The Water Governance Research Initiative

Water Governance Research Initiative
Summary Paper No. 1
The Water Governance Research Initiative

Objectives and Activities
This paper highlights the objectives and activities of the National Water Governance Research Initiative. The Initiative was a theme of the NCCARF Water Resources and Freshwater Biodiversity Adaptation Research Network (www.nccarf.edu.au/water/node/5) and ran from December 2009 to December 2011. The overarching intentions were to: (a) create a community of conversation about water governance in Australia, (b) build collaborative research links, (c) create opportunities for co-researching and information sharing, and (d) provide opportunities for early-career researchers (ECRs) to participate in a national network of researchers and research-users. Four participatory workshops brought water governance researchers and policy practitioners together to create a research network. The first workshop, in November 2010, explored the needs and priorities of water governance research in Australia and created a research agenda aligned with research capability. Two workshops in April 2011 were designed to support early-career researchers and begin linking theory to practice. A range of disciplinary perspectives grounded in participants' research were presented, providing interactive capacity-building experiences. The final workshop, in November 2011, invited involvement from a wider audience (including policy, NGO and private sector practitioners), showcasing different theoretical approaches to water governance from a range of topics, to inform new governance and research practices. The WGRI network members were also able to shape the development of the initiative through participation in two online surveys. The surveys were designed to build a profile of the network members based on professional backgrounds and research interests, explore levels of engagement in collaborative water governance research and distil the critical issues facing water governance research and practice in Australia. Over the two years, the project team communicated and documented the project process through a series of briefing papers, which were made available to all participants and the public. These papers build a case for a more dedicated research program on water governance in Australia.
Outcomes
Agendas for water governance research and practice were the main outcomes of the Initiative, detailed in Summary Paper 2. These were collaboratively developed through participatory workshops and are a coherent set of policy and research imperatives emerging from the community of conversation. A special journal issue of Water Resources Management, edited by the Initiative's coordinators, featured contributions from members of the network. This compilation appraises the systemic and adaptive effectiveness of water governance institutions. A second special issue of The Journal of Water Law featured several ECR articles. A highlight was the opportunity to support a group of early-career researchers in co-authoring a journal paper about their pathways to water governance research. The support for ECRs met our objectives, and from these a self-organising community of practice has emerged, with ongoing activities reported at http://freshwatergovernance.wordpress.com. Members of the Network have reported new research collaborations being formed directly as a result of participating in the Initiative, including the aforementioned ECR Network and other research projects and publications. Adopting an action research approach, the project team and Network members engaged in a series of workshops, conversations, online surveys and journal writing sessions to create a reflective community of conversations potentially leading to practice in water governance research. The level of participation and quality of engagement indicates that there remains a vital interest amongst water researchers and research users in experiencing, networking and developing cross-disciplinary research opportunities to address emergent water governance concerns.
Further Information
Philip Wallis*, Ray Ison, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University Phil.Wallis@monash.edu Lee Godden Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne
Water Governance Research Initiative, 2012
Summary Paper No. 1
Contents
This pack contains the documented outputs of the Water Governance Research Initiative, including a series of briefing papers produced as inputs to or outputs from Initiative workshops. The headline messages are synthesised in two summary papers and a full list of Initiative-related publications are included.
Summary Paper No. 1: Summary Paper No. 2: Briefing Paper No. 1: Briefing Paper No. 2: Briefing Paper No. 3: Briefing Paper No. 4: Briefing Paper No. 5: Publications:
The Water Governance Research Initiative Policy imperatives for water governance in Australia Strengthening water governance in Australia Water governance research priorities Perspectives on water governance research Water governance research for transformation Water Governance Research Initiative: 2010-2012 List of initiative publications
Acknowledgements
The success of the Initiative has been made possible by the enthusiastic participation of its members, who have contributed in a myriad of ways: attending workshops, presenting seminars, authoring papers, providing advice and guidance, and sharing their ideas on water governance. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the support of our reference group: Annie Bolitho, Alex Gardner, Brian Head, Sue Jackson, Jennifer McKay, Carla Mooney, Jamie Pittock and Adrian Walsh. Reference group members were invited to offer a perspective on water governance from each of Australia's states and territories, and were also active participants in the Initiative. We would also like to thank Samantha Capon, Brendan Edgar and Stuart Bunn, the coordinators and convener of the NCCARF Water Resources and Freshwater Biodiversity Adaptation Research Network, without whose support this would not have been possible. We also thank Nicole Reichelt who helped to finalise these Initiative outputs.
About us
The Water Governance Research Initiative was created as the governance theme of the NCCARF Water Resources and Freshwater Biodiversity Adaptation Research Network. The Initiative was coordinated by:
Lee Godden Professor, Law Melbourne Law School The University of Melbourne l.godden@unimelb.edu.au
Ray Ison Professor, Systems for Sustainability Monash Sustainability Institute Monash University, Clayton Ray.Ison@monash.edu
Philip Wallis Research Fellow Monash Sustainability Institute Monash University, Clayton Phil.Wallis@monash.edu
Naomi Rubenstein Research Assistant Monash Sustainability Institute Monash University, Clayton Naomi.Rubenstein@monash.edu
Summary Paper No. 2
Policy Imperatives for Water Governance in Australia

Framing the policy context
Fostering the conditions for effective water governance in Australian policy is about recognising that water management issues occur within complex, dynamic and uncertain situations; that is, in the context of a wicked problem. Water policy in Australia over the past three decades has been framed within a market-based perspective that views policy inadequacies as market failures and has traditionally drawn on rational scientific input to provide value free research for developing policy. This perspective does not capture failures and opportunities that exist beyond economic markets in a whole-of-system approach to include the relationships within and between social-cultural, institutional, economic and ecological systems.
Policy recommendations
Based on the policy context and implications for water governance in Australia in conjunction with the outcomes of the National Water Governance Research Initiative, we offer the following policy and research reforms and recommendations: National water institutions Expand the objectives of the National Water Commission to more fully support and fund future water governance research, continue to build professional and community networks around water management and act as an independent assessor of water reform in Australia to increase accountability, compliance and monitoring. Policy praxis Foster robust, extensive and strategic stakeholder participation and public engagement to include indigenous and marginalised communities during the policy process. Integrate self-reflexive relational processes involving individuals, social groups and organisations for holistic engagement, learning and cultural change in water governance matters as part of a systemic social learning agenda to build adaptive capacity in policy processes. Intentional and fortuitous social learning practices can help to build innovative ways of knowing and develop new relational capacities in terms of understanding organisational roles and forms of learning (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008). Such processes may create communities of interest, conversation and practice that can help to progress innovative institutional design that is fit for purpose within and beyond the water sector. Investment in social learning, and other alternative and /or complementary governance mechanisms offers a means for developing adaptive institutions with greater response opportunities to address water issues. Currently there is no national policy platform that directly links decision-making and regulation across sectors to create joined up policy systems (Pittock, 2011). We recommend the development of an initiative that would seek to integrate water policy with other relevant policy areas (e.g. climate change and energy) for comprehensive, linked policy responses to sustainability issues.
Policy implications
Setting water governance policy within a wicked problem framework demands new ways of developing and implementing policy. Such framing emphasises the need for reflexive social learning to influence transitions in research and policy for greater adaptability to ever-changing conditions. Systemic policy development and implementation involves engagement with a wide range of research and policy stakeholders across water catchments including the integration of knowledge and value systems from academia, science, government and catchment communities. Diverse conversations can then occur around water governance which opens up and makes visible the real-world complexity of natural resource management. This allows for the expansion of the socio-political context of stakeholder views and democratises decision making for more responsive policy. Questions around whose knowledge and evidence counts and whose knowledge and evidence are marginalised during the policy process can be asked and scrutinised. These sentiments resonate with those presenters who participated in the Early Career Research Workshop during the National Water Governance Research Initiative in 2011. The rational planning model has traditionally disregarded these fundamental political aspects of research and policy where policy practitioners working under this model can become locked-in to inflexible, linear and technocratic approaches.
Summary Paper No. 2
Network participants contributing to policy recommendations Governance research It is critical that research continues to capture experimentation in social learning processes through adopting comparative and case-orientated research methodologies. It became apparent during the WGRI workshops and feedback from participant surveys that there is a need to invest in explorations of best practice in flexible governance. This could include sponsoring international research for policy lessons, supporting internships in government for researchers and post graduates and establishing researcher links with professional organisations to understand and develop knowledge brokering. These explorations would help to identify governance features that promote more responsive NRM planning, particularly involving local people and how to develop effective connections between agencies and stakeholders through leadership and facilitation. There is also a need to develop government standards for data and research archiving for interdisciplinary research projects with better public access to information. Such a research policy agenda has been successfully demonstrated in the United Kingdom through the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU) (Phillipson et al., 2011). Following similar lines to our recommendations, this program invested in training and career development for interdisciplinary researchers through dedicated studentships and fellowship schemes. It also pioneered collaborations between social and natural sciences providing a strategic role for social scientists in problem framing, stakeholder engagement and analysing complex socio-technical systems. Projects were specifically prepared for data sharing to build cohesive data sets and facilitate information harvesting. The outcomes of such practices have lead to capacity building in interdisciplinary research, knowledge exchanges and integrated knowledge (Phillipson et al., 2011). Under such an agenda research products provide evidence-based knowledge to inform multiple policy communities and stakeholders.
References
Fischer, F. 2003. Beyond empiricism: policy analysis as deliberative practice in Hajer M and Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 20927 Pahl-Wostl, C., E. Mostert, and D. Tbara. 2008. The growing importance of social learning in water resources management and sustainability science. Ecology and Society 13(1): 24. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art24/ Pittock, J., 2011. National climate change policies and sustainable water management: Conflicts and synergies. Ecol & Society 16, 25. Phillipson J. Lowe P. and Liddon A. 2011. Adventures in Science: Interdisciplinarity and knowledge exchange in the Relu Programme, Rural Economy and Land Use Programme [online PDF] http://bit.ly/Pfgilu. Sharp L, McDonald A, Sim P, Knamiller C, Sefton C, Wong S. 2011. Positivism, post-positivism and domestic water demand: interrelating science across the paradigmatic divide. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (4):501515.
Further Information
Philip Wallis*, Ray Ison, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University Phil.Wallis@monash.edu Lee Godden Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne
Briefing Paper No. 1
Strengthening Water Governance in Australia

Introduction
This briefing paper presents a case for establishing a dedicated program of research on water governance in Australia. Particular attention is paid to the potential for social learning to play a greater role in improving future governance outcomes. It is envisaged that research would have nation-wide relevance, and give emphasis to practical solutions and on-ground benefits. The Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), as a hotspot in the current public debate, would be one of the focal points of any research portfolio but not isolated from the research needs of urban, groundwater and other State contexts. Australias water crisis is discussed here as an issue that is highly resistant to resolution (a wicked problem). Research activities to-date have shone a spotlight on the crisis, but contributed little to addressing underlying water governance fundamentals. This paper highlights water governance as an important arena of research that warrants greater scrutiny. We refer to water governance rather than management because it encompasses all available means of influencing social change. It is an active concept and extends to putting theory into practice. We suggest that social learning learning processes among a group of people who seek to improve a common situation and take action collectively is a critical missing element in the current water reforms. We emphasise the pressing need to work out how to design social learning into existing institutional arrangements, which span policies and objectives, Developing this Briefing Paper This paper is informed by the outcomes of a series of workshops convened by Uniwater, a partnership between Monash University and the University of Melbourne; and the Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law (University of Melbourne). The 44 workshop participants spanned a broad spectrum of interests in the social and policy aspects of water reform, and were collectively well informed about key issues and research investments. 1 laws, rules, regulations, organisations, policy mechanisms, and norms, traditions, practices and customs.
What Water Crisis?

Water management has been described as a wicked problem that is, a problem that is characterised by complexity, connectedness, conflict and multiple perspectives. The five headline messages presented here on the nature and scale of Australias water crisis set the context for the sections that follow on the need for water governance research, including social learning as part of ongoing water governance reform. The pressure to transfer water to urban centres and return water to the environment has become more pronounced in recent years in the face of prolonged and widespread drought, increasing competition for water, and heightened public concern about climate change. While a substantial body of knowledge about the extent and severity of water resource degradation has long existed, policy-makers and researchers have been spurred to learn more about water issues and the suite of options available for tackling the problem. What emerges is a dramatic picture, and one that brings into sharp focus the need to invest greater effort in understanding and refining aspects of water governance: 1. Development has been based on gross overestimates of the total water resource available Planning for the major phases of settlement and associated water resource development is now known to have been based on a period that was much wetter than the long-run average. The quantity and quality of water inflows to storages has been declining in both rural and urban settings. This trend is exacerbated by global warming, including through greater incidence and severity of bushfires. 2. Surface water and groundwater systems have been treated independently Licensing arrangements to extract water have treated surface and ground water as separate and unconnected systems. This has resulted in higher levels of extraction and double accounting. Licences to pump groundwater have typically been granted
Water Governance Research Initiative without consideration of adverse flow-on effects to surface waters. 3. Water trading has activated sleeper licences and increased groundwater pumping and onfarm water collection Water trading has stimulated the widespread sale and activation of licences not used previously in practice (sleeper licences) and, at the same time, encouraged greater exploitation of groundwater resources and harvesting of on-farm water. 4. Water use efficiency investments have stimulated further development Urban and rural investment in water use efficiency measures has been significant in recent years. Intensification and expansion of land development has tended to occur in concert, despite total environmental allocations remaining well below that required to restore ecological function. 5. Response strategies have implications for catchment water yields Taking action to repair land and water degradation and capture carbon, especially through large-scale tree planting, is likely to adversely affect catchment water yields.
Briefing Paper No. 1 local issues and needs. Evidence suggests the pendulum may now be swinging back towards tighter central control In 2004, COAG signed the National Water Initiative (NWI) as a more cohesive national approach to the way Australia manages, measures, plans for, prices, and trades water. Initial assessments were broadly supportive of its coverage, intent and attempt to integrate ecological, economic and social imperatives, yet cautious about the institutional capacity for its implementation. Hussey and Dovers (2007) highlighted that many tensions and implementation difficulties remained, and that assumptions about implementation were being unsettled by realisations of significant deficits of capacity and knowledge. The recent reform agenda in the MDB has relied primarily on developing a system of property rights to extract and use water, and the markets to trade these rights. Other significant aspects include the establishment of catchment-scale planning as the central platform for defining environmental water needs and setting sustainable limits to guide the extraction and reallocation of water. In practice, planning approaches have differed greatly between states and in different water use contexts; most notably between regulated and unregulated rivers. Engagement with communities has varied widely in both scale and approach, and has been characterised by conflict, poor design, and dissatisfaction. Some organisational reform has also been attempted, including separating water regulation from service delivery, and putting in place management arrangements for environmental water delivery. The reform agenda was given further impetus with the federal Water Act 2007. It set tight parameters for developing a water management plan for the MDB, and the accreditation of individual catchment plans nested within this strategic framework. The plan must include rules for the operation of basin-wide water markets, and for delivering environmental water. Primary regulatory responsibility is given to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (as a new Commonwealth body). The legislation was accompanied by a substantial investment package. The primary focus of investment was on achieving water savings and addressing overallocation through irrigation efficiency works and direct buy-back of entitlements on the market. The Act established the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to manage Commonwealth-owned environmental water both within and outside the MDB. Spending has proceeded well ahead of basin-wide and individual catchment planning proscribed under the same legislation. 2
Water Governance
Historically, institutions for water allocation and management in Australia have focused on settlement and industry development. Primary legislation and organisational frameworks have been largely statebased, and actions to holistically address water issues at national scale were sporadic. Three tipping points are discussed here in the reshaping of the institutional arrangements, with emphasis on more recent developments. Firstly, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) announced landmark water reforms in 1994. This marked a significant shift to more centrally directed policy, but its delivery remained largely a state-based matter. Tied federal funds gave substantial impetus for implementation in the initial years of these reforms. The institutional landscape has been progressively shaped by water and related natural resource management (NRM) policy. Local and regional level organisations in both rural and urban settings have proliferated and formed partnership approaches with higher institutional levels. Top down structures and processes were initially de-emphasised, at least in rhetoric, with the aim that more decentralised approaches to decision-making and delivery would achieve greater alignment with and responsiveness to
Water Governance Research Initiative In summary, almost two decades have elapsed since the original water reform agenda commenced. Attention to social and institutional dimensions of this collective agenda has been inadequate, and progress on sustainability aspects has been slow. Implementation is characterised by considerable conflict and even policy failure. Existing institutions for water management have been effectively by-passed in some cases, while new and potentially competing institutions have been created. Further, the mechanisms used to deliver environmental water, and the way systems are managed, leave environmental water highly vulnerable to systemic shocks, especially under climate change scenarios.
Briefing Paper No. 1 both the framing of the issues and the appropriateness of the strategies employed. European research suggests using social learning as a governance mechanism to support adaptive management in wicked situations (SLIM, 2004). The work focused on how the following six variables shaped issues and transformed situations where stakeholders were concerned with sustainable water managing at catchment scale: Starting conditions (historical context) Stakeholding (not just who, but actively building stakes in complex issues) Facilitation (through people or objects) Institutions and policies Ecological constraints (how and by whom ecological knowledge is constructed) Learning processes (how learning happens mediates the transformation of complex situations) One of its key research outcomes was that institutional complexity can constrain social transformation. It does so by affecting the development of stakeholding and the way in which change occurs. The complexity can produce unintended consequences, including policy conflict, inability to translate policies into local action and the breakdown or loss of social and relational capital. In Australia, there is a need to give much greater attention to the practice of governing. The practice of governing can be likened to an orchestra delivering an effective performance sustained over time. This is an arena of water reform that has been paid little regard to-date. In Australia, unlike Europe, social learning has not been explicitly embedded or designed into water policy and governance, and will be critical as a means of investigating multi-pronged approaches that operate beyond a market-preference mode of resource allocation. It is also important to consider the value that should be placed on existing institutions, like the network of 56 regional NRM bodies, and the relational capital established through their operation as the water reforms take shape. The wickedness of the water crisis will only continue to escalate over the coming years as understanding of the predicted impacts of climate change on water resources increases. The time is ripe to re-assess the effectiveness of approaches taken to-date; and in particular to explore and develop adaptive institutional arrangements which create the space and capacity for achieving broad scale and ongoing change, which is systemically desirable and culturally feasible.
Social Learning
The need to move towards sustainable water governance in Australia is urgent and well documented. For water governance to work, institutions need to have the capacity to integrate across values (social, cultural, ecological, economic) and across scales and boundaries (organisational, catchment, communities, global). At the same time, they need to continually adapt to change and emerging priorities. A review on tackling wicked problems by the Australian Public Service (APS) highlights the central importance of governance. It notes the need to work across both internal and external organisational boundaries, and engage citizens and stakeholders in policy-making and implementation. Changing the behaviour of groups of citizens or all citizens is acknowledged as part of the solution. The findings stress that there are no quick fixes and simple solutions, and that more sophisticated tools and responses are needed. The APS review concludes that wicked problems therefore require innovative, comprehensive solutions that can be modified in the light of experience and onthe-ground feedback. This proves challenging to traditional models of governance. Woodhill (2008) comments on the need for institutional transformation in addressing complex public policy problems stressing that institutions cannot necessarily be effectively changed in a neatly planned top-down manner. Complexity and systems thinking has a central role to play in intervening in wicked problem situations in structured yet non-linear ways. Many of the strategies currently employed in addressing the water crisis, like market-based instruments, have significant limitations. The strategies in use are shaped by how issues are framed in the first instance. There is a need to revisit 3
Briefing Paper No. 1 Recognise ethical imperatives such as how to engage stakeholders with little or no voice in decision-making processes Manage initial starting conditions involve key policy makers from the beginning.
A Call for Research Partners & Investors

We invite your feedback on and interest in advancing the agenda put forward in this briefing paper. A prospective program of research spanning a 3-year period is outlined here to stimulate further conversation.
Anticipated Outcomes
Best practice guide on learning by design with case study examples (in plain-English style) A suite of key recommendations for actioning by policy-makers Heuristic devices for stakeholder engagement New concepts and language for communicating across disciplines A national water governance research agenda with significant stakeholding by an enthusiastic community of conversation Greater clarity about the options for (and benefits and costs of) refining water governance and designing social learning into Australias institutional arrangements across scales, boundaries and interests Informed and active communities of practice, and greater inclusivity of the breadth of interests in water governance and water reform processes Governance arrangements more suited to a broader conceptual and aesthetic understanding of water and recognition that the water governance imperative is that of a coupled, coevolutionary socio-ecological system
Aims
To improve understanding about Australias water crisis as a wicked problem that requires specific attention to water governance To reveal the systemic implications of institutional complexity and devise ways to minimise unintended consequences To demonstrate how to design social learning into future governance arrangements To identify the costs and benefits of refining water governance and investing in social learning, and the implications for on-ground outcomes
Key Elements
Develop and test rules of thumb (heuristic devices) for engaging stakeholders in understanding wicked problems Identify the institutional factors that constrain or enhance social learning (e.g. metrics-focus, stakeholder standing) Explore how these institutional factors relate to different framings on governance (e.g. marketbased instruments, rights, share vs. volume, environment as user, critical human needs, sustainability) Conceptualise and cost alternative approaches to or systems for planning and managing catchments that address the identified constraints to social learning Establish minimum conditions (e.g. powers, capacities) for healthy governance at different levels Trial a practice model for designing social learning into institutional arrangements at different scales for sustainable water governance in the context of the future Murray-Darling Basin Plan in action Prepare a best practice guide on learning by design for water policy-makers, including case study examples linking design elements to onground outcomes
Further Information
Naomi Rubenstein, Philip Wallis*, Ray Ison Monash Sustainability Institute Monash University, Phil.Wallis@monash.edu Lee Godden Melbourne Law School The University of Melbourne
Key References
Australian Public Service Commission (2007) Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective. Canberra. Hussey K and Dovers S. (eds) (2007) Managing Water for Australia: The Social and Institutional Challenges. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood Victoria. SLIM (2004) SLIM Framework: Social Learning as a Policy Approach for Sustainable Use of Water (available at http://slim.open.ac.uk). Woodhill J. (2008) How institutions evolve: shaping behaviour. The Broker, 10: 4-8.
Principles for Research Conduct

Be theory-informed, replicable and practicefocused Put in place feedback loops to progressively inform and shape the process of water reform Encourage multiple perspectives arising from different disciplinary areas Support the formation of and co-learning with communities of practice (horizontally and vertically) 4
Water Governance Research Priorities

Introduction
In Australia, there is an urgent need to progress beyond predict and supply approaches to water. Water governance requires approaches that are integrative and responsive to complex, interconnected socio-ecological needs in the context of our regions and cities. This necessitates far greater attention to water governance institutions, organisations and community values and to the processes for multistakeholder collaboration. However, a research strategy for water governance is currently missing from the research agenda on climate change adaptation. This briefing paper represents a collective effort to identify priorities in water governance research. The Water Governance Research Initiative is a theme of the NCCARF Water Resources and Freshwater Biodiversity Adaptation Research Network (www.nccarf.edu.au/water/node/5). Our objectives are to create a community of conversation about water governance in Australia, build collaborative research links, create opportunities for co-researching and information sharing, and provide opportunities for early-career researchers to participate in a national network of researchers and research-users. This, our second briefing paper, reports on the outcomes from two major activities of 2010: an online survey and a national workshop. The online survey was distributed to the network with the aim to: 1) gain a better understanding of the profile of the network in relation to professional backgrounds and current research interests; 2) explore levels of engagement in governance research that is collaborative, particularly where it crosses and challenges disciplinary divides; and 3) explore the critical issues facing water governance research and practice in Australia. 39 people completed the survey. The second major activity was a two-day national workshop held in Canberra, attended by 50 leading water governance researchers and policy practitioners from a range of disciplinary backgrounds. Participatory sessions were used to stimulate dialogue, increase appreciation of different perspectives, foster individual and group selfreflection and identify emerging research issues and 1 opportunities. Based on the outcomes of the workshop and survey we present a summary of the critical research needs for water governance.
1. Developing a common language around water governance

An important issue facing water governance research, policy and practice, is a lack of clarity about the governance landscape, including framings of water governance. Symptomatic of this is poor communication through a lack of common understanding and language. This communication divide is both created by and perpetuates disciplinary divides, and hinders the productive interaction between research, policy development and implementation. It can lead to misunderstandings and to the foreclosure of discussion and debate around narrow framings of water governance. For example, the framing of water issues in a given situation as an engineering problem or an efficiency problem, rather than broadening the parameters of enquiry. There is a need to explore effects of particular discursive framings on both research and policy. Further, there is a need to develop a better understanding of the ethical foundations of dominant water governance approaches. There is also a need to pursue the integration of multiple framings through investing in effective communities of interest, conversation and practice, with attention to the similarities and differences in views. In relation to framing, workshop participants highlighted a need to: Frame water governance as a complex adaptive system in water policy and practice. Investigate different knowledges (interdisciplinary and on-the-ground) and how they can be integrated with each other and with practice. Build multi-disciplinary engagement around water governance (broadly conceived) as a means for interrogating current approaches and facilitating change.
Research priority: developing a shared language in the water governance context, through purposeful interaction between disciplines, investigating the similarities and differences of views and the effects on research and policy arising from different framings of water.
Briefing Paper No. 2 However, despite this desire, respondents claim that support for collaboration is, in reality, limited. Barriers include a lack of dedicated funding, prevailing reward structures, and the dominant culture of many organisations, including universities: Even though the organisation I belong to says it supports collaboration, the project funding model I work [in] does not give me the time or the funding to more actively pursue collaboration. There are still insufficient incentives at institutional level to entice sufficient critical mass of people to engage in interdisciplinary/ transdisciplinary research. This also applies to funding bodies such as ARC and others which do not promote this type of research. Research Priority: develop means of support for collaborative inter- and trans- disciplinary endeavours that genuinely draw on both the physical and social sciences.
2. Greater attention to social research in water governance, and opportunities for inter- and trans- disciplinary engagement.
For those engaged in social and cultural research, there is an expressed frustration at the ongoing dominance of the hard sciences within the water governance framework. There is a need for more opportunities for better coordinated social science research with more purposeful interaction with water managers/ organisations and biophysical science. As one participant explained:
A key issue for me is that although there is growing recognition of the need for more social and cultural knowledge to be applied in water planning and management, there is still a strong core of scientistic fundamentalism, a profound belief in the essential correctness and proper dominance of the scientific rational world view, which makes it easy to dismiss hermeneutic, philosophical, spiritual, narrative and situated knowledges as merely subjective and a waste of time and funding that detracts from 'real action' on water.
Interestingly, survey results indicate that many water governance researchers have moved into social sciences from engineering or physical sciences as they seek to explore sustainability questions from an interdisciplinary and systemic perspective, e.g.:
Originally trained in engineering, then in town planning and then in highway engineering, [I] moved into social sciences / behavioural / administration research because I was interested in how and why decisions were made and what were outcomes needed to explore the social behavioural aspects of engineering systems development.
3. Integration of waters multiple values into the water governance framework

There is a paucity of effective integration of community values and best-practice community engagement in water governance. There is still poor integration of regional priorities and stakeholder values in policy and decision-making. Incorporating different perspectives into goal setting and decisionmaking can reveal common interests, lead to more appropriate solutions and help minimise conflict. Community values, norms, expectations, knowledge, and understandings are dynamic. A better understanding is needed of the means to capture, unpack and comprehend these ever-changing dynamics. More research is required into how to communicate and integrate values into decisionmaking processes at all stages and in ways that are accessible to different stakeholders. Specific areas of concern are the genuine engagement of indigenous people in water governance and the growing mistrust and division between rural and urban areas. Important questions arising in the water governance context include: How do cultures and communities develop particular values and visions for water futures, and how are they shared and communicated? Where, when and how does community engagement need to be used in the governance and planning processes to be effective? How can researchers (a) engage with, and prioritise, complex values systems and (b) transfer values and norms into framing?
The survey results show most researchers have experience in some form of collaborative research (i.e. disciplinary, multi-, inter- and trans- disciplinary), and many are seeking to develop their capabilities in interand trans- disciplinary research (Table 1).
Table 1: Modes of collaborative research in which respondents are seeking to develop their capability.
In which of these areas are you seeking to develop your capability? 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Disciplinary Multi-disciplinary Inter-disciplinary Trans-disciplinary
Water Governance Research Initiative How are water problems framed in relation to concepts of social justice?
5. Environmental water governance

There are a number of important research needs in relation to the governance of environmental flows. Participants expressed concern that in a marketbased system, there is a risk that rules based (higher security) flows can be replaced with tradeable entitlements. Water governance research should explore how co-management and collaboration, together with robust planning frameworks, can improve the effectiveness of environmental flows for both human and ecological needs. This involves understanding community values and expectations of environmental water, preferably through case studies where water allocations have generated social consensus. There is also the need for more research into the measurement of both the ecological and social benefits of those allocations. Additionally, participants emphasised the need for improved systems for reporting access entitlement flows with transparent reporting of all access and extraction. Research Priority: improved understanding of community expectations of environmental water. Exploration of the ways to achieve social consensus and effective co-management of environmental flows.
Research priority: research that can continuously interact with the dynamics of community and stakeholder values around water. Development and application of tools and processes that allows multiple values to inform the framing of water issues, and to draw on these as an integral part of decision-making processes.
4. Multi-level institutional governance

Australia has an extremely complex institutional framework around water, with numerous institutions, laws and plans, often with overlapping roles and responsibilities. The complexity is compounded by the hierarchical structure of local, state and federal responsibilities and laws. This framework has led to ineffective multi-institutional relations characterised by power imbalances and conflicts. Widespread policy failure and implementation deficit reflects the lack of coherence between policy settings and regional needs and capacity. Much greater research attention is needed on effective multi-level institutional governance which fosters communication, coordination and cooperation between agencies. Further analysis of the jurisdictional responsibilities, capacities and conflicts regarding institutional water management is required. This will involve attention to the development of non-adversarial institutional frameworks with improved capacity in problem solving and adaptive management. In particular, there is a need for research into enabling and empowering regional and local agencies in water governance and on-ground implementation. Some important research questions are: What is the most effective way to be framing the issues to encourage practical implementation? How can collaborative multi-level governance in relation to goal setting foster more successful implementation? What is effective management at a regional scale? What is good institutional design? How can we better facilitate autonomous structural adjustment to enable communities to change and flourish?
6. Comparative and case-oriented research

Methodologically, there is a call for more comparative and case-oriented water governance research. There is interest in more focused exploration of lessons from past and present experiences from within Australia and Internationally. Participants suggested that comparative and case-oriented research would be appropriate in the areas of: institutional design and performance; implementation of policy into practice; conditions for effective collaboration between agencies and regions; incentives and enforcement mechanisms; and negotiation and implementation of water agreements and water plans. Research Priority: fund comparative and caseoriented water governance research to utilise the experiences of the past and present, both within Australia and internationally.
7. Water governance in whole-of-system sustainability

Integrative whole-of-system research is required that addresses complexity and uncertainty underlying water issues, especially in the context of climate change. Water governance must be informed by research that looks holistically at the biophysical landscape (e.g. the interaction of ground and surface waters, soil condition, biodiversity) along with social, economic and cultural systems. Integration of water
Research Priority: understand key capacity needs for multi-level institutional water governance at federal, state and local levels, identifying the conditions needed to improve cooperation and coordination, and to overcome barriers to implementation of policy into practice.
Water Governance Research Initiative with climate change and other environmental and sustainability challenges is also required to avoid perverse outcomes and unintended consequences. Research needs to find ways to communicate uncertainty as an inherent attribute of complex science-based issues, both within policy and the wider community. Rather than reacting to crisis situations, a more systemic and adaptive approach is needed to build the capacity of the water governance framework to cope and respond under conditions of uncertainty. How to make adaptive management work across a number of areas of water governance such as environmental flows, water planning, research and knowledge, water policy as part of the reform process still have a long way to go and without the ability to adapt and integrate between these areas much will be lost. In developing integrative governance research, some important questions are: How can dynamics and change be better accounted for in water governance? What is the role of heuristics and messy models of change? How can governance futures and needs be understood? How can the performance of governance be understood and assessed?
Briefing Paper No. 2 now expanded to over 350 members with whom semiregular updates are sent via email. The majority of respondents to the survey (n=39) listed research as the main function(s) of their current role (86%) followed by management and policy (both 15%). The institutions that they are primarily associated with are university/ tertiary (69%) and government (23%). Respondents were asked to list their background qualifications and current research interests. The two most prevalent areas of current research interests are Studies in Human Society and Environmental Sciences. Of the survey respondents, 41% consider themselves early career researchers (i.e. less than 5 years experience, a student or under 35 years). The largest number of responses were from Victorians (see Table 1), which reflects the origins of the network.
Location Percentage of responses
Victoria Queensland Australian Capital Territory New South Wales South Australia Western Australia International
44 18 10 10 5 5 5
Finally, governance research needs to explore forces for behaviour change in respect of expectations and use of water in industry and the community. In the urban sector, sustainability is now embedded in industry discourse, and the translation to meaningful practice is slow that is, I would guess the industry thinks its had big change and is doing sustainability pretty well, and I would argue that its right at the start of a massive transition curve getting that idea embedded is a key thing. Research Priority: whole-of-system sustainability research that: challenges status-quo thinking; embraces complexity and uncertainty; is selfreflective; and can communicate across multiple sectors and industries.
The initiative aims to broaden its reach across Australia and, to this end, has now established a reference group with members from each State and Territory. The purpose of the Reference Group is to ensure the network has national representation and is informed by a spectrum of ideas, disciplinary backgrounds and professional experience. To facilitate these objectives, each representative provides a contact node within their state or territory for water governance researchers identifying potential collaborators and, more generally, building the profile and participation in the network.
Further Information
Profile of the Water Governance Research Initiative Network

Since 2008, the initiative has held three Victorianbased workshops, and one National Workshop in Canberra on water governance research. These events have been attended by more than 100 individual researchers and policy practitioners from a range of disciplinary backgrounds. The network has
Perspectives on Water Governance Research

Introduction
This water briefing paper introduces some of the outcomes of a workshop for early-career researchers (ECRs), held in Melbourne during April 2011. The workshop program was designed to explore governance research from a range of disciplinary perspectives, grounded in participants' own research. We aimed to show the contribution of broad disciplinary traditions to water governance research, to examine how these can be situated in trans-disciplinary research, and create epistemological awareness. The workshop began with an intellectually stimulating role play of research as praxis, led by Professor Ray Ison. This evoked a four-stage journey from birth to research and the choices available along the way. The following figure illustrates the four stages of the journey. a researcher's frame. It was recognised that multiple research traditions exist (e.g. legal, social, ecological), with their own language, concepts and practices. The experience of training in these traditions leads to a particular set of theories in use, methods, and interpretations of reality defined as first-order research. Moving from the third stage to the fourth stage involved a shift from first-order research to second-order research as praxis, which involves explicit choices about research methodology, theoretical frameworks, situation framing and whether to be situated within or outside of a situation.
Perspectives on trans-disciplinary research

Dr Chris Riedy, from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney, gave a presentation on why we need trans-disciplinary research and how to do it. Framing water governance as a wicked problem lends itself to non-disciplinary choices. The distinction between different types of disciplinarity in research was made, summarised in the table below. Table: Types of disciplinarity in research
Type Disciplinarity Multidisciplinarity Features Specialisation in isolation No cooperation Cooperation without coordination Coordination from a higher level concept Between, across and beyond disciplinarity
Theories Situations Methodologies

Theories Methodologies Traditions
Pluridisciplinarity Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity
The first of the four stages examined the circumstances surrounding a newborn person entering a world with established traditions, practices and understandings. At the second stage was a conceptual learner a child who is learning about the world through formal education and their own experiences. Arriving at the third stage was a person who identifies as a researcher and participants examined how traditions of understanding and life experiences shape
Dr Riedy introduced trans-disciplinary research as transcending the boundaries of traditional research disciplines, both epistemological and fact/value (Carew and Wickson 2010). To some degree this analysis also implies that the boundaries between different ways of creating knowledge are artificial. A set of criteria for quality trans-disciplinary research was given, based on Mitchell and Willetts (2009). These included: (1) original and creative contribution to knowledge and/or practice; (2) critically aware and coherent argument; (3) Critical, pluralistic engagement with appropriate literature, artefacts, the research 1
Water Governance Research Initiative context and multiple stakeholder perspectives within it; (4) evidence of critical reflection/reflexivity on own work; (5) alignment between epistemology, theory, methodology, claims and enquiry space; (6) mastery of process and/or outcomes; and (7) effective communication for diverse audiences. A distinction between a system-determined problem and a problem-determined system captured the essence of the differences between disciplinary and trans-disciplinary research respectively. However, this was not to say that one mode of research is better than another. Rather, each of the modes listed in the table are appropriate in different contexts and that trans-disciplinarity could be used in scoping, contextualising and disseminating disciplinary outcomes.
Briefing Paper No. 3 markets have a limited role; ethics and equity are more important than efficiency; precautionary principle is important as we are faced with uncertainty in environmental interactions; production needs to be linked to what is ecologically possible; unpriced resources need to be considered as much as priced ones; everything is ultimately generated from energy from the sun; models must be multidisciplinary and systems based.
Australias natural resources management

Mr. Jason Alexandra, from the Murray Darling Basin Authority, examined Australian NRM through the evolution of ideas, culture, values and practices that have been influential since European colonisation. He spoke of some of the ecological and cultural consequences of these approaches and argued for a rethinking of landscape policy, governance and management which embraces innovation of ideas and production systems, adaptive capacity, diversity and shared learning. He described landscapes as complex co-evolved systems based on long-term complex negotiations between culture and nature. Culture and landscapes influence each other and people are constantly making the landscapes of the future in the vision of their ideal. Historically, the vision of Australia as a coloniser country was of landscapes that can be transformed to productive agriculture, and Australias culture, economy and agricultural practices were based on this vision of control over nature. We now seek alternative visions of our landscapes and the realities of their Australianness i.e. the vulnerability of ecosystems, predilection to drought, flood and fire. That is, biodiversity challenges and ecosystems in need of care, not exploitation. Over the last twenty years in particular, culture, stories, values and visions have started to change. Additionally, the climatic conditions have changed creating greater complexity and undermining the notion of stationarity we can not reliably predict and plan for future climatic events based on past events. There is increasing uncertainty. Therefore, he argued for the need to invest in new approaches to managing natural resources through developing scientific capacity and researching key questions about dynamic non-steady state systems - e.g. critical questions about thresholds and tipping points. In particular, there is a value in re-thinking Australias landscapes as a conservation and cultural economy, building on new approaches, multi-culturalism, multi-functionality and the redefinition of indicators and progress. Further reading: Alexandra and Riddington (2007).
Environmental economics research

Dr Caroline Sullivan, from the School of Environmental Science and Management, Southern Cross University, presented her perspective on water governance, climate adaptation and economics. A defining image from her presentation was that nowhere on Earth can you find an economy this being a system of exchange between humans for factors of production that originate in the environment. As Earth is a finite system, these factors of production are limited and scarce. In this context, economics is the study of how humans allocate scarce resources to meet their needs and wants. Dr Sullivan contrasted the lack of ethical concerns in mainstream neoclassical economics with the need for ethics to underpin human decisions if we are to have a sustainable future. The differences between neoclassical (environmental) economics and ecological economics were further highlighted as follows. Environmental Economics is the neoclassical approach to including the environment in economic systems: the economy is the core system. Key elements include: everything driven by the market mechanism; market assumed to be efficient, and efficiency is the main objective; maximising profit and market share are key objectives of producers; welfare is assumed to be gained through ever increasing economic growth; no attempt is made to link what can be achieved with what is ecologically possible; non-marketed resources tend to be ignored; the finite characteristics of natural resources are not considered; models are based on economic principles combined with statistics (econometrics). Ecological Economics is a more recent approach to economics which recognises that the environment is the core system supporting an economy. Key elements include: Earth is seen as a whole system; 2
Briefing Paper No. 3 and the assumptions and dominance of certain values and knowledges. Governance can greatly determine the extent of equity in water distribution. Water equity concerns how much water people have access to for basic needs or livelihoods, and the ease and security of that access. The issue of access to safe and reliable water and sanitation continues to be a major global health issue, which impacts disproportionately on the worlds poor and women. A rise in influence of market mechanisms, private sector participation and privatisation in the water sector has raised concerns regarding the potential retreat of public institutions. There needs to be a more nuanced appreciation of the role of power in water matters. Users of water with little political power, including the environment have the potential to be negatively impacted upon. There are a range of ways that individuals, groups (communities, sectors, regions) or ecosystems can be vulnerable in relation to water, although there are often multiple stresses operating simultaneously. Dr Miller described the ways in which society can be vulnerable, including to: environmental risks and hazards (pollution, floods, water scarcity, storms, sea surges); economic risks (changes in market relations and access, removal of subsidies or tariffs, price fluctuations); and social risks (conflict, disease, political upheavals, unemployment, discrimination). Vulnerability can be reduced through the governance choices we make in terms of institutional arrangements, the distribution of costs and benefits and through developing coping strategies and resilience. She questioned how well we are currently prepared to cope with climate change in terms of the variability and increased competition over the resource.She identified an important missing link between studies on the impacts of climate change on water, and how associated society-water relations influence social vulnerability.
Where does law and regulation fit in?

Professor Lee Godden, from the Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, took workshop participants through a five year law degree in 90 minutes. Professor Godden explored the different ways that law is defined and conceptualised, placing these on a scale from law as norm to law as authority. The first, which is the favoured position of natural law theorists, sees a connection between law and a natural moral order, with a deity or community norms as the top of the moral order. The second, also called positive law (or positivism), takes authority from human structures, such as elected parliaments. Participants engaged in group discussion on how law applies to their work in water governance, and were asked to consider whether it is through (i) law as rules, (ii) law as norms, (iii) law as accepted practice, (iv) law as authorised exercise of power, or (v) behaviour change (and whether that is law). Professor Godden introduced a distinction between formal law and governance, the latter being the administrative and bureaucratic process that is not law, but may institutionalise law. On regulation, the shift towards collaborative governance and economic rationalism are placing less emphasis on a centralised role of the state in governing environmental issues - also understood as governing at a distance (Godden and Peel 2010). Participants were brought to understand that in the water sector, regulation is expressed through a spectrum of regulatory models, including market-mechanisms, corporatisation, benchmarking, and hybrid models of self-regulation and government audit. Towards the end of this workshop session Ms Jude Wallace, also from The University of Melbourne, added her thoughts on new forms of blended regulatory models, based on a catchment-based research project in Victoria.
Water governance and social disadvantage

Dr Fiona Miller, from The University of Melbourne, presented on water governance and social disadvantage, with particular emphasis on issues of equity and social vulnerability. She sees water governance as the arena where struggles over the meaning, control and use of water can be negotiated and potentially resolved. There are generic concepts of good governance, such as equity, effectiveness, sustainability, integration, stakeholder involvement. However, governance should, importantly, be contextspecific and informed by particular ecological, political, social, cultural needs. Developed in a context specific way, there is more likely to be recognition of diversity 3
Water governance and philosophy

Associate Professor Adrian Walsh, University of New England, began his presentation on philosophy by asking participants to consider questions about their own research in terms of methodological and normative problems and assumptions. He asked how ECRs would approach a non-empirical problem in their research. From this point the discussion turned to how philosophy, which has been largely absent in many water governance debates, has a role to play in questions of water distribution decisions, particularly as they relate to distributive justice and equity. The issue of justice arises as a natural consequence of
Water Governance Research Initiative scarcity, where humans have to make decisions about how those resources are distributed. These debates, and claims of fairness (and unfairness) in allocation, are not issues that can be solved, but a process which society must continually make decisions about; however, they often only emerge in times of crisis. Markets are one procedural mechanism that may bypass questions of normativity and assumptions because they are not directly governed by issues of value or justice. However there are underlying values in the justification for markets (e.g. utilitarianism) and other rules in place to guide the use of markets, such as sustainable diversion limits. The next part of the presentation turned to the question of virtue, and how different systems of water distribution either assume that society is virtue rich or virtue parsimonious. For example, a stewardship system assumes that there is a good supply of virtue amongst users, whereas a market mechanism facilitates distribution where there is little assumed virtue, hence it relies on individual self-interest. Associate Professor Walsh offered three reasons why water, as a distributive good, has not been a subject of explicit philosophical theories. First, water is a good that is utilised in a number of different ways, some not obvious (e.g. interception activities); second, the issue of natural injustice and social injustice can be somewhat blurred in relation to water and; third it is a good that can easily change from a benefit to a burden.
Briefing Paper No. 3 ontologies, or seeing systems as real-world entities. These different approaches have implications for framing water governance research as either situations (e.g. soft approaches, usually seen in the social sciences) or as real-world systems (e.g. hard approaches, commonly seen in ecology or engineering). On the topic of systems practice, Professor Ison talked about five constraining settings characterising water governance: (1) the pervasive target mentality, (2) living in a projectified world, (3) failure to appropriately frame situations, (4) an apartheid of the emotions, and (5) institutional complexity. Closing his presentation, Professor Ison put forward the idea of an ethics of practice - fostering the circumstances for epistemological awareness and researcher responsibility.
Summary
Revisiting the idea of research as praxis described at the start of this paper, early career researchers in water governance often arrive at research, through a variety of disciplinary traditions, in a first-order manner. To move from first-order to the more epistemologically-aware second-order research is a choice to be informed by and explicitly wield theoretical and methodological frameworks, from disciplinary or cross-disciplinary traditions, and to engage in research situations. Researching in this way opens up a wealth of new understandings and practices, and has the potential to foster a generational transformation in water governance research and practice.
A systems research perspective

Across two presentations, Professor Ray Ison introduced different ways of framing water governance research and his perspective on systems research. Framing is a key governance issue because of its influence on initial starting conditions and pathway dependencies. Failure to frame appropriately limits choices and thus innovation. Some key framings for water governance research were introduced. Firstly, the distinction of naming water governing situations as wicked problems opens up conversation about charting a course through the situation, rather than trying to reach an end-point or solution. Systemic and adaptive governance, based on the cybernetic concept of responding to feedback, was considered as a key framing of adaptation in wicked situations. Other important framings were water sensitive cities, agro-ecosystems or socio-ecological systems. The word system was described as bringing forth a duality of both systemic and systematic elements. What is commonly understood as systems thinking was instead introduced as a historical set of systems approaches situated on a scale of systems as epistemologies, or ways of knowing, to systems as 4
Further Information
References
Alexandra, J. and Riddington, C. (2007) 'Redreaming the rural landscape', Futures, 39: 324-339. Carew, A.L. and Wickson, F. (2010) The TD Wheel: A heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research, Futures, 42: 1146-1155. Godden, L. and Peel J. (2010) Environmental Law: Scientific, Policy And Regulatory Dimensions. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Mitchell, C. and Willetts, J. (2009). Quality criteria for inter- and trans-disciplinary doctoral research outcomes. University of Technology, Sydney. Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. SUNY Press.
Water Governance Research for Transformation

Water Governance and Water Reform
This paper argues that there is a need for an ongoing and dedicated strategy to support further research on water governance in Australia. It is the fourth in a series of water governance policy briefs developed by the Water Governance Research Initiative, which was funded by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF). The policy briefs have drawn on the collective input of a network of over 350 researchers and their participation in a series of workshops run from 2009-2011. This Briefing Paper sets out ideas for new directions for both water governance and water governance research in Australia. In framing this paper a distinction is made between reform doing what is already being done more efficiently, and transformation - rigorously scrutinising what is being done in terms of effectiveness, efficacy and equity to put forward appropriate platforms to initiate change. It is clear that there are numerous and acute challenges at hand to sustainably manage Australias water resources. Moreover, many of these challenges are intensified as Australia is at once highly urbanised along its coastal fringes but also heavily dependent on rural and resource industries. Possibly the most fundamental issue for our water resources is achieving sustainable levels of extraction (including groundwater) that support the competing demands of growing urban populations, supporting rural communities and industries, the development and expansion of new and existing industries while also meeting critical ecological objectives. The complexity of these demands has meant that despite almost 20 years of water reform in Australia, as the National Water Commissions Third Biennial Assessment has noted, many water resources are still not being managed sustainably (NWC, 2011,6). Many ecosystems and constituent communities are experiencing ongoing stress and decline from severe restrictions in river inflows or struggling to recover from severe flooding after long periods of drought. Although extraction levels are core to water managing, many social, cultural and biophysical aspects are in need of urgent research and policy attention, including: water quality, the interaction between ground and surface water, transitioning to 1 water sensitive cities, an examination of social equity and distributional justice dimensions of water management, as well as exploration of system dynamics and resilience, landscape and environmental values, water accounting and monitoring and conservation of freshwater ecosystems (Alexandra and Riddington, 2007; Miller et al., 2010; Ross and Martinez-Santos, 2010). The NWCs Third Biennial Assessment of the NWI highlighted 12 key themes for areas of improvement. Among these are a renewed commitment to the water reform process, with a strengthening of community involvement in water planning and management, improved coordination between water and natural resource management and a more effective approach to climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Transforming Water Governance

A rethinking of governance is needed to address complex water challenges in ways that do not try to tame problems into conventional management systems. In the transformation of governance there is a need to better articulate standards or principles of good water governance. These may include, for example: having clear objectives; transparent processes for acknowledging scientific findings and stakeholder/community interests; linkages with other related policy domains; and accountability for results. Institutional change must occur through processes of innovation that take place at multiple levels and through various pathways. Those responsible for developing, or maintaining water governance institutions need to find new ways of thinking about and working with complexity which allow for trial and error and experimentation; and for ongoing feedback, monitoring and evaluation of how such processes are performing to facilitate possible adjustment. Systems thinking, together with the use of collaborative and deliberative processes, has a central role to play in this process. Currently, there is little attention paid to new methods of governance in Australia, and the sets of skills needed to undertake these processes are poorly understood and underutilised (Ison et al., 2011). This Briefing Paper thus sets out new paradigms for practice.
Briefing Paper No. 4 multi-institutional governance (Daniell et al., 2010). To a large extent the complex institutional framework around water, which is plagued by ambiguous roles and responsibilities, conflicts and power struggles, is a consequence of the historical development of the sector and the difficulties of water resource management in a federal system. Until relatively recently, the states largely developed their water management and entitlement systems autonomously with little interaction with what was occurring in neighbouring jurisdictions and irrespective of the various hydrological and ecological conditions (Connell, 2011). Although the NWI water reform process that culminated in the Water Act 2007 has attempted to create a more cohesive governance structure across Australian jurisdictions, it is argued that there remains a need for a more robust, yet responsive legal framework to effectively implement the ongoing reforms and to increase accountability, compliance and monitoring (Pittock et al., 2010). International environmental law provides principles in key International instruments to sustainably govern water (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity). These principles, reflected in the Water Act 2007, offer a framework for a conversation around how best to govern water in a federal jurisdiction; whilst recognising state needs and the important role of local and regional governance institutions, such as catchment management authorities. Decision-making around water in a federal jurisdiction is always likely to be highly contested but a robust federal legal structure that reflects core guiding principles for decision-making across and between jurisdictions is an important touchstone. Further, to improve multi-level governance there is a need to address the capacity of regional and local agencies in on-ground implementation of water managing particularly where funding constraints are likely to become more acute in the near future. More widely, a coherent examination of the extent to which various regulatory instruments and institutional models have particular systemic implications for water requires examination. In particular, how do decisions in respect of water interact with other cognate natural resource management contexts. Policy integration is another area under the theme of integration that is attracting increasing attention, particularly in the areas of water, climate change and energy. There is currently no national policy platform that directly links the decision-making in these sectors even though they have a range of critical inter-dependencies (Pittock, 2011; NWC, 2011). These interdependencies are revealed where a number of policies for climate change mitigation and 2
Rethinking Water Governance: new paradigms for practice

Framing A useful starting point for opening discussion about the transformation of water governance is to consider how particular situations, issues or notions around governance themselves are framed. Framing has a critical influence on the starting conditions for any policy, project or decision-making process, and the manner in which an issue is framed can widen or constrain the consideration of alternatives. However, a common failure of governance is a lack of self-reflection or deliberation into understanding how an existing situation came into effect. The failure to adequately consider framing is one factor contributing to the maintenance of conventional paradigms in many situations that leads to continuation of hard-path, inflexible and engineered water investment decisions that focus on policies aimed at regulatory and efficiency outputs (Brown et al., 2011). These decisions and policy platforms have a continued cognitive and normative influence within many organisations and institutions that limit the possibility for innovation and change. In an era of climate change the framing of water managing situations becomes critical due to increased pressure on natural and social systems and the unreliability of previous assumptions about water availability. Integrated Governance An integrated approach to water governance is a key theme in the literature which is used to describe attempts to coordinate and establish links in organisational, institutional, and policy areas, as well as considering the interlinking social, economic and biophysical systems that interact with water. The objective of integration reflects the wicked nature of water challenges, that is, situations characterised by uncertainty, complexity and multiple perspectives that are multi-causal and are interconnected with other issues (Head 2008). The establishment of Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) and Integrated Natural Resource Management have been important conceptual and managerial innovations in the water governance domain. These concepts remain valuable, but to date there has been ad hoc incorporation of these principles into effective governance arrangements, notwithstanding the major contribution of entities, such as Catchment Management Authorities. In practice, the current situation in Australia is still a long way from effectively integrated water governance on a number of fronts. Because water issues run across jurisdictional boundaries an important area of water reform that needs urgent attention is that of multi-level and
Water Governance Research Initiative adaptation in the energy and water sectors may also create negative consequences for the intersecting areas. Such inadvertent consequences can be classed as maladaptive (Barnett and ONeill, 2009). There needs to be a more comprehensive system of laws and rules for water use that includes overland forestry, mining, stock and domestic use, farm dams and aquifer storage and recovery. Water governance institutions and practice Key questions for refreshing reform machinery (NWC, 2011, 16) from a governance perspective can be drawn from the research outcomes and activities of network members. These diverse challenges will require us to reflect on how we can move towards governance institutions that can challenge status quo thinking, and which embrace complexity and uncertainty yet still integrate and communicate across multiple sectors and industries. How can we set up devolved management that also works at a broad scale? The institutional conflicts that have, at times, characterised the water reform process highlight the critical need for multilevel and flexible governance arrangements that are responsive in real time frames and which are not tied to relic biophysical and social patterns (Bellamy, 2002; Head, 2008). Achieving innovative institutional design requires a variety of modes of contextually situated processes of individual, social and organisational engagement, learning and cultural change. Trust between agencies and local people require positive and imaginative approaches from all sides through multi-layer planning, forums, processes and modes of engagement. As a priority, research and education is needed on: a) best practice flexible governance for NRM planning, especially how to involve local people and b) how to build good relationships between agencies and stakeholders, specifically how to develop people skilled in the art of leadership and facilitation. The concept of language barriers needs to be extended to "within English", situations where cultural and historical differences can produce a language/conceptual barrier. Knowledge brokers and mediation can be instrumental for helping to negotiate collaborative processes. In this vein, social learning offers a complementary governance mechanism to more traditional regulation, fiscal measures and information provision and a process of systemic change and transformation undergone by stakeholders in complex situations (Ison et al., 2011). Collins and Ison (2009) describe social learning as: The convergence of goals, criteria and knowledge leading to the awareness of mutual expectations and the building of relational capital amongst stakeholders (a dynamic form of capital that 3
Briefing Paper No. 4 integrates the other forms, i.e. artificial, natural, social and human); The process of co-creation of knowledge, which provides insight into the means required to transform a situation; and The change of behaviours and actions resulting from understanding something through action (knowing).
Investment in social learning, and other alternative and /or complementary governance mechanisms (see e.g. Dovers, 2010), offers a potential means for developing adaptive institutions with more coherent community engagement in water governance. Given the acknowledged limitations of conventional management paradigms, the challenge is to successfully demonstrate the capacity of social learning to initiate governance reforms (Allan and Wilson, 2009). There is much to be learned about the dynamics of communities and learning processes so it is imperative to persevere with experimentation into the processes of social learning through greater investment in comparative and case-oriented research. This will require leadership from those charged with maturing the water reform agenda (NWC, 2007, 7) in concert with a collaborative and multidisciplinary research community.
Securing a research future

Water governance research is a diverse field and it is approached from many disciplinary perspectives, with different traditions, methodologies and frameworks. The network of researchers that have participated in this Initiative at times have expressed frustration at the difficulties in communication that are both created by, and perpetuate, the disciplinary divide. One of the objectives of the community of conversation is to open the way for cross-disciplinary communication, reflective awareness, mutual learning and understanding in order to reduce the sense of disciplinary impasse. Although many water governance researchers have experimented with and engaged in different types of cross-disciplinary research in Australia, they have reported many institutional, intellectual and cultural barriers. Funding and support for cross-disciplinary research, although often touted as a priority is not readily available or adequately supported in practice. Moving to second order research as praxis involves explicit choices about research methodology, theoretical frameworks, situation framing and whether to be situated within or outside of a situation (Mitchell, 2009; Ison et al. 2011). To effectively engage in this research translation is time consuming and often it does not attract the scholarly rewards that attach to more discrete disciplinary endeavours.
Water Governance Research Initiative Researchers at the early stages of their career may be well placed intellectually to start to engage with cross-disciplinary approaches because they may not be as embedded in a particular disciplinary tradition. However, reports from early career researchers (ECRs) that have participated in the Initiative have shown that they still face many institutional barriers and lack opportunities to engage with a wide-range of researchers and perspectives. More support is needed for ECRs in moving to second-order research as a way to open up new understandings and to foster generational transformation in water governance research and practice. Another key objective of the Water Governance Research Initiative is to help bridge the gap between research, policy and practice. The series of workshops that have been run through the initiative has been one strategy to bring together people with various backgrounds and interests for discussion. Members of the Water Governance Research Initiative network have suggested that there needs to be better understanding about the strategy behind research, including why it is important, what the product and audience is and how it can be brought together for effective delivery. Some recommended actions for furthering links between researchers, policy and practice include: Sponsoring internships in government for researchers and post graduates Sponsoring foreign research for policy lessons Linking up with professional organisations to understand and develop knowledge brokering Developing standards for data and research storage, with better public access to information
References
Alexandra, J., Riddington, C., 2007. Redreaming the rural landscape. Futures 39, 324339. Allan, C., Wilson, B.P., 2009. Meeting in the middle desirable but not easy. Environmental Policy and Governance 19, 388399. Barnett, J., ONeill, S., 2010. Maladaptation. Global Environ Change 20, 211213. Bellamy, J., Ross, H., Ewing, S., Meppem, T. 2002. Integrated Catchment Management: Learning From the Australian Experience for the Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO, Brisbane, 236 pp. Brown, R., Ashley, R., Farrelly, M., 2011. Political and Professional Agency Entrapment: An Agenda for Urban Water Research. Water Resour Manage 25, 40374050. Collins, K., Ison, R., 2009. Jumping off Arnsteins ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance 19, 358373. Connell, D., 2011. Water Reform and the Federal System in the Murray-Darling Basin. Water Resour Manage 25, 39934003. Daniell, K., Mez Costa, M., Ferrand, N., Kingsborough, A., Coad, P., Ribarova, I., 2011. Aiding multi-level decision-making processes for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Regional Environmental Change 11, 243258. Dovers, S.R., Hezri, A.A., 2010. Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends of adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1, 212231. Head, B., 2008. Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Public Policy 3, 101118. Ison, R., Collins, K., Colvin, J., Jiggins, J., Roggero, P.P., Seddaiu, G., Steyaert, P., Toderi, M., Zanolla, C., 2011. Sustainable Catchment Managing in a Climate Changing World. Water Resour Manage 25, 39773992. Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., Walker, B., Birkmann, J., van der Leeuw, S., Rockstrm, J., others, 2010. Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts. Ecology and Society 15, 11. Mitchell, C.A., (ed.) 2009. Quality in Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Postgraduate Research and its Supervision: Ideas for Good Practice. Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS, Sydney. NWC (2011) The National Water Initiative - securing Australia's water future: 2011. National Water Commission, Canberra. Pittock, J., Finlayson, M., Gardner, A., McKay, C., 2010. Changing character: The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and climate change in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 27, 401425. Pittock, J., 2011. National climate change policies and sustainable water management: Conflicts and synergies. Ecol & Society 16, 25. Reed, M., Evely, A.C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I.R.A., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C., Stringer, L., 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15, r1. Ross, A., Martinez-Santos, P., 2010. The challenge of groundwater governance: case studies from Spain and Australia. Regional Environmental Change 10, 299310.
Conventional paradigms continue to dominate the water governance landscape, leading to practices in research, policy and implementation that are limited in their capacity to tackle the dimensions of the water governance reform agenda that has been scoped out in the NWC's Third Biennial Assessment Report. On the other hand, the initiative has also shown that there is a research and policy community in Australia that is vitally interested in engaging together in a community of conversation and active participation to experiment with cross-disciplinary research programs that can provide a workable platform for addressing emergent water governance concerns. Indeed, there will remain a need for continued support for collaborative endeavours which can promote innovative thinking, experimentation and mutual learning in re-thinking water governance in Australia.
Further Information
Naomi Rubenstein, Philip Wallis*, Ray Ison Monash Sustainability Institute Monash University Phil.Wallis@monash.edu Lee Godden Melbourne Law School The University of Melbourne
Water Governance Research Initiative: 2010-2012

Overview
The Water Governance Research Initiative is a theme of the NCCARF Water Resources and Freshwater Biodiversity Adaptation Research Network (www.nccarf.edu.au/water/node/5). Our objectives are to create a community of conversation about water governance in Australia, build collaborative research links, create opportunities for co-researching and information sharing, and provide opportunities for early-career researchers to participate in a national network of researchers and research-users. The Initiative takes a broad view on water governance, as all of the formal and informal institutional, organisational and community practices involved in managing and making decisions about water. The Initiative seeks to contribute to the development of a broad-based water governance community out of which innovative research and policy practices emerge. These new practices are urgently needed to enhance the adaptive capacity of Australian water governance systems in response to the complexities brought about by climate change. This document provides a summary of the core activities and outcomes of the Initiative from 2010-2012. Major achievements include the development of an extensive network of water governance researchers and research-users, the establishment of a National Researcher Reference Group, four workshops, two online surveys of the Australian water governance research community, support for an early-career researcher community of practice, the production of five Briefing Papers, conference presentations, and the publication of two special journal issues in Water Resources Management and The Journal of Water Law. While the core funding from NCCARF to support the Initiative concluded at the end of 2011, it will continue to operate in a limited capacity until further funding is available for renewed activity. and have made contact with us through the website. Updates, publications and notifications are sent to the network on a semi-regular basis. The majority of network members are primarily involved in research and come from a wide variety of disciplinary backgrounds. There are also many members from the government policy, industry and NGO sectors. More than forty members of the network have directly contributed to our activities as workshop presenters and as members of our National Researcher Reference Group. Collectively, our events have attracted over 150 water governance researchers and practitioners from across Australia.
National Researcher Reference Group

A National Researcher Reference Group was established to help build the network and to ensure the network has national representation. The group was formed to ensure it is informed by a spectrum of ideas, disciplinary backgrounds and professional experience. One representative from each State and Territory was invited to join the group based on their particular expertise in water governance. The members act as a contact point for others in their State or Territory that are interested in joining the network, assisting the development of network activities and informally promoting the network in their region.
Workshops
The Initiative was formally developed following a series of preliminary scoping workshops with researchers from Victoria in 2008 and 2009. These established interest in conversations about water governance and a Systemic Governance Research Program documented in Briefing Paper 1. The Initiative subsequently hosted four national participatory workshops, held throughout 2010-11. (i) National Workshop: November 2010 A two-day national workshop was held in Canberra in November 2010 to launch the Initiative. Over 50 researchers and policy practitioners from across Australia attended the workshop. The aim was to identify, as a group, the main themes and research priorities in water governance from across different disciplinary perspectives and geographical locations. 1
The Water Governance Network

At the heart of the Water Governance Research Initiative is a network of approximately 350 members. From a small group of water governance researchers, the network database has grown over the life of the Initiative as more people have attended workshops
Water Governance Research Initiative To achieve this a series of presentations was combined with participatory sessions. In these sessions, participants were asked to identify emergent water governance issues and research needs and to record what they saw as research priorities, both in groups and individually. The outcomes of these discussions formed the basis for Briefing Paper Two Water Governance Research Priorities. The research priorities were identified as: Developing a common language around water governance Greater attention to social research in water governance, and opportunities for inter- and trans disciplinary engagement Integration of waters multiple values into the water governance framework Multi-level institutional governance Environmental water governance Comparative and case-oriented research Water governance in whole-of-system sustainability
Briefing Paper No. 5 emphasis of the workshop was to get early-career researchers to begin to see themselves in terms of their personal history as a researcher, reflect on the intellectual and methodological territory they have encountered, and think critically about the big issues, concepts, methods and framings of water governance in their area of research. A summary of the main themes and concepts from the workshop are published in Briefing Paper Three Perspectives on Water Governance Research. (iii) Theories for Practice Workshop: April 2011 In conjunction with the Early Career Researcher Workshop, a one-day workshop was held for water governance researchers and policy practitioners, from government, NGOs and private practice. The aim of this day was to explore the value of critical theory for future water governance research and practice, explore opportunities for framing to do water governance differently, and considering the value of diverse approaches. Presentations were made on different theoretical approaches to water governance in the context of climate change adaptation, including the topics of maladaptation, transitions theory, landscape sociology, socio-ecological systems and frameworks of power. (iv) National Workshop: November 2011 This event was held over two-days with related but distinct themes and objectives on each day. The first day "On-going Water Governance Reforms - what directions?" was set against the backdrop of the National Water Commission's Third Biennial Assessment Report (www.nwc.gov.au). The day featured presentations and conversations around key themes of the report, including presentations by the National Water Commission and water governance researchers. An international perspective on water reform was presented via video-link with Canadian guest speaker Professor Rob de Lo. The second day Securing a Water Governance Research Future was aimed at re-thinking and re-framing water governance and developing a policy brief based on recommendations into the NWC report and review. The day featured panel presentations and discussions by network members on the themes of governing connectivity, learning from international experience, preparing and supporting early career researchers and securing a water governance research future.
Workshop participants 'stretching their wings'

(ii) Early-career Researcher Workshop: April 2011 A two-day workshop intended to support those in the early stages of their research career was held in Melbourne in April 2011. The workshop program was designed to explore governance research from a range of disciplinary perspectives, grounded in the participants own research. The aim was to show the contribution of broad disciplinary traditions to water governance research, to examine how these can be situated in trans-disciplinary research, and to create epistemological awareness. Senior researchers presented from the perspectives of trans-disciplinary research, environmental economics, natural resource management, social disadvantage, philosophy and systems research. The 2
Papers and Publications

(i) Briefing Paper Series Four briefing papers have been produced in conjunction with other network activities, including workshops and the online survey. As such, they draw on the ideas and input from a broad range of contributors and therefore reflect important themes
Water Governance Research Initiative that have emerged from the network. As a set of papers, they provide a summary of issues of importance to the Australian water governance research community. Briefing Paper One Strengthening Water Governance in Australia Briefing Paper Two Water Governance Research Priorities Briefing Paper Three Perspectives on Water Governance Research Briefing Paper Four Rethinking Water Governance in Australia: research for transformation
Briefing Paper No. 5 (iv) Early Career Researcher Article "Tapping Fresh Currents: Exploring the practical challenges and opportunities associated with engaging in transdisciplinary approaches to water governance research" Following the Early Career Researcher workshop, seven participants have collaborated to write a journal article which explores their pathways to water governance research and the challenges of engaging with the multiple perspectives and understandings that inform water governance. The article has been completed in 2012, and has been submitted to a refereed journal for publication.
Network Surveys
An initial online survey was distributed to the network in November, 2011 with the aim to: 1) gain a better understanding of the profile of the network in relation to professional backgrounds and current research interests; 2) explore levels of engagement in governance research that is collaborative, particularly where it crosses and challenges disciplinary divides; and 3) explore the critical issues facing water governance research and practice in Australia. The survey was completed by 39 WGRI network members. Most of the survey respondents (85%) were primarily involved in research, followed by equal numbers in policy and management (15%) with seventy percent primarily associated with the University/Tertiary Sector. The most prevalent areas in which respondents have background qualifications (in order) are Environmental Sciences, Engineering, Studies in Human Society, and Law and Legal Studies. For areas of current research interest, the most common areas were Studies in Human Society, followed by Environmental Sciences, and Law and Legal Studies. Most researchers had experience in some form of collaborative research (i.e. disciplinary, multi-, inter- and trans- disciplinary), and many were seeking to develop their capabilities in inter- and trans- disciplinary research. Overall, most WGRI participants see Australian water governance systems as responding to the complex challenges of sustainability as moderately well to not well - suggesting there is scope for significant improvement. The highest ranked issues for water governance in Australia are; improving the institutional capacity for implementing water governance reforms, the inclusion of scientific information in policy making and implementation, and improving the capacity for climate change adaptation. A second online survey was conducted (May-June 2012) to evaluate the activities of the Initiative over the past two years and to document any potential impacts the Initiative may have had. While the 3
(ii) Special Issue of Water Resources Management The special issue of Water Resources Management was edited by Prof. Ray Ison, Prof. Lee Godden and Dr. Philip Wallis, with contributions from members of the network. The special issue explores real world 'experiments' in water governance, in the face of the emerging challenges that climate change is bringing to socio-ecological systems related to water. Systemic and adaptive effectiveness is referred to as the ability to navigate these complex challenges, which, it is shown, requires new mental models, innovation and practices. The Special Issue provides new understandings of water resources management as theoretical and practical offerings for embarking on a new trajectory in water governance. The papers offer predominantly Australian experiences, from a more social and trans-disciplinary perspective than has traditionally been the case in reporting on Australia's water governance developments. (iii) Special Issue Law Journal This special issue entitled Institutional Transitions and Water Law Governance was edited by Lee Godden and features contributions by network participants, particularly early-career researchers. The special issue appears in Volume 22 Issue 2/3 of The Journal of Water Law.
Water Governance Research Initiative response rate was very low (9 responses), the response quality provides some indication of the overall efficacy of the WGRI. The WGRI was largely considered as effective to very effective in achieving its stated objectives. The key issue or idea that participants thought the WGRI addressed related to engaging with systemic and multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches to water governance research; an approach that adopts the notion of complex systems thinking. The most useful aspect of the WGRI was the networking opportunities made available through the various WGRI activities. The WGRI as a useful networking space was expressed in a variety of ways: connecting with researchers and students from across Australia, bringing together senior policy makers, academics and other actors in water governance and [a] platform for collaboration between researchers who may not have otherwise met. The WGRI clearly had a significant impact on those who responded to the evaluation survey. Reflecting on their direct and indirect experience with the WGRI since 2009, participants indicated that it has contributed to an appreciation of seeing water governance research as a system involving a range of state and non-state actor networks offering different ways of framing water governance issues and research. The Initiative was also a trigger for two respondents to become involved in interdisciplinary research networks i.e. Early Career Research Networking group (including a co-authored journal paper and an active Blog) and the National Groundwater Centre for Research and Training (involving disciplines from hydrology, hydrogeology, law, political science and governance). As an overarching and concluding question concerning what opportunities are there for strengthening the position of future water governance research in Australia, WGRI participants indicated that they would like to see the Initiative and similar programs to receive ongoing support for greater research collaboration amongst the biophysical sciences and different levels of professional responsibility; i.e. water governance practitioners, particularly those managers who are willing to innovate this is to essentially fill the network gaps respondent identified. Closing comments given by survey participants and in personal communications were very encouraging and included: This was a great initiative. Keep it up! I would like to congratulate you for everything; presentations, mapping sections and also the way the workshop was conducted. Especially for me, an early career researcher that [has] just arrived in Australia, it 4
Briefing Paper No. 5 was of extreme importance to be part of the discussion regarding water governance and Australian water reform. This experience of being a particular part of a community, and of what Wenger calls a trajectory into a community of practice, develops my identity as a researcher as much as knowledge and skills for research.
Submissions and Consultations

The Water Governance Research Initiative has made two submissions to Public Inquiries: 1. Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Regional Australia 2. Productivity Commission Public Inquiry into the barriers to effective climate change adaptation.
What next?
The WGRI network will be sustained in some capacity through the research activities and active posts of the early-career group, reported at http://freshwatergovernance.wordpress.com. The representatives of the National Researcher Reference Group will continue to link water governance researchers and research users across disciplines, organisations and responsibility levels within their respective states and territories. The WGRI project team are continuing to seek opportunities to secure funding for future water governance research initiatives.
Acknowledgements
The WGRI project team would like to recognise the valuable and high quality contributions of those who presented in the 2010-2011 workshop sessions. We would also like to thank and express our appreciation to all attendees at various events, survey participants and network members for your enthusiasm, feedback and encouragement for the continuance of such an initiative.
Further Information
H. List of Publications
List of Initiative Publications

Special Issue of Water Resources Management (Vol 25, no. 15 - 2011)
This special issue entitled Water Governance in a Climate Change World: Appraising Systemic and Adaptive Effectiveness was edited by Lee Godden, Ray Ison and Philip Wallis and features contributions by network participants. 1. Godden L, Ison RL, Wallis PJ (2011) Editorial: Water governance in a climate change world: appraising systemic and adaptive effectiveness. Water Resources Management, 25(15): 3971-3976. 2. Ison RL, Collins KB, Colvin JC, Jiggins J, Roggero PP, Seddaiu G, Steyaert P, Zanolla C (2011) Sustainable catchment managing in a climate changing world: new integrative modalities for connecting policy makers, scientists and other stakeholders. Water Resources Management, 25(15): 3977-3992. 3. Connell DP (2011) Water reform and the federal system in the Murray-Darling Basin. Water Resources Management, 25(15): 3993-4003. 4. Foerster AC (2011) Developing purposeful and adaptive institutions for effective environmental water governance. Water Resources Management, 25(15): 4005-4018. 5. Pollard S, du Toit D (2011) Towards adaptive integrated water resources management in southern Africa: the role of self-organisation and multi-scale feedbacks for learning and responsiveness in the Letaba and Crocodile catchments. Water Resources Management, 25(15): 4019-4035. 6. Brown R, Ashley R, Farrelly M (2011) Political and professional agency entrapment: an agenda for urban water research. Water Resources Management, 25(15): 4037-4050. 7. Godden L, Kung A (2011) Water law and planning frameworks under climate change variability: systemic and adaptive management of flood risk. Water Resources Management, 25(15): 4051-4068. 8. Harris, E (2011) The impact of institutional path dependence on water market efficiency in Victoria, Australia. Water Resources Management, 25(15): 4069-4080. 9. Wallis P, Ison RL (2011) Appreciating institutional complexity in water governance dynamics: a case from the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water Resources Management, 25(15): 4081-4097.
Special Issue of The Journal of Water Law (Vol 22, No. 2/3 - 2011)
This special issue entitled Institutional Transitions and Water Law Governance was edited by Lee Godden and features contributions by network participants, particularly early-career researchers. 10. Godden L, Foerster A (2011) Introduction: institutional transitions and water law governance. The Journal of Water Law, 22(2/3): 53-57. 11. Foerster A (2011) Emerging environmental water governance in Australia. The Journal of Water Law, 22(2/3): 58-72. 12. ODonnell E (2011) Institutional reform in environmental water management: the new Victorian Environmental Water Holder. The Journal of Water Law, 22(2/3): 73-84. 13. Wallis PJ, Ison RL (2011) Institutional change in multi-scalar water governance regimes: a case from Victoria, Australia. The Journal of Water Law, 22(2/3): 85-94. 14. Shepheard ML (2011) The potential for improved water management using a legal social contract. The Journal of Water Law, 22(2/3): 95-108. 15. Jackson S, Langton M (2011) Trends in the recognition of indigenous water needs in Australian water reform: the limitations of cultural entitlements in achieving water equity. The Journal of Water Law, 22(2/3): 109-123. 16. Gachenga E (2011) Kenyas Water Act: opportunities for integration of customary institutions of water governance through water resource users associations and water service providers. The Journal of Water Law, 22(2/3): 124-132.
Other publications
A group of seven early-career researchers came together after the ECR workshop in April 2011 to co-author a journal article documenting and reflecting
Water Governance Research Initiative on their experiences in water governance research. This article is currently under review. 17. Patterson JJ, Lukasiewicz A, Wallis PJ, Rubenstein N, Coffey B, Gachenga E, Lynch AJJ (submitted 2012) Tapping fresh currents: fostering early-career researchers in transdisciplinary water governance research. Several of the Initiative's workshops featured robust discussion about the way that climate change adaptation is framed. A poster presentation at the 2012 NCCARF conference set out three ways of framing adaptation for water governance. 18. Wallis PJ, Ison RL, Godden LC (2012) What role for systemic and adaptive governance? (Poster). Climate Adaptation in Action: 2012 National Adaptation Conference, Sebel Hotel Albert Park, Melbourne, Australia, 26-28 June 2012. 19. Wallis PJ, Godden LC, Ison RL, Rubenstein N (2012) Building a Community of Conversation about Water Governance in Australia. Practical Responses to Climate Change, Canberra, Australia, 1-3 May 2012. Peer reviewed conference paper.
H. List of Publications
Further Information
Policy submissions
20. Godden L, Ison RL, Wallis PJ, Rubenstein N, Kung A (2011) Submission to the Productivity Commission Public Inquiry into the Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation, 16 December 2011. 21. Ison RL, Wallis PJ, Godden L (2011) House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia. Impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on Regional Australia. Presented evidence on 2 March 2011, Hansard RA17-23.
WGRI Briefing Papers

22. WGRI (2009) Strengthening Water Governance in Australia. Briefing Paper No. 1, Water Governance Research Initiative, Melbourne. 23. WGRI (2010) Water Governance Research Priorities. Briefing Paper No. 2, Water Governance Research Initiative, Melbourne. 24. WGRI (2011) Perspectives on Water Governance Research. Briefing Paper No. 3, Water Governance Research Initiative, Melbourne. 25. WGRI (2012) Water Governance Research for Transformation. Briefing Paper No. 4, Water Governance Research Initiative, Melbourne. 26. WGRI (2012) Water Governance Research Initiative: 2010-2012. Briefing Paper No. 5, Water Governance Research Initiative, Melbourne.

The Water Governance Research Initiative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Water Governance Research Initiative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Governance Research Initiative

Summary Paper No. 1