Participatory Water Governance:
Who Participate and Why?
Presentation at Tsukuba University
May 23, 2016
Kate A. Berry
Professor of Geography
University of Nevada, Reno

What is participatory water governance?
• At a minimum, participatory water governanceinvolves individuals and/or groups in having an
opportunity to express their voices and articulate
their arguments in public forums• Direct involvement of an array of people in decisionmaking or implementation of water policy ormanagement• This includes a wide range of different situations andscales from the grass-roots to the international• What are some examples of participatory water
governance?

Examples of participatory water
governance around the world• In the U.S., the Timbisha Shoshone Indian Tribe negotiated awater settlement with the federal government in Death ValleyNational Park
• In the Brazilian Amazon and Turkey, local community groups
challenged the authority of the federal agencies involved inbuilding hydropower dams
• In France, Mexico, and Quebec (Canada) watershed or river
basin organizations rely on stakeholder participation as part oftheir governance processes• Governance of the irrigation sector in Yunnan, China includes
participation of the state, water user associations, andcommunities

More examples from around the world• In South Africa, post-apartheidwater laws require public
participation for catchment (i.e.,watershed) level water governance• In Sri Lanka, community
involvement is evolving to address
key water & sanitation
development needs

Why is participatory water governanceconsidered so important?
• Proponents of participatory water governance include the WorldBank, other international organizations, many national & local
governments, and many non-governmental organizations (NGOs)• Participation envisioned as a means of enhancing citizenship,building democracy, creating equitable solutions to water problems

Original Millennium Development Goals

Selections from the 1992 “Dublin Principles"
1. Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential tosustain life, development and the environment
2. Water development and management should be based on aparticipatory approach, involving users, planners andpolicymakers at all levels
3. Women play a central part in the provision, management andsafeguarding of water
4. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses andshould be recognized as an economic good

Potential problems with participatorywater governance• It’s not a panacea; democracy, social justice and/or theenvironment may suffer – rather than benefit from socialparticipation• May serve as a façade, rather than meaningfulinvolvement for a broad range of stakeholders• If required, alternative interests may be discouraged
from meaningful participation• May ignore or overlook power differences that tend to
perpetuate the status quoMany important questions remain about
participatory water governance• Best to look at specific cases & consider the context• Here I will present two case studies about participation
and will focus on the questions about who gets toparticipate and why• The first involves work I did in Rajasthan, India in 2008
and considers the situation of an NGO and getting
women involved (gender dynamics• The second involves work done with a graduate student
on participation in major negotiated settlements in theKlamath Basin, California and Oregon, US

Gender Dynamics and Water Matters:
Participatory Water Development andWomen in Rajasthan, India

Source: http://www.jalbhagirathi.org

Connecting participatory water development &governance to gender

Gender is dynamic
and is spatiallyand temporally
situated

Inequities based on gender are rooted in social
stratification based on roles and responsibilities assigned
to men and women and the differential values of theseroles

Water is usedand controlled
in a variety ofgender-specificways throughhousehold &community
practices as wellas throughbroader
institutions

“Water is essentially a woman's issue. Men are not reallybothered about it. They just wash their hands and sit down
for food. It's the woman who has to arrange water for allday. Women need the water. And if there is no water in thehouse, the man will take a stick in his hand and ask--you
didn't get water? It's the women who have to pay the price.
It's the woman who needs water for the household work andto sustain the family. It is a woman's resource”
K. Bai, Rajasthani activist and grandmother quoted in Parmar, A. 2004. Ocean in a Drop of
Water: Empowerment, Water and Women. Canadian Woman Studies 23(1):124-132.

Women may be unwilling or unable toparticipate in water management

Disproportionate
emigration of men
has createdchanges inhousehold water
matters andimposed new
gendered roles andresponsibilities forwater

Time and circumstances also alter
gender as it gets expressed in water matters

Institutional Issues
New water technologies may affect men and women
differently
Distribution of benefits fromwater projects may bedifferentiated by gender

Gendered differences in how water institutions areengaged and information is exchanged

Irrigation channels outline fertile polygons on the drained bed of Lower Klamath Lake (David McLain National Geographic)Coho
Shortnose C’wam

Chinook

Lost River C’wam

Steelhead

The Klamath Basin

Upper Basin

Middle Basin

Photos By: Brett Cole & Terry Fisk

Mouth of the Klamath, Lower Basin

2001
Klamath Falls

2002 Lower Klamath RiverNegotiated settlement agreements
in 2010
Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement (KBRA)
Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement
Agreement (KHSA)

Interviews with Stakeholder
Representatives
Stakeholder Representatives

Number of Interviews

Tribal Community

4

Irrigation/Farming Community

3

Conservation Community

5

Commercial Fishing Community

2

Federal Agencies

5State Agencies

2Hydropower Owner

1

Total

22

Photography By: David McLain

Factors Influencing Participation
Objectives
Past Experiences

Relationship Building
Political & Geographic Context
Process Legitimacy

Regulatory Framework
Personal Values & Identity
Process Support & Progress
Results

Past experiences• We found that previous negative experienceswith other stakeholder groups did notnecessarily translate into a decision not toparticipate• Instead, participatory experience of any sort
contributed more to a desire to participate

Relationship building• Concerns about the development ofrelationships as the negotiations occurred andwith the value of those relationships suggeststhat relationship building may be viewed aspart of the negotiation process itself

Political & geographic contexts• Political & geographic contexts were significant,being intertwined in nearly all factors influencing
participation in negotiation in our study• Perceptions of who had “skin in the game” not only
encouraged some groups to participate innegotiations but allowed others to be excluded• In some cases, those excluded actively opposed the 2negotiated agreements

Personal values & identity• Many stakeholders mentioned putting aside theirdifferences in values and identity so as to negotiate
for the broader public good and to protect theenvironment• Yet during the negotiations some significant changes
in values and identities occurred for some of thestakeholders as a result of the negotiations• These changes in values and identities encouragedsome to continue participating, while others chose tooppose the negotiated settlements

Both studies emphasize the significance of recognizing
why stakeholders participate
The subtleties of what influences stakeholders toparticipate is complex but it is important to understand if
just and equitable outcomes are to be achievedAny comments or questions?