Chapter
2:
Concept
note
consequence
of
the
context.
To
move
away
from
simplistic
panaceas
context
variables
need
to
be
taken
into
account
(Ostrom
et
al.,
2007;
Harrison,
2006;
Pahl-‐Wostl,
2009;
Pahl-‐Wostl
and
Lebel,
2010).
For
analysing
water
governance
capacities,
the
framework
in
figure
2.2
includes
five
key
elements:
•
Institutional
arrangements
•
Information
collection
and
management
•
Participation,
communication
and
education
•
Policy
and
legal
systems
• Financing/funding
The
abovementioned
elements
are
not
mutually
exclusive,
and
crosscutting
issues
and
interdependencies
may
exist.
For
example,
sectoral
fragmentation
of
water-‐related
tasks
across
ministries
and
agencies
is
considered
a
policy
gap,
legal
gap
and
institutional
gap,
albeit
from
a
different
perspective
and
with
different
indicators.
Important
to
note
is
that
the
analytical
framework
is
being
used
as
a
heuristic
device
in
this
report,
in
order
to
identify
and
highlight
predominant
governance
issues
based
on
the
case-‐study
reports.
This
means
that
not
each
and
every
variable
of
the
framework
will
be
covered
and/or
described
in
full
detail
in
chapters
4,
5
and
6,
but
only
those
apsects
that
stand
out
according
to
our
empirical
analyses.
Many
authors
have
put
evaluating
the
performance
of
different
modes
of
governance
forward
as
a
key
focal
area
for
future
research
(Jordan,
2009;
Biermann
et
al.,
2009;
Pahl-‐Wostl,
2009;
Huntjens,
2011).
Measures
for
the
performance
of
a
water
governance
system
should
allow
assessing
and
evaluating
the
degree
of
satisfaction
with
the
current
state
of
water
governance.
Obviously
a
governance
system
should
achieve
its
stated
goals.
Failure
to
do
so
is
a
clear
sign
of
a
non-‐satisfactory
performance
without
alluding
to
any
normative
claims
(Pahl-‐Wostl
and
Lebel,
2010).
In
this
ESW
report
performance
has
not
been
taken
into
account
in
the
case-‐study
reports,
but
it
is
strongly
recommended
as
a
follow-‐up
activity.
Judging
performance
of
a
water
governance
system
(or
the
effectiveness
thereof)
is
challenging
for
several
reasons.
Firstly,
other
social
and
political
processes
that
surround
the
management
and
governance
of
water
resources
often
confound
identification
and
attribution
of
specific
outcomes.
Secondly,
the
outcome
of
management
measures
is
uncertain
due
to
the
complexity
of
the
system
to
be
managed
and
uncertainties
in
environmental
and
socio-‐economic
developments
influencing
the
performance
of
implemented
management
strategies.
It
is,
therefore,
important
to
monitor
the
water
governance
systems
for
a
longer
period
and
on
a
frequent
basis.
Thirdly,
the
relevance
and
meaning
of
indicators
for
success
or
failure
may
be
judged
differently
by
different
groups,
and
thus
lead
to
different
assessments
of
the
performance
of
water
governance
systems
(Pahl-‐Wostl
et
al.,
(2007).
Nevertheless,
some
approaches
are
likely
to
be
useful
without
alluding
to
any
normative
claims.
One
approach
is
to
assess
the
achievement
of
stated
goals,
for
example
the
Millennium
Development
Goals
(related
to
water
resources)
or
IWRM
goals,
including
economic
efficiency,
social
WV