Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons

Abstract

Guidelines produced by some major international organisations create a misleading impression that Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) can be implemented in a standardized fashion. However, contextual conditions vary from place to place, and differences in beliefs, attitudes, customs, and norms sensibly influence interpretation and implementation. Experiences with IWRM in Oregon (USA) and Ontario (Canada) are examined with regard to scope, scale, responsibility, engagement, finances and financing, and review processes and mechanisms. Development of IWRM and the evolution of governance have been shaped by different concerns and beliefs. Oregon has adopted a locally-driven and entrepreneurial approach, whereas Ontario developed a co-operative inter-governmental approach. In both cases, IWRM governance has also evolved due to changes in funding and priorities, which have benefitted some catchments and communities more than others. Both cases provide positive examples of reflexivity and resilience, and demonstrate the importance of review processes and strong cross-scale connections for effective governance. While underlying principles may be relevant for other locations, it would be a mistake to think that either of the two approaches for IWRM could be replicated elsewhere in their exact form. Implementation of IWRM in other parts of those countries and the world should, therefore, start with careful analysis of the local context, and existing governance arrangements and governmentalities.

IWRM through WFD Implementation? Drivers for Integration in Polycentric Water Governance Systems

“…These drivers might be addressed by increasing advantages of cooperation and lowering barriers for the usage of known incentives. Increasing advantages may be additional financial (see also Watson et al [16]) or personnel resources through cooperation (short-term or long-term), increased discretion (there might be a trade-off with accountability or democratic issues), technical support or increased planning security and so on and so forth. Important is that any approach needs to take into account the local barriers and needs to go beyond the usual approaches for incentivizing, e.g., a 80% funding for a measure is solely not an incentive to implement this measure for an actor which is not convinced of the importance of this measure, which holds for integration procedures as well if not mandated -contrariwise the 20% gap and the extra workload would be disincentives.…”

“…However, this paper does not present findings from the workshop. community to community" [16], therefore the decision-makers themselves are an important unit of analysis for researching integration drivers.…”

Operationalizing Integrated Water Resource Management in Latin America: Insights from Application of the Freshwater Health Index

“…This suggests a need to not only better integrate environmental and socioeconomic indicators (Sullivan and Meigh 2007;Robinson et al 2019;Laumann et al 2019), but also engage with the end users and tailor indicators to the unique context in which they are being applied (Benavides et al 2019;Bremer et al 2020). This should contribute to more effective IWRM as watershed management needs to be grounded on issues and concerns that matter most in a particular place at a certain point in time (Watson et al 2019).…”

Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Collaborative Sustainable Water Governance in Remote Australian Indigenous Communities

“…Although this literature is informative about the challenges faced in different contexts, and although common themes emerge, it remains unclear to what extent the barriers identified are applicable to, or are experienced in, the specific context of water governance for community potable water supplies in remote Indigenous Australia. Context is critical for transferring lessons from collaborative and integrated water initiatives [79], and for management in Indigenous contexts [69], not only to account for historical, governance, and socio-political influences, but also because Indigenous communities are unique with traits and characteristics related to the local setting [80]. Only two peer-reviewed studies (m and n in Table 1) combined all four aspects that constitute the focus of this study, one of which (n) was conducted by the authors as a precursor to this paper.…”