Comanagement of groundwater: A review

Abstract

The sustainability of groundwater abstraction is fast becoming a global challenge. This article reviews cases and assess the potential of groundwater comanagement, beginning by identifying a comanagement spectrum with varying degrees of role sharing between the state and user communities. Twelve case studies selected from a global review illustrate varied levels of success. Key contextual elements are identified that contribute to raising the chances of success of comanagement. These include certain characteristics of the user community, the existence of a credible environmental or legal threat, joint monitoring and transparency, and substantial available funding. State action is shown to involve a delicate balance between “carrots” and “sticks” as part of a wider political balancing between parties. The limitations of both state‐ and community‐centered governance make comanagement appear as a way forward but a delicate set of conditions is needed for it to be effective. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance Engineering Water > Planning Water

Transitioning out of Open Access: A Closer Look at Institutions for Management of Groundwater Rights in France, California, and Spain

“…A wide diversity of institutional design options exist around the world for ensuring sustainable groundwater extraction and allocating groundwater (OECD, 2017). However, only a few clearly set out to tackle over-extraction of groundwater resources while simultaneously encouraging comanagement between the State and users (Molle & Closas, 2020a). This paper focuses on three cases, that is France, Spain, and California, which, in recent years, have moved toward more holistic and participatory sustainable groundwater management planning.…”

“…policy formulation, interpretation of the rules, adjudication and enforcement. If users are involved in the definition of spatial and temporal extraction caps (i.e., management rights) but fail to agree on, or implement, ambitious caps, then "credible threats" are needed from higher authorities to ensure users adopt measures leading to sustainable outcomes (Molle & Closas, 2020a). Higher level jurisdictions may provide support to accompany the negotiation and mediate conflicts (Moran et al, 2019) or may intervene to impose more ambitious measures.…”

From State to user-based water allocations: An empirical analysis of institutions developed by agricultural user associations in France

“…New enforcement mechanisms should also be explored (see Figureau et al, 2015). Still, the success of the reform will depend on the capacity of the State to represent a "credible threat" to local users and step in when collective management fails (Holley and Sinclair, 2014;Molle and Closas, 2020a).…”

“…Cases include Spain (Lopez-Gunn and Cortina, 2006;Closas et al, 2017), Mexico (Wester et al, 2011), Australia (Skurray, 2015;Shalsi et al, 2019), the US (Hoffman and Zellmer, 2013;Kiparsky et al, 2017) and New Zealand (Boone and Fragaszy 2018). In their recent review of groundwater co-management, Molle and Closas (2020a) argue that the State should allow maximum autonomy to user groups while providing for a clear "shadow of hierarchy" or credible threat if users do not act collectively without State intervention.…”

Evaluating the Feasibility of Water Sharing as a Drought Risk Management Tool for Irrigated Agriculture

“…There is thus increasing interest in collaborative water sharing or co-management approaches to water allocations [35][36][37][38][39] to address some of these shortcomings. Collaborative water sharing can be implemented either informally or through water abstractor groups but has received much less regulatory and industry attention to date.…”