in decision making if sustainability is to be achieved.
7.
WATER GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY: THE WAY AHEAD
Viewing the sustainability of water development through the lens of water governance provides an appropriate context for analysing the systems and linkages which may contribute to strategies for achieving sustainability. The main purpose of this paper has been to analyse in some detail the concepts of water governance and sustainability, and to discuss how the one might contribute to the other. The preferred way of thinking about governance is as the (open) system of arrangements in place which support access to water, rather than governance as comprising normative principles of capability, transparency and accountability. While not wishing to underestimate the importance of these principles, they relate more to the mechanisms and processes of governance, rather than the underlying systems. A systems approach to governance is a productive approach to the difficult issues of sustainability in the water sector. It provides a more fruitful way of addressing these problems for the generality of stakeholders in society than a narrow focus on integrated water resources management, which tends to be captured by technical and scientific elite.
In summary, the framework presented in this paper provides a rigorous approach to defining and analysing the systems of water governance and for understanding sustainability, rather than simply listing a number of desirable attributes which are not linked in any theoretical way. The specific advantages of the framework are listed below.
( a ) It provides a way of analysing the range of resources that can be called upon in the water sector (institutions, rights, finance, technology, knowledge) – and it facilitates an understanding of the
7

role of power relations arising from control over these resources in the development of water governance systems.
( b ) It suggests that a range of mechanisms can be drawn from these resources to support people’s access to water. Some of those mentioned in the sample of case studies considered in this paper include multi-criteria decision aids, polycentric governance, citizens’ groups, and many more can be identified.
( c ) It highlights the importance of the involvement of all stakeholders, actors and agents. While the focus of this paper has tended to be on actions at the local level, there is also an increasing need for water governance at the national and regional level, for example in the governance of transboundary waters. The actors identified in the framework can therefore be drawn from a potentially wide range of contexts.
( d ) By linking resources and mechanisms to outcomes, the framework encourages a broad view of outcomes from water governance at different levels, from the most basic of essential supplies to the political representation of water user groups in society, and including outcomes on the ecosystem and for sustainability.
In relation to the framework presented in this paper, there is still a considerable way to go before we fully understand how society draws on the resources available to it to manage water, how those resources support mechanisms of access, how stakeholders can most effectively participate and how processes of management and practice can be strengthened to produce desirable and sustainable outcomes. How, for example, can the concepts of water governance be used in combination with other approaches such as stakeholder analysis to foster participation in water development? What is the role of multi-criteria decisions aids and other modelling tools in increasing knowledge for water governance? What is the relationship between institutional resources and financial resources in establishing effective mechanisms of access, particularly in poor countries? How is it possible to track and document processes of water governance that are not readily available in standard project reporting formats?
Sustainability, too, presents many linked questions and issues that are likely to remain a continuing feature of debates on development. How can we better understand the inter-dependencies and causal linkages that lead to sustainable outcomes? What are the mechanisms for reaching trade-off between economic, social and environmental objectives? How can we support behavioural change that contributes to sustainable management of water resources? How can flexible governance arrangements be developed that can adapt to unanticipated shocks and variability and so secure sustainability?
Water governance, viewed as an open system of linked components, may help us to provide some approaches to these issues. Specifically, the current authors suggest that their framework can provide a useful tool for identifying and negotiating competing ideas about cause and effect, desirable and undesirable outcomes. As such it can contribute to developing robust processes to secure and manage sustainability.
REFERENCES
1.
P IERRE J. Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy . Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2000.
2.
F RANKS T. Water governance: a solution to all problems. Paper presented at final seminar of
ESRC-funded seminar series. Water Governance – Challenging the Consensus , 2006. See www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/bcid/seminar/water/seminar5/papers
3.
G
RINDLE
M. S. Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries,
Governance, 2004, 7 , No 4, 525
548.
8

.
4.
K AUFMANN D. Kray A, Mastruzzi M.. Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators for 1996
2002 . The World Bank, Washington, 2005. See www.govindicators.org
5.
D EPARTMENT FOR I NTERNATIONAL D EVELOPMENT . White paper: making governance work for the poor . Department for International Development, London, 2006.
6.
U NITED N ATIONS D EVELOPMENT P ROGRAMME . Women’s Political Participation and Good
Governance: 21 st Century Challenges . UNDP, New York, 2000.
7.
M EHTA L. Leach M, Scoones I Environmental governance in an uncertain age. IDS Bulletin ,
2001, 32 ,No. 4., pp 1-9
8.
G LOBAL W ATER P ARTNERSHIP . IWRM Toolbox, version 2 . Undated.
http://www.gwptoolbox.org/images/stories/Docs/toolboxeng.pdf
9.
World Water Assessment Report, Water: A Shared Responsibility . UNESCO Publishing/Berghann
Books, 2006.
10.
R OGERS P. A. and H ALL A. W. Effective water governance. Background paper no. 7, Global
Water Partnership , 2002.Stockholm
11.
B RADFORD C ENTRE FOR I NTERNATIONAL D EVELOPMENT . Water governance: challenging the consensus . Undated. See http://splash.bradford.ac.uk/projects/project.asp?pagesid=40
12.
F RANKS T. and C LEAVER F. Water governance and poverty: a framework for analysis. Progress in Development Studies , 2007, No.
4, 291
306.
13.
P AGE B. and B AKKER K. Water governance and water users in a privatised water industry: participation on policy-making and in water services provision: a case study of England and
Wales . International Journal for Water , 2005, Vol 3 , No. 1, 38
60.
14.
M C G RANAHAN G. and S ATTERTHWAITE D. Governance and getting the private sector to provide better water and sanitation services to the urban poor . Human Settlements Programme.
International Institute for Environment and Development, London, 2006.
15.
L
ABAN
P. Accountability and rights in rights-based approaches for local water governance.
Journal of Water Resources , 2007, 23, No. 2, 355
367.
16.
N EEF A. Transforming rural water governance: towards deliberative and polycentric models?
Water Alternatives , 2009, 2 , No. 1, 53
60.
17.
C LEAVER F. and F RANKS T. Distilling or diluting? Negotiating the water research – policy interface. Water Alternatives , 2008, 1 , No. 1, 157
176.
18.
R ITTEL H. and W EBBER M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science , 1973, 4 ,
No. 2, 155
69.
A USTRALIAN P UBLIC S ERVICE C OMMISSION
20.
L UDWIG D. The era of management is over. Ecosystems , 2001,Vol 4 , No. 8 758
764.
9

B AYLISS
B AKKER
1
23.
M OLLINGA P. Water politics and development: framing a political sociology of water resource management. Water Alternatives , 2008, 1 , No. 1, 7
23.
24.
M OLDEN D. (ed.), Water for Food, Water for Life. A Comprehensive Assessment for Water
Management in Agriculture . Earthscan, London, 2007.
25.
B RIKKE F. Operation and maintenance of rural water supply and sanitation systems: a training package for managers and planners.
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, The Hague,
2001.
26.
W ORLD C OMMISSION ON E NVIRONMENT AND D EVELOPMENT . Our Common Future . Oxford
University Press, 1987.
27.
W ONG K. F. S. Sustainable water – lessons from the developing world. Engineering
Sustainability , 2006, 159 , No. 2, 55
62.
28.
K AIN J.-H. Karrman E, Soderberg H Multi-criteria decision-aids for sustainable water management. Engineering Sustainability , 2007, 160 , No. 2 87
93.
10

11