The Experts below are selected from a list of 5667 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marna De Lange - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
boundaries of consent stakeholder representation in River Basin Management in mexico and south africa
World Development, 2003Co-Authors: Philippus Wester, Douglas J Merrey, Marna De LangeAbstract:Abstract Increasing the capacity of water users to influence decision-making is crucial in River Basin Management reforms. This article assesses emerging forums for River Basin Management in Mexico and South Africa and concludes that the pace of democratization of water Management in both is slow. Mexico is characterized by continued government dominance and attempts to include already organized stakeholders in decision-making, while substantive stakeholder representation is lacking. South Africa is placing emphasis on social mobilization and transformation, leading to a slower implementation process and struggles over the redistribution of resources. While not a panacea, moving from stakeholder participation to substantive stakeholder representation in River Basin Management holds more promise of achieving equitable water Management.
Ariel Dinar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Integrated River Basin Management through Decentralization - Integrated River Basin Management through Decentralization
Irbm, 2020Co-Authors: K. E. Kemper, William Blomquist, Ariel DinarAbstract:1. River Basin Management at the lowest appropriate level: When and why does it (not) work in pracitave? - 2. Comparative analysis of case studies.- 3. Determinants of River Basin Management decentralization: Motivation, process, and performance.- 4. Australia: Murray-Darling Basin.- 5. Brazil: Alton Tiete Basin.- 6. Brazil: Jaguaribe Basin.- 7. Canada: Fraser Basin.- 8. Costa Rica: Tarcoles Basin.- 9. Indonesia: Brantas Basin.- 10. Poland: Warta Basin.- 11. Spain: Guadalquivir Basin.- 12. River Basin Management: Conclusions and implications.
-
River Basin Management: Conclusions and Implications
Integrated River Basin Management through Decentralization, 2020Co-Authors: William Blomquist, Ariel Dinar, K. E. KemperAbstract:What has been learned from this worldwide survey of River Basin organizations and these eight case studies? What can be said, based on this study, about integrated River Basin Management at the lowest possible level – when and why does it work or not work? This study was stimulated by two recommendations in the water resource Management literature. The first recommendation is the integration of water resource Management at the River Basin level, which has been advocated in order to achieve improved Management through a more comprehensive approach that combines supply allocation, demand Management, quality protection, and ecological preservation or restoration. The second recommendation is the decentralization of River Basin Management to the lowest level, which has been advocated in order to achieve improved Management through better adaptation to local conditions, better use of local knowledge and institutions, and greater involvement of stakeholders from the range of sectors involved in water use. In many locations around the world, pursuing both goals – integration and decentralization – has led to the establishment of River Basin organizations. These organizations became the focus of this study. Examining River Basin organizations is one way to pose and answer questions such as:
-
Decentralization of River Basin Management in Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe: an institutional economics analysis
2020Co-Authors: Joao Mutondo, Ariel Dinar, Stefano Farolfi, Rashid M. HassanAbstract:Southern African countries have been experienced several problems regarding the Management of their River Basins. In order to mitigate these problems, during the past 15 years, most of the SADC countries have adopted comprehensive reforms in the water sector towards decentralization of River Basin Management through changing water related institutions. However, the impact of those institutions on decentralization process of River Basin Management is still largely unknown. Understanding the impact of institutions on decentralization process of River Basin Management could be of important value for policy makers and water managers. This paper analyses the impact of institutional factors on River Basin decentralization process and its performance. The paper uses an institutional economic framework, where institutional factors are broken down into contextual factors and initial conditions; characteristics of decentralization process; characteristics of central government/Basin-level relationships and capacities; and internal configuration of Basin level institutional arrangements. The impact of the institutional reforms on decentralization process and performance of River Basin Management is studied by accessing the level of decentralization of Limpopo (Mozambique), Inkomati (South Africa) and Mzingwane (Zimbabwe) River Basins given the institutional factors in the respective countries. The study uses secondary data collected from different sources and primary data collected from a survey conducted in the three River Basins in the studied countries. The analysis show mixed results. While the Inkomati River Basin is more decentralized, the decentralization process of Mzingwane and Limpopo River Basins is lagging behind. Institutional factors showed to be determinants in River Basin decentralization process and its performance. The advancement of decentralization process and its performance in Inkomati River Basin is associated with the endowment of financial capacity as well as the involvement of River Basin stakeholders in decentralization process, while the failure of decentralization process in Mzingwane and Limpopo River Basins is mainly associated with top-down approaches used in decentralization process in these Basins as well as the lack of financial endowment. (Resume d'auteur)
-
River Basin Management at the Lowest Appropriate Level: When and Why Does It (Not) Work in Practice?
Integrated River Basin Management through Decentralization, 2020Co-Authors: K. E. Kemper, William Blomquist, Ariel DinarAbstract:When the research project that has led to the material and analysis presented in this book started, a great deal of investigation had been carried out into the application of the four so-called Dublin Principles of 1992 (ICWE 1992). These are frequently quoted in the water literature and have been guiding much of the thinking about water resource Management in the past one and a half decades. Most discussion, however, has taken place around three of the Dublin Principles: those related to water as an economic good, the role of women in provision and Management of water, and the need for integrated water resource Management. Interestingly, the fourth principle, which concerns River Basin Management at the lowest appropriate level, was also being promoted and applied, but it was more or less taken for granted that it was a desirable practice, with little enquiry into whether it really worked and what the outcomes of its application were. These questions are, of course, vital for policymakers and water users throughout the world, especially in light of the number of River Basin Management efforts that are under way in the 21st century. Governments in several countries, multilateral financing agencies such as the World Bank, and other institutions such as the Global Water Partnership promote River Basin organizations as a means of advancing River Basin Management at the lowest appropriate level. Accordingly, a study was carried out to consider those questions in a systematic way; this book presents the outcomes of the investigations into this issue.
-
integrated River Basin Management through decentralization
Irbm, 2007Co-Authors: K. E. Kemper, William Blomquist, Ariel DinarAbstract:1. River Basin Management at the lowest appropriate level: When and why does it (not) work in pracitave? - 2. Comparative analysis of case studies.- 3. Determinants of River Basin Management decentralization: Motivation, process, and performance.- 4. Australia: Murray-Darling Basin.- 5. Brazil: Alton Tiete Basin.- 6. Brazil: Jaguaribe Basin.- 7. Canada: Fraser Basin.- 8. Costa Rica: Tarcoles Basin.- 9. Indonesia: Brantas Basin.- 10. Poland: Warta Basin.- 11. Spain: Guadalquivir Basin.- 12. River Basin Management: Conclusions and implications.
Philippus Wester - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
boundaries of consent stakeholder representation in River Basin Management in mexico and south africa
World Development, 2003Co-Authors: Philippus Wester, Douglas J Merrey, Marna De LangeAbstract:Abstract Increasing the capacity of water users to influence decision-making is crucial in River Basin Management reforms. This article assesses emerging forums for River Basin Management in Mexico and South Africa and concludes that the pace of democratization of water Management in both is slow. Mexico is characterized by continued government dominance and attempts to include already organized stakeholders in decision-making, while substantive stakeholder representation is lacking. South Africa is placing emphasis on social mobilization and transformation, leading to a slower implementation process and struggles over the redistribution of resources. While not a panacea, moving from stakeholder participation to substantive stakeholder representation in River Basin Management holds more promise of achieving equitable water Management.
Gemma Carr - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
stakeholder and public participation in River Basin Management an introduction
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 2015Co-Authors: Gemma CarrAbstract:Participation of the public and stakeholders in River Basin Management is increasingly promoted because it is expected to improve resource Management and enable participants to engage freely and equally in Management (support democratic processes). Three overlapping and interacting mechanisms by which participation is expected to enhance River Basin Management are outlined: (1) providing space for deliberation and consensus building for better quality decisions, (2) mobilizing and developing human and social capital for better quality decisions and their implementation, and (3) raising the legitimacy of decisions to facilitate their implementation. There are several complexities associated with each of the mechanisms that add challenges to realizing the expectations of participation. They include the need to carefully manage consensus building and conflict to maximize the quality of the decision without jeopardizing the potential for implementation; being aware of and implementing strategies to manage asymmetrical power relationships between participants; ensuring that participants perceive benefits from participation that exceed costs; and defining criteria for a legitimate process, and a legitimate decision, that satisfy all participants. Strategies identified to address these challenges focus on managing the characteristics of the participation process. Ongoing evaluation during a participation program or project is essential to reflect and refine how participation is being done, to address the challenges and endeavor to achieve high-quality decisions that can be implemented efficiently. WIREs Water 2015, 2:393–405. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1086 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
Erik Mostert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
River Basin Management and community : the Great Ouse Basin, 1850–present
International Journal of River Basin Management, 2017Co-Authors: Erik MostertAbstract:ABSTRACTRiver Basins are difficult units to manage. Society is generally not organized on the basis of River Basins, yet River Basins are important units for society and vice versa. This paper discusses the development and effectiveness of River Basin Management, using the Great Ouse Basin in the east of England as an example. Because of conflicting interests between upstream and downstream areas in this Basin, it took some 70 years, from 1850 to 1920, to establish the first Basin-wide Management body, and because of these interests this body was initially not very effective. Over the years Management was scaled up until in 1989 a national Rivers authority was established. A fundamental issue was the lack of a sense of community at the Basin scale. This could have mitigated the conflicts of interests and facilitated better cooperation. The paper recommends more research on the role of community in River Basin Management and suggests to extend the notions of ‘institutional’ and ‘socio-ecological fit’ to in...
-
social learning in european River Basin Management barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 River Basins
Ecology and Society, 2007Co-Authors: Erik Mostert, Claudia Pahlwostl, Yvonne Rees, Bradley Searle, David Tabara, Joanne TippettAbstract:We present and analyze 10 case studies of participatory River-Basin Management that were conducted as part of the European HarmoniCOP project. The main theme was social learning, which emphasizes the importance of collaboration, organization, and learning. The case studies show that social learning in River-Basin Management is not an unrealistic ideal. Resistance to social learning was encountered, but many instances of social learning were found, and several positive results were identified. Moreover, 71 factors fostering or hindering social learning were identified; these could be grouped into eight themes: the role of stakeholder involvement, politics and institutions, opportunities for interaction, motivation and skills of leaders and facilitators, openness and transparency, representativeness, framing and reframing, and adequate resources. Promising topics for further research include the facilitation of the social learning processes, the role of power, and interactions in political and institutional contexts.
-
Perspectives on River Basin Management
Physics and Chemistry of The Earth Part B-hydrology Oceans and Atmosphere, 1999Co-Authors: Erik MostertAbstract:Abstract Effective River Basin Management (RBM) is the key to sustainable development. Within River Basins, land and water, surface water and groundwater, and water quantity and water quality interact in many different ways. To prevent overuse and degradation, prudent Management is necessary that pays due attention to these interrelations. Especially in international River Basins this poses big problems as the interests of upstream and downstream countries often conflict. This paper discusses six perspectives on international RBM, called ‘natural science’, ‘engineering’, ‘social optimisation’, ‘law’, ‘decision making’ and ‘ethics’. Each perspective highlights some aspects of RBM while disregarding others. To promote sustainable development, actual RBM and applied research supporting RBM should incorporate all the different perspectives. In more fundamental research it may be advisable to use just one perspective. Yet, also in fundamental research it is crucial to recognise not only the possibilities, but also the limitations of the perspective applied. Moreover, the different (monodisciplinary) perspectives can be enriched by borrowing elements from other perspectives.
