WAT-E2080
Politics & power in water governance
Irina Mancheva
[email protected]
24.02.22
Outline and learning objectives of the
lecture
PART I: The environment and water as a policy problem
• The nature of environmental issues
• Environmental issues are political and complex
PART II: Governance: Polity, Politics and Policy
• What does governance encompass?
• Three dimensions of governance:
• Polity – the institutional context
• Politics – the actors (groups) influencing polity and policy
• Policy – the rules for action
PART III: Power in governance
• Forms of power: different perspectives
• Polity, politics and policy and power
The nature of environmental issues: they
cross policy and administrative boundaries
• Environmental problems are caused by and affect various (almost
all) sectors. This is especially valid for water.
• Another example – Climate change – Greenhouse gas emissions,
caused by human activities (energy production, transport, mining,
forestry, food production, etc.). Has a direct impact on water.
• The consequences are many: rising sea levels, disrupted
ecosystems, famine, species extinction, water scarcity, human
migration, etc.
• Complex problems (’wicked problems’) – characterised by
complexity (interconnectedness), uncertainty, the need for
prioritisation between different values and goals.
Environmental issues are political
• They are socially constructed problems and the political
solutions are also socially constructed.
• Perceptions of problems – what do we consider the problem is?
• How we perceive and believe we can solve them best?
• What are we ready to sacrifice (how much can they cost us)?
• Environment and Society are interconnected in so-called
socio-ecological systems
Source image: Joern Fischer, J., T. Gardner, E.M.
Bennett, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, S. Carpenter, T. Daw,
C. Folke, R. Hill, T.P. Hughes, T. Luthe, M. Maass, M.
Meacham, A. Norström, G. Peterson, C. Queiroz, R.
Seppelt, M. Spierenburg, J. Tenhunen. 2015. Advancing
sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological
systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability 14:144-149
Environmental issues are political
• Why are we lacking solutions to many of the
pressing environmental issues?
• Lack of agreement between political actors and
levels on what the problem is and how we can
resolve it
• Lack of structures (institutions) that have the
power to implement solutions
• Lack of political and social will?
Image: https://www.climateandforests-undp.org/
All that means that environmental and
specifically water governance:
• Is characterised by complexity
• Should exceed administrative
and sectorial boundaries
• Should include multiple actors
• Affects multiple actors and institutions
across administrative and sectorial
boundaries
• Should be multisectoral and
transdisciplinary
Any questions? Comments?
Polity, Politics and Policy
What does “governance”
encompass?
"Governance is a social function centered on steering human groups toward
desired outcomes" (Young, 2013), e.g., to
• achieve and sustain good ecological status (EU WFD), to manage flood
risks (EU FD) or ensure availability and sustainable management of water
and sanitation for all (UN SDGs)
Who steers and how?
Three strongly interlinked dimensions of (water)
governance
Institutional framework, Set of plans and actions
which defines and sets that have been agreed
rules for the game in a upon by the actors
given context participating in policy-
• Mode of governance Polity Policy making
• Political steering
How policies are made?
How different interests and preferences are
translated into (effective) policies?
Politics
Actors involved in (water) governance and power relations between
them: e.g., political action of actors using their power to set (define),
interpret and implement policies
(Laine et al., 2001; Treib et al., 2007; Pahl-Wostl, 2009)
Polity – institutional context
Includes:
• (Constitution and laws determining the administrative structures and
rules for politics)
• Administrative structures and rules
• International, supranational and global structures, including binding
regulation and agreements
Polity – institutional context
The institutional context determines:
• The governance mode: hierarchy, network, market
• The level of centralisation of state power (centralised
unitary state, federal state, etc.)
• Who has decision-making power, who enforces and
implements and who monitors and sanctions
Polity: the international, global
and supranational level
INTERNATIONAL – GLOBAL – SUPRANATIONAL
(between states) (between actors) (transcends state boundaries)
Polity: the international and
supranational level
International organisations: Supranational organisations:
Cooperation between states Cooperation between states that
that retain their sovereignty have delegated part of their
(decision-making power) sovereignty (decision-making
power) to supranational
institutions
State State
C A
State
D
State
A
State
B
State
C EU State
B
State State
E D
Politics – actors (groups) influencing
decision-making and the relations between
themselves
Includes:
• Politics at various levels of government: global (international,
supranational), state, local and individual (micro) politics
• Ideologies: liberalism, capitalism, socialism, nationalism, etc.
• Party politics
• The rules of how politics can be made: party systems (non-partisan;
one-party, etc.), corporatism, who is included etc.
Policy – the rules
Includes:
• (Laws), regulation, plans and actions that have been agreed upon by
the actors with decision-making power
• Steering – steering human groups towards desired outcomes
(Young, 2013)
Policy instruments
Policy is implemented through so-called ”policy instruments”:
• Regulation: soft and hard law
• Economic instruments: negative (punishment) or encouraging
(incentives)
• Voluntary agreements
• Information
• Physical planning/infrastructure
Politics are an integral part of
policy
• This implies that scientific knowledge and expert advice are not
simply transferred into effective policies
• Instead, policy formulation and implementation are affected by
• different (often conflicting) beliefs, values and interests of those
involved in the process and
• by the surrounding societal (historical, economic and social)
conditions and context
“Politics in a democratic society, (…), is a struggle for power played out in
significant part through arguments about the ‘best story’” (Fischer, 2003)
(Fischer, 2003; Jasanoff, 2004; Owens, 2015)
Any questions? Comments?
Power in governance
What is power?
• Many different theories/definitions of power (rooted in different
scientific fields and traditions)
• Key similarity between them:
power is unevenly distributed and socially contested, which
affects the creation and distribution of resources,
opportunities and well-being
(Morrison et al., 2017)
What is power?
• Power as authority:
Deciding the rules, punishments and incentives, designing the
institutional context, controlling.
• Power as resources:
Attaining and distributing financial resources, information and
knowledge; developing and using technology.
• Power as discourse:
Setting the agenda: what is important and should be prioritized
and what not; having a voice; setting the norms; giving a voice
and influence to certain actors or type of knowledge.
(Morrison et al., 2017; 2019; Purdy, 2012)
Polity and power
The institutional context determines who has power:
• To set the political agenda: what issues should be prioritised
• Participate in decision-making: who has decision-making power
(monarch, parliament, municipality, voters, NGOs, etc.)
• Participate in implementation: who implements decisions (public
authorities, private actors, etc.)
• Participate in the evaluation: who can monitor and control the
effectiveness of the decisions
• To decide on and revise the polity, as well as the actors and rules of
politics
Politics and power
• Politics is about the political
actions of actors
Polity & Policy
• Thus, it is embedded in the =
interactions between actors
and between actors and
institutions
• The polity (the institutions)
impacts on who has power in
politics (what interactions
actors are allowed to have
and what outcomes they can
lead to)
Policy and power
The policy process:
Knowledge
accumulation Implementa
Initiation Decision Evaluation Feedback
tion
(preparation)
Power in international relations
In international politics (e.g., transboundary water governance) power is
about the ability to influence another to act in ways in which they would
not have acted otherwise
“Hard power” = capacity to coerce through economic or
military force
“Soft power” = capacity to persuade other to act in certain
way
“Smart power” = capacity to combine elements of hard and
soft power to advance one’s interests
These used mainly in respect to power relations between countries, but
may also be applicable in other contexts as well
(Wilson, 2008)
Any questions? Comments?
GROUP DISCUSSION
How was politics visible in your Case Study?
What about power?
Who is the most powerful actor
in your Case Study? Why?
Examples of how polity, politics
and policy affect water
governance
Example 1: Water Use and Water Pollution -
Mälaren, Sweden
• 72 km, 1,122 km2 (river basin 22 650 km2)
• ~1 000 000 people (in ~40 municipalities and 6
counties)
• Drinking water supply to 2 000 000 people
• Sewage receiver for 1 100 000 people (includes
urban wastewater)
• Hydropower production
• Industries
• Important transport route: ~ 4,500 vessels pass
through with a freight volume of just over 4 million
tonnes. Most of the freight is constituent goods of
oil and chemicals.
Mälaren’s river basin, Images available at: https://www.malaren.org/
Example 1: Mälaren, Sweden
Mälaren’s ecological status, Images available at:
https://www.malaren.org/
Example 1: Mälaren, Sweden
What polity, politics and policy affect the governance of Mälaren:
• UN SDGs
• EU Legislation (some examples):
✓ EU Water Framework Directive
✓ EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
✓ EU Flood’s Directive
• Swedish regulation and policies (some examples):
✓ Swedish fundamental laws (constitution)
✓ National laws regulating ownership, municipality planning, hydropower
✓ Regional management of river basins, municipal planning, hydropower
production…
Example 1: Mälaren, Sweden
Conflicts of goals:
Images available at: https://www.globalgoals.org/resources/
Example 2: The Nile
• The Nile River basin (Blue Nile and White Nile) includes Egypt,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Dem. Rep. of
Congo, Burundi, Rwanda, South Sudan.
• Egypt is almost entirely reliant on the Nile for its water use and
supply (97%). Sudan and Eritrea also are dependent on the Nile
(77% and 55% respectively).
• Many dams are constructed along the river Nile (more than 10 of
very different capacities) supplying energy to millions of people.
Source: https://espace-mondial-atlas.sciencespo.fr/en/topic-resources/map-5C11-EN-nile-river-basin.html
Example 2: The Nile
Source: https://espace-mondial-atlas.sciencespo.fr/en/topic-resources/map-5C11-EN-nile-river-basin.html
Example 2: The Nile
Ethioians protesting what they see as Egypt’s interference in their dam. Source: www.bbc.com
Example 2: The Nile
Discussion – what goal conflicts do you see?
Source: https://www.globalgoals.org/resources/
Example 3: EU Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive (UWWTD), (1991)
• Aims to protect the environment from the adverse effects of
urban waste water discharges
• Identification of areas sensitive to eutrophication caused by
nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) input
• Requires 70% of N and 80% of P removal from wastewater collected in towns
of > 10,000 people
• EU has enforcement power: failure to comply with the Directive
may lead to sanctions
• However, the implementation of a directive can be disputed!
• interpretation and argumentation – who has the best
argument?
Example 3: Baltic Sea classified
as highly sensitive area
• The whole sea suffers from
eutrophication
• Caused by anthropogenic
nutrient input from large
catchment area
• Sweden and Finland the
“front-runners” of water
protection
• Both remove more P than
required by the UWWTD,
but
Example 3: EU Urban Waste Water
Treatment
WHY DID FINLAND WIN?
1) FI argued that nitrogen from
inland wastewater discharges
does not accelerate
eutrophication
2) The Court ruled that the
Commission was not able to
prove that the N coming from
those UWWTPs in question
contributed significantly to the
eutrophication of the Baltic Sea
• Thus, FI and the Commission
interpreted the Directive differently,
and the FI’s interpretation
prevailed
Example 3: What explains the reluctancy of
FI & SE to remove N from UWWTPs?
1. Scientists have not agreed on the role of N in Baltic Sea
eutrophication
• Some (nowadays the majority) say both nutrients (P & N)
should be reduced
• Others say that only P should be reduced
• Who will the authorities listen?
• May relate to their own background, but also:
2. Biological removal of N is expensive
• While chemical removal of P is by far cheaper
(Pihlajamäki and Tynkkynen, 2011; Saunders et al., 2017)
Summary
• Politics is about the beliefs, values, interests and actions of
governance actors, and the division of power between them
• Politics are an integral part of governance (in a democratic
society)
• Many different perspectives on power
• Power over authority, resources and discourse
• Power is not distributed equally: upstream – downstream;
different stakeholders, institutions, structures, …
• Policy formation and implementation is affected by polity and politics!
• Effectiveness of governance can be as much about
enforcement power as it is about societal acceptability
References
Fischer, Frank. Reframing Public Policy : Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2003.
Fischer, J., T. Gardner, E.M. Bennett, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, S. Carpenter, T. Daw, C. Folke, R. Hill, T.P. Hughes, T. Luthe, M. Maass, M. Meacham,
A. Norström, G. Peterson, C. Queiroz, R. Seppelt, M. Spierenburg, J. Tenhunen. (2015) Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–
ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:144-149
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
Laine, M. and Jokinen, P, 2001. Ympäristö ja politiikka (Environment and policy). In Haila, Y. and Jokinen, P. (eds), 2001. Ympäristöpolitiikka, mikä
ympäristö, kenen politiikka (Environmental policy. What environment, whose policy). Vastapaino, Jyväskylä, Finland. Pp. 47.
Morrison, T. H., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema, D., Phelps, J., Evans, L., Cohen, P., Song, A. M., Turner, R., Quinn, T., & Hughes, T.
P. (2019). The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 57, 101934.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934
Morrison, T. H., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema, D., & Hughes, T. P. (2017). Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: Sources
of power in the pursuit of collective goals. WIREs Climate Change, 8(5), e479. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.479
Newig, J., & Koontz, T. M. (2014). Multi-level governance, policy implementation and participation: The EU’s mandated participatory planning approach
to implementing environmental policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(2), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.834070
Owens, S., (2015) Knowledge, Policy, and Expertise: The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1970-2011, Oxford University Press.
336pp.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes.
Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
Pihlajamäki, M., & Tynkkynen, N. (2011). The Challenge of Bridging Science and Policy in the Baltic Sea Eutrophication Governance in Finland: The
perspective of Science. AMBIO, 40(2), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0130-4
Purdy, J. M. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 409-417
Saunders, F. P., Gilek, M., & Linke, S. (2017). Knowledge for environmental governance: Probing science–policy theory in the cases of eutrophication
and fisheries in the Baltic Sea. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(6), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1286575
Treib, O., Bähr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance: Towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/135017606061071406
Wilson, E. J. (2008). Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 110–124.
Young, O. R. (2013). Sugaring off: Enduring insights from long-term research on environmental governance. International Environmental Agreements:
Politics, Law and Economics, 13(1), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9204-z
Thank you for your attention!
Questions?
