Scale Implications of Integrated Water Resource Management Politics: Lessons from New Zealand

Abstract

Successful integrated water resource management (IWRM) is predicated on increased stakeholder participation and achieving environmental outcomes by locating decision‐making at the catchment scale of management. However, geographic scale impacts opportunities for participation and privileges some actors within the functional and spatial scope of decision‐making. Accordingly, rescaling may merely reconfigure rather than redistribute power. With its dual national and regional management of freshwater based on river catchments, New Zealand's experience of integrated environmental management provides insights for wider theory and practice. In response to recent significant freshwater quality decline from agricultural non‐point discharges over the last two decades and related public concern, the national government and regional councils have redefined participation constellations at national and regional government levels. This paper compares stakeholder diversity and policy effectiveness of regulatory agencies and collaborative initiatives at both national and regional levels, using the Manawatu River catchment as a case study. It detects low participator diversity within regulatory agencies, but relatively high policy salience. In contrast, the collaborative forums' low policy salience, despite their high participator diversity, raises questions about the substantive value of non‐regulatory collaborative initiatives. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Reservoir Governance in World's Water Towers Needs to Anticipate Multi‐purpose Use

“…Such incoherencies can lead to contradictory incentives, responsibilities, and use rights (Kellner et al, 2019). Other obstacles to coordination reside in sectoral planning and implementation procedures (Pahl-Wostl, 2019a, 2019b; the levels and spatial scales of governance not being adapted to the affected catchment (Newig & Fritsch, 2009;Udall & Overpeck, 2017); the absence of non-state actors in decision-making (Benson et al, 2012;McNeill, 2016;Parés et al, 2015); power imbalances between upstream and downstream water users (Anghileri et al, 2013;Cody, 2018;Denaro et al, 2018) as well as between influential, powerful elites and the rural poor (Kuenzer et al, 2013); a lack of or disputed data records (Dombrowsky & Hensengerth, 2018;Never & Stepping, 2018); and a lack of institutional capacity to govern across sectoral boundaries (Benson et al, 2015;OECD, 2011). This paper assesses the governance processes related to the planning of a future reservoir in one of the most important water towers of the world, the European Alps.…”

Community participation in the development of the Ōngātoro/Maketū Estuary project: The socio‐ecological dimensions of restoring an interconnected ecosystem

“…Regional councils were required to promote sustainable development through the development of regional policy statements, to identify regional environmental issues, and to develop strategies to alleviate them. The preparation of regional policy statements and regional plans was to be carried out within the context of a process of broad public consultation, requiring councils to engage with a variety of individual and organizational stakeholders (Eppel, ; McNeill, ).…”

“…A second critical governance system factor was political leadership that emerged from the composition of elected councillors (McNeill, ). Having specific Māori seats, three out of 14, from 2004 onwards brought new perspectives on the river and estuary environment to the decision processes at that political level.…”

Expanding transboundary environmental governance: A mobile political ecology of sand and shifting resource‐based livelihoods in Southeast Asia

“…In borderlands and marginal environments, where our work is sited, defining ‘the’ scale for resource governance is particularly challenging and contested, as multiple actors and institutions are involved when resources flow across borders (Ingold et al, 2016). The ways in which scale is mobilised or constructed in transboundary governance has implications for who is included and excluded in decision‐making over resources, as articulations of scale can prioritise certain actors and marginalise others (Lamb, 2015; McNeill, 2016; Sneddon & Fox, 2006). We build on work that critically analyses how resources and environmental issues flow across state and various boundaries (Grundy‐Warr & Lin, 2020; Hirsch, 2020; Ingold et al, 2016; Miller, 2020; Stead, 2014) in two ways.…”