The Politics of Scale, Position, and Place in the Governance of Water Resources in the Mekong Region

Abstract

The appropriate scales for science, management, and decision making cannot be unambiguously derived from physical characteristics of water resources. Scales are a joint product of social and biophysical processes. The politics-of-scale metaphor has been helpful in drawing attention to the ways in which scale choices are constrained overtly by politics, and more subtly by choices of technologies, institutional designs, and measurements. In doing so, however, the scale metaphor has been stretched to cover a lot of different spatial relationships. In this paper, we argue that there are benefits to understanding -and actions to distinguish-issues of scale from those of place and position. We illustrate our arguments with examples from the governance of water resources in the Mekong region, where key scientific information is often limited to a few sources. Acknowledging how actors' interests fit along various spatial, temporal, jurisdictional, and other social scales helps make the case for innovative and more inclusive means for bringing multi-level interests to a common forum. Deliberation can provide a check on the extent of shared understanding and key uncertainties.

River basin management and community: the Great Ouse Basin, 1850–present

“…Furthermore, the community concept might enrich research on the politics of scale (e.g. Swyngedouw 1999, Lebel et al 2005, MacKinnon 2011. Finally, it would be interesting to do historical research on comparable river basins, such as the Regge Basin in the Netherlands, where there were similar conflicts between upstream and downstream that continued after the establishment of a river basin organization in 1884 (Yzerman 1934, Donker 1996.…”

Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance

“…However, they do display some of the key characteristics of successful science-policy integration including building greater integration among scientists, policy makers, and nonstate actors (aboriginal interests in particular); emphasizing social-or group-learning processes; fostering the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological change and the range of possible governance responses; and recognizing how science is a crucial but bounded part of the sustainability dilemma in transboundary water-governance settings. The challenge remains to institutionalize gains made in an adaptive manner and to scale-up science-policy processes for the longer term because national economic development objectives can trump the precaution required to address the scientifically and socially complex issues (Lebel et al 2005). For example, in the case of rapid hydropower development in the Mekong River basin, national interests of basin states have undermined the ability of the Mekong River Commission (convened by Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam) to facilitate joint problem framing (Hirsch et al 2006).…”

Water Resource Management in Dry Zonal Paddy Cultivation in Mahaweli River Basin, Sri Lanka: An Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Climate Change Impacts and Traditional Knowledge

“…The process of demarcating or choosing a scale is neither politically neutral nor entirely based on biophysical characteristics. It is a process where different stakeholders are involved in assessment by researching, reviewing, and synthesizing data as well as policy-drafting and policy implementation [20]. Thus, river basins are hydrological units where stakeholders compete and negotiate based on their conflicting interests [21,22].…”