This paper engages with recent work in political ecology that explores the ways in which scale is imbricated in environmental governance. Specifically, we analyze the deployment of speciflc ecological scales as putatively 'natural' governance units in rescaling processes. To undertake this analysis, the paper brings two sets of literature into dialogue:(1) political ecology of scale and (2) political economy of rescaling, drawing on theories of uneven development. Building on this literature, we develop the concept of an ecoscalar flx and explore its analytical potential through a case study of the rescaling of water governance in Alberta, Canada. We argue that although the 'eco-scalar fix' is usually framed as an apolitical governance change-particularly through the framing of particular scales (ie, the watershed) as 'natural'-it is often, in fact, a deeply political move that reconfigures power structures and prioritizes some resource uses over others in ways that can entrench, rather than resolve, the crises it was designed to address. Moreover, we suggest that, although watershed governance is often discursively depicted as an environmental strategy (eg, internalizing environmental externahties by aligning decision making with ecological boundaries), it is often articulated with-and undertaken to address challenges that arise through-processes of uneven development.

This paper is concerned with the rescaling of environmental governance, and with the social construction of environmental and governance scales in particular. With the aid of case-study data from Canada, it is argued that watersheds, as particular forms of rescaled environmental governance, have increased in popularity because of their status as boundary objects: that is, a common concept interpreted diff erently by diff erent groups. The paper shows how particular features of the watershed approach-namely, their physical size and the shared discursive framings they employ ('stakeholder' and 'integration')make the watershed concept both cohesive enough to travel among diff erent epistemic communities, and plastic enough to be interpreted and used diff erently within them. As such, it is suggested that the trend of the uptake of the so-called 'watershed approach' refl ects and is shaped by ideologies underpinned by three diff erent, and occasionally competing, epistemic communities: the scientifi c, neoliberal, and grassroots communities. These arguments corroborate constructivist accounts of the political nature of boundary drawing, bring science into discussion on the relationship between neoliberalism and public participation, and contribute to environmental governance literatures by providing an alternative explanation for the uptake of watersheds in recent decades.

This paper examines the relationships between Community-Based Water Monitoring (CBM) and government-led water initiatives. Drawing on a cross-Canada survey of over one hundred organizations, we explore the reasons why communities undertake CBM, the monitoring protocols they follow, and the extent to which CBM program members feel their findings are incorporated into formal (i.e., government-led) decision-making processes. Our results indicate that despite following standardized and credible monitoring protocols, fewer than half of CBM organizations report that their data is being used to inform water policy at any level of government. Moreover, respondents report higher rates of cooperation and data-sharing between CBM organizations themselves than between CBM organizations and their respective governments. These findings are significant, because many governments continue to express support for CBM. We explore the barriers between CBM data collection and government policy, and suggest that structural barriers include lack of multi-year funding, inconsistent protocols, and poor communication. More broadly, we argue that the distinction between formal and informal programming is unclear, and that addressing known CBM challenges will rely on a change in perception: CBM cannot simply be a less expensive alternative to government-driven data collection.

Given the high degree of variation in water governance practices across Canada, and the rapid rate of water-related legislative change in some provinces over the past decade, the purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic review of water legislation and governance that examines all thirteen provinces and territories, focusing on formal legislation and policies governing drinking water, watershed management (including source water protection), water rights, and water exports. We analyze legislative variation using concepts of harmonization and subsidiarity as a means of assessing the rationale for differing degrees of and approaches to federal and provincial involvement in water policy. Our review suggests that while variation may be appropriate, fragmentation is not. On this basis, we argue that some water issues would benefit from greater harmonization (which in many instances will imply greater federal involvement). In the cases of drinking water, source water protection, and water exports, increased harmonization at the federal level may be warranted. In contrast, whereas improving the federal role remains critical in terms of transboundary water management and water rights, this relates to its traditional activities of coordination, research, dissemination and funding rather than regulatory harmonization per se.Résumé : Étant donné le degré élevé des variations dans les pratiques de gestion des ressources en eau au Canada, ainsi que la fréquence rapide des changements législatifs liés à l'eau dans certaines provinces dans la dernière décennie, l'objet de cet article est de passer en revue de façon méthodique les lois et la gouvernance des ressources en eau des treize (13) provinces et territoires, en se concentrant sur les lois et les politiques officielles régissant l'eau potable, la gestion des bassins hydrographiques (y compris la protection des sources d'eau), les droits relatifs à l'eau et les exportations d'eau. Nous analysons les variations législatives en utilisant les concepts d'harmonisation et de subsidiarité, afin d'évaluer la justification des degrés divergents et les méthodes de participation fédérale et provinciale dans les politiques des ressources en eau. Notre étude suggère que même si une variation peut s'avérer appropriée, une fragmentation ne l'est pas. En partant de cette prémisse, nous avançons qu'une plus grande harmonisation (laquelle dans certains cas demande une participation fédérale plus importante) bénéficierait à certaines questions relatives aux 316 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

This article is concerned with the environmental dimensions of rescaling. Specifically, it explores debates around centralization and decentralization, introduces a key distinction between rescaling to jurisdictional spaces and ecosystem spaces, and suggests three future research trajectories: (1) analytical clarification of the differences between rescaling to natural versus jurisdictional scales; (2) examination of rescaling in light of its attendant process of creating new objects of governance; and (3) investigation of rescaling processes through a temporal lens, with the suggestion that rescaled environmental governance may be the site of some of the first and last manifestations of neoliberal governance reforms.