83
There are four key guidelines of special interest in the literature on water
governance, namely “polycentric governance, public participation, experimentation, and a bioregional approach” (Huitema et al. 2009 ) Polycentric governance
relates to systems in which “political authority is dispersed to separately constituted
bodies with overlapping jurisdictions that do not stand in hierarchical relationship
to each other” (Skelcher 2005 , p. 85, also Ostrom ( 1999 ), Dietz et al. ( 2003 ). Public
participation stands for the cooperation between non-governmental stakeholders
and governmental bodies. Experimentation is the demand to invent new practices
and institutions and evaluate their potential for transfer to other problems, regions,
or contexts. The bioregional approach fi nds its most prominent interpretation in the
water sector in the call for river basin management. While all of these fi ndings can
be considered theoretically sound, unfortunately there is little known about their
effectiveness so far: polycentricity and the bioregional approach have scarcely been
evaluated because of “the lack of monitoring data and the attribution problem,”
participation “can contribute to the quality and legitimacy of decisions, but the connection to the formal decision process needs to be clearly specifi ed” and about
experimentation there is “not much known, but in other policy domains, experiments are often watered down to ‘pilots’” (Huitema et al. 2009 ).
6.4 Dealing with Complexity
System theory and the governance discourse both raise awareness that complex
systems such as MWEPs must rely on a multifaceted analysis of interacting elements. By emphasizing the interrelatedness of different issues, they both underline
the necessity to overcome fragmented scientifi c perspectives on and isolated responsibilities for MWEPs. Their potential benefi ts direct research and practice in two
different, but complementary ways: system theory provides potential cornerstones
for an analytic framework to address the complexity of MWEPs, and the governance discourse stresses the need to adhere to practical management issues.
From a systemic perspective, MWEPs are but one example in the generalized
concept of systems, and thus opens the way for transferring general insights about
systems to this specifi c fi eld. Taking up the selected list mentioned above: the complexity of MWEPs can be interpreted as the need to take the mutual interdependence
of historic, technical, political, social, and so forth aspects of an MWEP into account
in the estimation of its feasibility, durance, robustness, and sustainability. Going one
step further, MWEPs can be considered as examples of disorganized complexity , i.e.
a system “in which the number of variables is very large, and one in which each of
the many variables has a behaviour which is individually erratic, or perhaps totally
unknown” (Weaver 1948 ). Therefore, a MWEP’s management depends on the
knowledge and consideration of all its infl uencing factors, rendering any hierarchy
counterproductive in the sense of which elements are more or less important.
This aspect challenges especially technocratic approaches: MWEPs may be
technically well thought out and can be perfectly infrastructural or materially
6 Water Governance: A Systemic Approach
There are four key guidelines of special interest in the literature on water
governance, namely “polycentric governance, public participation, experimentation, and a bioregional approach” (Huitema et al. 2009 ) Polycentric governance
relates to systems in which “political authority is dispersed to separately constituted
bodies with overlapping jurisdictions that do not stand in hierarchical relationship
to each other” (Skelcher 2005 , p. 85, also Ostrom ( 1999 ), Dietz et al. ( 2003 ). Public
participation stands for the cooperation between non-governmental stakeholders
and governmental bodies. Experimentation is the demand to invent new practices
and institutions and evaluate their potential for transfer to other problems, regions,
or contexts. The bioregional approach fi nds its most prominent interpretation in the
water sector in the call for river basin management. While all of these fi ndings can
be considered theoretically sound, unfortunately there is little known about their
effectiveness so far: polycentricity and the bioregional approach have scarcely been
evaluated because of “the lack of monitoring data and the attribution problem,”
participation “can contribute to the quality and legitimacy of decisions, but the connection to the formal decision process needs to be clearly specifi ed” and about
experimentation there is “not much known, but in other policy domains, experiments are often watered down to ‘pilots’” (Huitema et al. 2009 ).
6.4 Dealing with Complexity
System theory and the governance discourse both raise awareness that complex
systems such as MWEPs must rely on a multifaceted analysis of interacting elements. By emphasizing the interrelatedness of different issues, they both underline
the necessity to overcome fragmented scientifi c perspectives on and isolated responsibilities for MWEPs. Their potential benefi ts direct research and practice in two
different, but complementary ways: system theory provides potential cornerstones
for an analytic framework to address the complexity of MWEPs, and the governance discourse stresses the need to adhere to practical management issues.
From a systemic perspective, MWEPs are but one example in the generalized
concept of systems, and thus opens the way for transferring general insights about
systems to this specifi c fi eld. Taking up the selected list mentioned above: the complexity of MWEPs can be interpreted as the need to take the mutual interdependence
of historic, technical, political, social, and so forth aspects of an MWEP into account
in the estimation of its feasibility, durance, robustness, and sustainability. Going one
step further, MWEPs can be considered as examples of disorganized complexity , i.e.
a system “in which the number of variables is very large, and one in which each of
the many variables has a behaviour which is individually erratic, or perhaps totally
unknown” (Weaver 1948 ). Therefore, a MWEP’s management depends on the
knowledge and consideration of all its infl uencing factors, rendering any hierarchy
counterproductive in the sense of which elements are more or less important.
This aspect challenges especially technocratic approaches: MWEPs may be
technically well thought out and can be perfectly infrastructural or materially
6 Water Governance: A Systemic Approach