Home / Summaries / A new paradigm for water? A comparative review of integrated, adaptive and ecosystem-based water management in the Anthropocene / water-management-ebas

Managing water in the Anthropocene: the role of IWRM, EBAs and AM

Q: What is desirable for effective water management in the Anthropocene?

Combining the strengths of IWRM, EBAs and AM, while minimizing tensions .

Q: In which ways may the combined strengths of IWRM, EBAs and AM assist water management?

IWRM is particularly focused on improving real participatory justice. AM builds the capacity of management regimes to navigate biophysical uncertainty . EBAs with their focus on the conservation and restoration of natural processes , may slow environmental degradation and biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene.

Q: Which are the possible tensions and their trade-offs arising in the new water paradigm (Table 2)?

Socio-political Technocratic flexibility vs. Pluralistic accountability Technical knowledge use vs. Democratic decision making Institutional stability vs. Risky and potentially costly action Value based Social learning processes vs. Concessionary negotiation tactics Temporal Efficiency vs. Deliberation Boundary/spatial Self-organization at various scales vs. Formalized instiutions at the basin level

Q: What is the risk of participatory social learning processes?

That more powerful and better-organized interest groups can legitimately negotiate a system that is clearly to their advantage and not necessarily best for the common good or environmental sustainability .

5 important questions on Managing water in the Anthropocene: the role of IWRM, EBAs and AM

What is desirable for effective water management in the Anthropocene?

Combining the strengths of IWRM, EBAs and AM, while minimizing tensions.

What has been advocated as the key goal of water management? And why is this?

Building adaptive capacity to respond to unforseen changes

Because of the inherently complex social and biophysical interdependencies within social-ecological systems (high degree of uncertainty about the future trajectories of change).

In which ways may the combined strengths of IWRM, EBAs and AM assist water management?

IWRM is particularly focused on improving real participatory justice.
AM builds the capacity of management regimes to navigate biophysical uncertainty.
EBAs with their focus on the conservation and restoration of natural processes, may slow environmental degradation and biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene.

Which are the possible tensions and their trade-offs arising in the new water paradigm (Table 2)?

Socio-political

Technocratic flexibility vs. Pluralistic accountability
Technical knowledge use vs. Democratic decision making
Institutional stability vs. Risky and potentially costly action

Value based

Social learning processes vs. Concessionary negotiation tactics

Temporal

Efficiency vs. Deliberation

Boundary/spatial

Self-organization at various scales vs. Formalized instiutions at the basin level

What is the risk of participatory social learning processes?

That more powerful and better-organized interest groups can legitimately negotiate a system that is clearly to their advantage and not necessarily best for the common good or environmental sustainability.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

A new paradigm for water? A comparative review of integrated, adaptive and ecosystem-based water management in the Anthropocene

View summary