Critical review of Integrated Water Resources Management: Moving beyond polarised discourse

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractIWRM has emerged as a popular ideology in the water sector since the 20 th century. From a highly technocentric approach in the past, it has taken a new turn worldwide, following a Habermasian communicative rationality, as a place-based nexus for multiple actors to consensually and communicatively take decisions in a hydrological unit. This communicative practice expects to be consensual, stable and static in integration of water management. This how IWRM should be approach had a remarkable appeal worldwide as promoting authentic participation of all stakeholders in integrating water management. Its Foucauldian critiques argue how IWRM cannot be achieved given the power dynamics in social interactions. The critiques reveal that the domain of water resources management is a discursive terrain of collective action, contestation and negotiation, making water management a socio-political process, where there are multiple forms and meanings of integration. The emphasis is on complexities, contextuality, power dynamics and importance of analysing real world situations, but without proposing any concrete actions. These apparently contradictory discourses depict a polarised world of water management, without offering any insights for future water resource management. On one hand, the Habermasian communicative practice emphasises on 'ideal speech situations', in which no affected party is excluded from discourse or by asymmetries of power for collective decisions. On the other hand, the Foucauldian theory argues for analysing the real world situation of integration and the power dynamics. A prospective option to further the integration of water resource management is to consider these apparently contradictory discourses as interdependent by examining how integration actually does take place in a strategic context, notwithstanding the absence of Habermasian conditions and the presence of Foucauldian relations of power.

Spatial Fit, from Panacea to Practice: Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive

“…Third, structuring water management along an ecosystem boundary has often encouraged water managers to focus on biophysical, rather than socioeconomic, problems of water management (Mostert 1998, Huitema et al 2009. A lack of sensitivity toward these forces has contributed to the recent criticism that river basin management in practice is often too technocentric and elitist, notwithstanding the rhetoric of participation and transparency (Molle 2008, Mollinga 2008, Saravanan et al 2009). …”

A New Planning and Design Paradigm to Achieve Sustainable Resource Recovery from Wastewater

“…A more thorough discussion of stakeholder participation in water industry projects may be found elsewhere (24,(38)(39)(40). These articles discuss the importance of community values and mechanisms for their inclusion in planning and design.…”

“…The reclamation of water is a volatile issue that challenges cultural and historical notions of water, resulting in perceived risks that engineers and scientists often believe to be unjustified (21,23). To engage successfully with the public it is important that engineers and decision makers understand the sociopolitical context of stakeholders' existence (24) (25). Beyond the challenge of understanding civic epistemology, additional barriers to the advancement of water and wastewater systems may include the lack of political will (26,27) and the absence of an enabling environment (policies, legislative frameworks, financing, and modes of public discourse) (24,27,28).…”

Free-Market Economics and Developmental Statism as Political Paradigms: Implications for Water Governance Theory and Practice in Developing Countries

“…That is perhaps why scholars such as Mukhtarov ( 2006 ) and Butterworth et al ( 2010 ) have argued strongly that IWRM was never a "people-centred" concept, having emerged from practitioners' ecological concerns over the then-dominant utilitarian use of water supply and discharge. The approach runs the risk of legitimising existing power and access rights inequalities as well as oversimplifying the diversity of needs and interests of local actors (see Molle 2008 ;Saravanan et al 2009 ).…”