The goal of the study is to strengthen the analytical purchase of the term water governance and improve the utility of the concept for describing and analyzing actual water distribution processes. We argue this is necessary as most writing on water governance is more concerned with promoting particular politically inspired agendas of what water governance should be than with understanding what it actually is. We believe that water governance at heart is about political choices as to where water should flow; about the norms, rules and laws on which such choices should be based; about who is best able or qualified to decide about this; and about the kind of societal future such choices support. We identify distributions-of water, voice and authority, and expertise-as the empirical anchor and entry-point of our conceptualization of water governance. This usefully allows foregrounding questions of equity in water governance discussions and provides the empirical foundation for a meaningful engagement with the politics of water governance.

No abstract

Since 1980, the right to water has been seen mainly as implicitly subsumed under other social human and political rights. The global recognition of the need for access to sanitation services has led to formulations of a right to sanitation that emphasizes both the responsibilities of States and the rights of individuals. However, efforts to prioritize access to water and sanitation services have led to a gradual merger of these ideas in the human right to water and sanitation as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2010. Much of the literature on this subject focuses on water and sanitation simultaneously. This article fills a gap in knowledge by examining the different evolution of the human right(s) to water and sanitation at the international and national levels. It argues that the practical and social requirements for an environmentally sustainable and cost‐effective implementation of access to water and sanitation are so different that, even if there is a combined right, the implementation may call for separating these two issues in some cases.

No abstract