Assessing governance performance in transboundary water systems

Author’s Accepted Manuscript Assessing governance transboundary water systems

performance

in

Robin Mahon, Lucia Fanning, Patrick McConney

www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev

PII: DOI: Reference:

S2211-4645(16)30294-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.06.008 ENVDEV361

To appear in: Environmental Development Received date: 5 November 2016 Revised date: 26 February 2017 Accepted date: 30 June 2017 Cite this article as: Robin Mahon, Lucia Fanning and Patrick McConney, Assessing governance performance in transboundary water systems, Environmental Development, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.06.008 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Assessing governance performance in transboundary water systems Robin Mahona*, Lucia Fanningb, Patrick McConneya a Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados b Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada * Corresponding author: Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, St. Michael, Barbados. Tel.: 246 417 4570; Fax: 246 424 4204. [email protected] ABSTRACT Transboundary water systems cover a substantial area of the planet and provide critical ecosystem services for much of the global population. The International Waters (IW) Focal Area of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) aims to improve cooperation among countries in governance of transboundary water systems. There is the need to assess the outcomes, outputs and impacts of GEF IW initiatives. The current Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis/Strategic Action Programme approach of the GEF uses indicators in three categories - process, stress and state. A Transboundary Waters Governance Assessment Framework is proposed that incorporates the three above indicator categories and includes four new indicator categories: governance architecture, stakeholder engagement, social justice and human well-being. These additional categories are considered necessary to bring assessment of GEF IW initiatives in line with current governance thinking. The indicator categories are sequential, starting with governance architecture and ending with human well-being as the ultimate objective. 1 Introduction The transboundary water systems of the world support the socioeconomic development and wellbeing of its population (Duda and Hume, 2013). Their ecosystems provide a variety of services such as water itself, food provisioning through harvestable aquatic resources and aquaculture, regulation of flooding and erosion, support for biodiversity and aesthetic value. These all support associated livelihoods. These transboundary systems include the open ocean, 49 of 66 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs), more than 1,600 lakes and reservoirs, 286 river basins and at least 455 aquifers. Altogether these transboundary systems cover the majority of the world’s oceans and seas as well as a significant proportion of the land area. For example, the world’s 286 transboundary river basins include 151 countries, more than 2.8 billion people (around 42% of the world’s population) and 62 million km2 (42% of the total land area of the Earth)(UNEP-DHI and UNEP, 2015). These transboundary resources are threatened by the full range of anthropogenic impacts such as overuse of water, overexploitation of living resources, pollution and habitat destruction. For transboundary resources, addressing these threats to the ecosystem services that they provide will require cooperation among countries as well as concerted action at national and local levels (UNEP, 2016a). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was established in 1992 just prior to the Rio Earth Summit to help developing countries meet the objectives of international environmental conventions and agreements. GEF funding is contributed by donor countries and is replenished every four years. The GEF has an International Waters (GEF IW) focal area, the purpose of which is to promote international collaboration in sustainable use of transboundary water systems (GEF, 2014). Over the first five GEF Trust Fund replenishments, 1993-2013, a total of

US$1.3 billion in GEF grants was invested in 220 transboundary water projects involving 149 different cooperating countries, with a further US$7.2 billion in cofinacing (Duda and Hume, 2013). The allocation for IW in the current (sixth) replenishment is US$ 454 million. This represents one of the largest global investments in sustainable use of the planet’s natural resources. In order to ensure that these funds are having the desired impact, comprehensive monitoring is necessary. For GEF IW projects this is approached within the context of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis/Strategic Action Programme (TDA/SAP) process (Pernetta and Bewers, 2012). The TDA is used to develop the SAP which includes objectives against which the success of the project is assessed using a suite of indicators (Duda and Hume, 2013). The GEF IW approach has been to develop indicators in three categories: governance process, ecosystem pressure and ecosystem state (Duda, 2002). Many TDAs and other analyses of unsustainable use of transboundary water systems, both freshwater and marine, have concluded that weak governance is a primary root cause of unsustainable use of natural resources (Jacobson et al., 2013; Duda, 2016; Pernetta and Bewers, 2012). From its start, The GEF has had a focus on improved governance. In the Programming Directions for the sixth replenishment, the importance of governance has come through clearly in two projected outcomes for the IW Focal Area.  Outcome 1.1: Political commitment/shared vision and improved governance demonstrated for joint, ecosystem-based management of transboundary water bodies.  Outcome 3.1: Improved governance of shared water bodies, including conjunctive management of surface and groundwater through regional institutions and frameworks for cooperation lead to increased environmental and socio-economic benefits (GEF, 2014, pp. 130-131). Governance is also prominent in the crosscutting objectives, especially objective (g): Strengthen environmental governance, including improving political and institutional arrangements and fostering coordination between different sectors of government and the environmental sector (GEF, 2014, p. 204). The GEF also promotes Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) in all its activities, including transboundary water systems. EBM as prescribed in the Convention on Biological Diversity includes sustainable use by humans (UNEP 1992). It requires that management take a holistic integrated approach that seeks to sustain the functionality and integrity of the ecosystems that provide ecosystem services. For fisheries in transboundary waters the closely related Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries as prescribed in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is also promoted (FAO 1995, 2003). Recent advances in governance thinking suggest that the three categories of indicators typically used in GEF IW projects are not comprehensive enough to address these objectives, and that an expanded set is needed for a full assessment of governance effectiveness (e.g. Olsen, 2003; Ostrom, 2009; Young, 2013 ). In this paper, we propose an expansion of the current three categories of indicators by adding four new categories: governance architecture, stakeholder engagement, social justice and human well-being. We also assemble these final seven indicator categories into a Transboundary Waters Governance Assessment Framework. This framework links them into a comprehensive governance assessment that covers both ‘good governance’ and ‘effective governance’, as will be explained below. The framework is based on the perspective 2

that to assess governance, we must look not only at governance arrangements and processes, but also at outcomes and impacts. The purpose of this framework is to provide a comprehensive yet practical approach that can be understood and used by project developers and implementers but which is well grounded in current governance concepts. 2 The Transboundary Waters Governance Assessment Framework The assessment of governance in IW systems will be most easily approached if there is a framework to facilitate the development of appropriate indicators. There is the need to have a practical framework that can be used to operationalize governance assessment. Some desirable criteria for such a framework are that it be:  Easy to understand, so that it is clear what the selected indicators cover and what they do not;  Comprehensive, so that the indicators cover all the aspect of governance that should be addressed;  Well-grounded in governance thinking and concepts;  Connected with actions that can be taken to improve governance. Much has been written on evaluation frameworks and processes for sustainable development (e.g. UNEP, 2006; United Nations, 2007; Singh et al., 2012). However, a full review of these is beyond the scope of this paper. Most frameworks are thematic, as is the governance assessment framework presented in this paper. The advantage of a thematic framework is that it is issue oriented, appropriate for monitoring interventions and leads directly to proposals for remedial action. There are several governance frameworks that can be drawn upon in developing a practical governance assessment framework, for example, the Institutional Analysis Framework (Ostrom, 2009), Interactive Governance Approach (Kooiman et al., 2005), the International Lake Ecosystems Committee (ILEC) six pillars approach (RCSE and ILEC, 2014), the LME Governance Framework (Fanning et al., 2007) and the TWAP Open Oceans/LME modified DPSIR (IOC-UNESCO and UNEP, 2016a; 2016b). These frameworks range from highly conceptual to very operational. They are not mutually exclusive or independent and have many common elements. While each of the above frameworks contributes substantially to governance assessment thinking, none appear to meet all four criteria listed above. The assessment of governance arrangements and their effectiveness is a complex and multifaceted task (Young, 2013). It continues to be a significant subject for discussion among scholars and practitioners alike, particularly in assessing success in the area of integrated coastal and ocean management (Olsen, 2003, Stojanovic, et al. 2004, IOC, 2006, Bille, 2007; Tabet and Fanning, 2012; Jacobson et al., 2014; Maccarrone, et al., 2014; Botero, et al., 2016). To facilitate evaluation, Young (1999) suggests breaking what governance is expected to achieve into three components:  The first is ‘outputs’, which are the arrangements that are put in place to achieve governance.  The second is ‘outcomes’ which represents changes in the behaviour of people that are the target of the arrangement. 3



The third is ‘impact’ which represents changes in the state of the system that is the target of the arrangement.

The framework developed by Olsen (2003) for integrated coastal management takes a similar approach and like those developed by Ehler (2003) and Hockings et al. (2006) allows for considerations to be made regarding both interventions and the assumptions underlying those actions. In these frameworks, the focus is on the entire management cycle and ensuring that mechanisms are in place within the governance architecture to allow for adaptation, should the desired outcomes not be achieved. For example, Olsen (2003) examines four orders of outcomes: (1) enabling conditions; (2) changes in behaviour; (3) improvements in the system, and (4) sustainability achieved. Similarly IOC (2006) also considers four categories of indicators needed to assess governance of coastal and ocean systems: (1) inputs; (2) processes; (3) outputs; and outcomes. As noted by Jacobsen et al. (2014, p.52), “without coverage across different components of the management cycle, identifying which elements of management to adapt is problematic.” We argue that with the increased understanding of governance over the past decades, the GEF IW evaluative approach should be expanded to include additional categories of indicators that are critical when assessing governance effectiveness for sustainable development. We propose that, for the indicator scheme to be in accord with current thinking regarding the goal of sustainable development, there should be additional categories of indicators that explicitly serve to evaluate: (1) governance architecture, (2) stakeholder engagement, (3) social justice and (4) human well-being. Categories two and three are in tandem with those for environment. The fourth proposed category of human well-being is ultimately dependent on the level of effectiveness as indicated by the previous categories identified in the framework (Figure 1). The first category, governance architecture, is seen to be an essential component of the framework because assessment of the existing or proposed additional categories of indicators will be dependent upon the institutional structure in place to facilitate decision-making, planning and implementation. 3 The indicator categories Following are brief explanations of the relevance of each indicator category as well as examples of indicators that may be applied. These explanations are not intended to be either prescriptive or comprehensive regarding which indicators should be used. The actual indicators to be used will be context specific and will vary from issue to issue and water system to water system. There is a wealth of readily available literature on the many indicators which may be appropriate for the range of issues and water systems covered by the GEF IW Focal Area. The aim in this section is to provide examples that illustrate the purpose of the different indicator categories comprising the framework (see also Table 1). The use of the term indicators calls for some elaboration. Strictly, an indicator shows if there has been some change in a selected attribute of the system being monitored. The indicator should have directionality so that it shows whether the attribute is improving or deteriorating. Ideally, an indicator should have target or threshold values which are to be aimed for or to be avoided (Caddy and Mahon, 1995; Ehler, 2003; Shin et al., 2010). However, when the state of an attribute is clearly undesirable, identifying the direction of change needed for improvement may be enough to guide governance action until targets can be determined (Berkes et al., 2001). 4

Furthermore, even when the same indicators may be used in different IW systems or even in different situations within systems, the target levels may differ among instances and must be situation specific. Indicators used for monitoring and evaluation provide the feedback necessary to measure progress toward stated management goals and objectives (Botero et al., 2016). These assessments are essential to adaptive learning within complex coastal systems as the findings may reveal information leading to a rerouting, rereading and reinterpretation of the stated goals and objectives (Bille, 2007). The topic of indicators is a large and complex one (Singh et al., 2012). It must also be emphasised that when applying this framework within or across water categories, indicators in each category will be situation specific (Paisley and Henshaw, 2013). They should be selected to provide the best representation of the critical issues in each indicator category. There are many manuals and guides that can be consulted to find indicators in most of the categories in the framework. Many others provide analyses that will suggest indicators that may be useful for transboundary water related issues. For example with regard to groundwater the project Groundwater Governance a Global Framework for Action has produced two guidebooks (FAO, UNESCO IHP, IAH, WB and GEF, 2016a; 2016b) which cover indicators comprehensively. For lakes, the work of the International Lake Environment Committee is an excellent source of information on indicators (RSCE and ILEC, 2014). For rivers and other freshwater systems Jacobsen et al. (2013) and OECD (2015) cover numerous aspects of governance. For coastal and marine systems the IOC handbook (IOC, 2006) provides a diversity of indicators. The reports of the indicator based assessments carried out by the Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP) also contain a wealth of information on indicators for the five transboundary water categories (UNEP-DHI and UNEP, 2015; ILEC and UNEP, 2016; IOC-UNESCO and UNEP, 2016a; IOC-UNESCO and UNEP, 2016b;, UNESCO-IHP, IGRAC and UNEP, 2016). 3.1.1

Arrangements/architecture in place? The view that an appropriate governance structure is a necessary but insufficient condition for successfully achieving improved human well-being, led Mahon et al. (2013) to call for the assessment of governance architecture as a precursor of the assessment of governance process. This distinction is considered to be particularly important in the case of multilevel nesting typical of international environmental governance systems (Young, 2002; Fanning et al., 2007; Biermann, 2007). Indeed, Biermann and Pattberg (2012, p. 274) observe that “… increasingly the debate turns toward what we describe as an overarching ‘architecture’ of global environmental governance, that is, the entire interlocking web of widely shared principles institutions and practices that shape decisions by stakeholders at all levels in this field”. This observation applies equally to regional level governance which is the scale of interest in transboundary water systems. Governance architecture may be best understood as the structure of the governance process. If architecture is absent, incomplete or inappropriate then the process for achieving stated outcomes will either not occur or will be ineffective. Governance architecture may have been implied in the process indicators in the original assessment formulation for assessment of governance in IW systems (Duda, 2002). However, given its importance and the fact that it has its own distinctive considerations, we argue that it needs to be emphasised as a separate category in any framework 5

assessing governance outcomes. With regard to governance architecture as a category of the assessment framework, the key questions being addressed are: what institutional arrangements are in place for governance? Are they formal or informal? Do they cover the full set of key issues and do they make clear where responsibilities for implementation lie. Breitmeir, et al. (2006, p. 265-269) provide considerable insight into the desirable characteristics of governance arrangements from which indicators of good governance arrangements can be derived. For example, is there an underlying vision, are membership rules clear, and is there a secretariat? The LME Governance Framework (LMEGF) also provides a source for indicators in this category (Fanning et al. 2007). A key LMEGF concern is whether the arrangement represents a complete policy cycle comprising five key stages: data and information, formulation and provision of advice; decision-making; implementation; and review and evaluation of policy and implementation. This approach has been applied to governance arrangements for ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction and for LMEs (Mahon et al. 2016; Fanning et al. 2016). Their indicator of ‘completeness’ of policy cycles was based on the sum of scores determined using a set of criteria for strength of each stage of the policy cycle. Another key LMEGF concern is whether there are mechanisms in place for vertical and lateral linkages between levels; from local to global (Fanning et al. 2007). For example, in transboundary waters systems, the GEF has emphasised the need for national Interministerial Committees (IMCs) to facilitate the vertical interface between national and regional levels. Wellstructured IMCs would provide the lateral linkages needed for intersectoral integration in the public sector at the national level and would also engage civil society and the private sector (Pernetta and Jiang 2013). Indicators of the establishment of IMCs would be important indicators of key governance architecture being in place. The spatial fit of governance arrangements to issues to be governed will be an architectural feature of interest. There is often mismatch between arrangements and their target issues (Young, 2002; Crowder et al., 2006). This can be assessed by spatial analysis of overlaps or by assigning fit into categories as done by Fanning et al., (2016). Looking at the area of competence of arrangements addressing fisheries, biodiversity and pollution in transboundary LMEs, the authors noted that when the spatial fit of an arrangement is either less than or greater than the LME as a unit of management, the potential for significant governance challenges can arise. For arrangements whose area of competence exceeded the management unit, the potential exists for countries outside of an LME to be able to exercise influence, either directly or indirectly, contrary to the needs of those within the LME. To mitigate against this, Fanning et al. (2016) suggests that lower level governance mechanisms are needed, nested within these supra-LME arrangements, to serve LME level concerns. The authors also highlighted the potential for challenges associated with fit when arrangements are offset from the LME scale or smaller than the LME. At the same time, they provide a cautionary reminder of the limitations of the ‘one size fits all’ approach when it comes to dealing with the complexity and scale issues inherent in transboundary systems. When the transboundary system being assessed has several issues in need of governance arrangements, it will be necessary to have indicators of governance architecture for the entire system – the overall suite of arrangements in place to address the issues - as well as for each 6

issue-specific arrangement. The average completeness for the system can be calculated as a system level indicator from the scores for the individual arrangements (Mahon et al., 2016; Fanning et al., 2016). For the whole system level, it will be desirable to assess whether there is a mechanism for integration across the full set of issue specific arrangements. 3.1.2

Governance processes operational?

Once appropriate arrangements have been put in place, it is necessary to ensure that the processes provided for in the arrangements are taking place as envisaged. Any good governance arrangement will provide for a variety of processes ranging from policy setting through planning to implementation (Kooiman et al., 2005; De Stefano et al., 2014). It will also include processes for vertical and lateral interactions needed for the multilevel, polycentric governance typical of transboundary systems, for example the operation of IMCs (Fanning et al., 2007, Vousden 2016) . The processes may also take place at multiple levels from regional, through national to local, especially for implementation in the case of the latter two (Olsen et al., 2009; Fanning et al., 2013). Consequently, for each issue there may be the need for several process indicators to cover the full range of processes. Process indicators respond to queries about operations such as: Has policy for the issues been developed? Is there a management plan? Does the plan adequately reflect EBM or EAF? Has the plan been disseminated widely? Have regulations been developed to give effect to the plan? Has sufficient capacity been developed to enable plan implementation that engages the full range of stakeholders? Are enforcement mechanisms in place? Strong evidence of processes being in put place and primed to perform optimally increases the likelihood of the remaining categories of indicators also providing positive evaluation results. Mahon et al. (2013) note that participatory processes of measurement using some of these indicators can be integrated into strengthening the governance arrangements. 3.1.3 Stakeholders appropriately engaged? The engagement of stakeholders is now accepted as highly desirable, if not essential, for processes that are effective, transparent and legitimate (Bass et al., 1995; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2007). Nonetheless, it is not uncommon to find that mechanisms for stakeholder engagement are subverted for political expediency and disconnected from decision-making (Jones et al., 2016). Hence, the need for indicators to ensure that these mechanisms are indeed working. In order for stakeholders to engage effectively, they must be empowered to do so through enabling capacity development (Pernetta and Bewers, 2012). Furthermore, specifically with respect to processes affecting indigenous peoples, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples specifies the requirement for indigenous peoples to participate in decisions affecting their rights and for states to obtain “their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.” (UNGA, 2007, Art. 19). Additionally, Article 23 grants indigenous peoples “…the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development.” The key question in this indicator category is whether governance processes are operating according to agreed principles for stakeholder engagement, and whether there are enabling 7

mechanisms in place to ensure appropriate levels of stakeholder engagement. Enabling mechanisms for stakeholder involvement in natural resource management, often broadly referred to as stakeholder empowerment, can be expected to range widely across specific skill training, community/civil society organising, exposure to how things are being done elsewhere and learning-by-doing programs. Evidence for enabling mechanisms would include recognition of the need to engage stakeholders in international agreements, elaboration on developing these mechanisms in planning documents as well as the outputs of capacity development activities. The ultimate evidence will be proof that stakeholders are appropriately engaged in governance activities, present at key meetings and making meaningful inputs that affect the decisions made. It must be recognised that appropriate levels of engagement will be context specific. It is also important to recognise that depending on the political environment in which governance is taking place, effective and efficient governance may take place with minimal stakeholder engagement; for example in autocratic regimes. However, in such circumstances it is likely that internationally agreed principles for social justice are likely to be contravened. 3.1.4 Socially just outcomes achieved? The social justice category in the indicator framework is needed because it is possible achieve stressor reduction and ecosystem state improvement by disadvantaging some sets of people relative to others (Young 2013, p. 31). There are numerous examples of people losing access rights and food security as a result of increased conservation (Mathew, 2006). In many instances the disadvantaged are already marginalised with regard to benefits: indigenous peoples, rural communities and the poor (Jentoft et al., 2003, Makagon et al., 2014). Indeed, Makagon, et al. (2014) have argued that “there is an evolving consensus that internationally agreed standards regarding the human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities have been established through international instruments, custom, and other sources of international law.” This is amply reflected in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNGA, 2007). These arguments apply equally well to all kinds of minorities and to the poor who are most frequently the victims of social injustice. Given its prominence as an issue in sustainable development, the social justice aspect of governance needs separate treatment. The major question here is whether the processes are resulting in outcomes that are according to agreed principles such as equitable sharing of benefits, reduction of poverty, protection of the rights of the poor, minorities and indigenous peoples? In addition, equitable sharing of responsibility for sustainability is an issue to be considered (Young, 2013, p. 32). Although social justice issues are often tied to societal values and vary contextually and culturally, many international policy instruments recognise the universality of key social justice issues. Nonetheless, measures of ecosystem pressures and states are much more frequently encountered as indicators. 3.1.5 Water system stressors reduced? Ecosystem stressors are the proximate drivers of ecosystem degradation and unsustainable use. They are the consequence of human behaviour, for example, water abstraction, release of pollutants into water systems, fishing effort, destructive fishing practices, harvesting of wood for fires and charcoal. The primary question here is whether measures put in place actually result in a change in people's behaviour in such a way as to reduce stresses on the system? Consequently, 8

stress reduction indicators will often pertain to tracking changes in the behaviour of resource users and/or their institutions. In many instances this will also extend to tracking ultimate drivers of those behaviours such as market demand, subsidies or investment funding. As one of the original GEF indicator categories, stress reduction indicators are already well described with examples by Duda (2002). 3.1.6 Ecosystems improved/protected? A primary objective of transboundary water system governance is to achieve actual improvement in the capacity of water systems to deliver ecosystem services, or at least prevent further degradation. The key question for this indicator category is whether a change in people’s behaviour to reduce conflicts and stresses resulted in desired changes in the state of key environmental variables in the system? For example, in relation to the stressors listed in the previous section: is water availability improved; are water pollutant levels reduced; are fish stocks recovering and producing sustainable yields; are exploited woodlands regenerating, etc.? As one of the original GEF indicator categories, stress reduction indicators are already well described with examples by Duda (2002). However, the increased prominence of EBM and EAF since then calls for additional indicators to monitor progress with achievement of those objectives. 3.1.7 Human well-being improved/ assured? The ultimate objective of GEF IW interventions must be to improve human well-being. Thus the critical question in this indicator category is whether attention to social justice and sustainability of ecosystem goods and services has brought about assurance of, or improvements in human well-being and taken trade-offs with ecosystem status into account? The emphasis on human well-being became prominent in the development of the conceptual framework for the Millennium Assessment which places it as the central focus for assessment (Alcamo et al., 2003). Increased human well-being is perhaps the most difficult outcome to measure. Attention has only recently shifted from economic variables such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the Human Development Index used by the World Bank and other development agencies measures of development success to measures of well-being (Costanza, et al., 2014; Kubiszewskia et al., 2013; Rogers, et al., 2012; Bacon et al., 2010). The key idea in these formulations is that there is much more to well-being than income and material things. In some instances there are initiatives to measure human happiness as a component of well-being (Bacon, et al., 2010,; Young Foundation, 2009). Furthermore, well-being can be affected by many factors external to the water system in question, therefore despite successful interventions, it might decrease due to other factors. This requires the use of well-being indicators that are as closely related as possible to the interventions being pursued. Finally, changing the ultimate outcome of governance from ecosystem state to the explicit assessment of human well-being merges ecosystem state with social justice. We suggest that increased human well-being is unlikely to be achieved without attention to both. Of course, measuring human well-being is more complicated than ecosystem state and loaded with social value issues. However, if it is the ultimate aim of governance, we must pursue ways of measuring it. 9

3.2 Good governance and effective governance The expanded GEF IW indicator framework provides for the full set of indicators needed for a comprehensive governance assessment (Fig 1). The seven indicator categories cover the two major aspects of such an assessment: a) Determining if governance arrangements and processes have been set up in a way that is consistent with accepted institutional norms and practices (architecture, process, engagement) - namely whether ‘good governance’ is in place; b) Determining if the governance practices have achieved what they were established to do (ecosystem pressure, ecosystem state, social justice, human well-being) – namely whether there has been ‘effective governance’. Ultimately, ‘good governance’ characteristics might be expected to produce better governance results. However, the state of governance research is such that it is not possible to be definitive about the relationship between ‘good governance’ characteristics and governance effectiveness. Nonetheless, ‘good governance’ characteristics are often cited as being desirable attributes of governance architecture and processes in their own right (Lemos and Agrawal 2006; Lockwood, et al., 2010). 3.3 The assessment sequence In addition to spatial fit discussed under architecture, the question of temporal fit of governance arrangements to the issue to be addressed is also of concern in developing appropriate arrangements. Local and national level political processes often take place on a much shorter time-scale that international ones, leading to problems of continuity of input into international process between successive national administrations. There are also potential problems regarding the time-scales on which both national and international processes take place in relation to the biological, social and economic systems underlying the issues to be addressed which may be longer than national and international political processes. Hence there is the need for attention to a sequence of graduated indicators that can track progress towards the ultimate goal (UNEP 2006, Duda 2002). The indicators categories shown in Fig 1 form a graduated assessment sequence (UNEP 2006). The indicators in the earlier (upper) categories will be verifiable sooner after implementation than the later (lower) ones. Ecosystems may take decades to respond to reduce pressures. Therefore, changes in human well-being are only likely to occur after ecosystem and social justice outcomes have been achieved. Consequently, monitoring governance effectiveness may span several consecutive GEF interventions and these should provide for continuity of monitoring. A further complication is that as one moves down the sequence it will be more difficult to demonstrate cause and effect between interventions, outcomes and impacts. It will often be clear that a process outcome (plan or regulation) has led to a pressure reduction. However, tracking the effects of a pressure reduction on system state or of system state on well-being may be more difficult due to confounding factors that are external to the intervention that is being assessed. Therefore, in selecting indicators for these later categories care should be taken to choose indicators that are most closely related to the objectives of the intervention and thus likely to reflect impacts of stress reduction and/or improved social justice. 10

3.4 Applying the framework To assess governance of water related issues in a transboundary water system, we suggest that the framework be applied systematically through the following steps: 1. Identify all issues in need of governance attention; 2. Apply the full framework to each issue in turn; 3. Identify any system level integration mechanism; 4. Apply the architecture and process categories to the mechanism. Issues will often be known from the literature or in the case of GEF interventions, from the TDAs. In order to ensure that there is comprehensive assessment of both good governance and effective governance within a transboundary water system, it is necessary to ensure that indicators are developed and monitored in each of the seven categories for each issue of concern identified in that system. Adequate coverage of an indicator category may require more than one indicator. Consequently, in developing a governance assessment or monitoring programme, it may be necessary to consider subcategories of the indicator for each category. Table 2 provides examples of what some of these subcategories might be. 4 Concluding observations The assessment of governance in transboundary water systems is critical if interventions aimed at achieving human well-being by The GEF and other donors are to be appropriately evaluated to support adaptive learning. The framework developed in this paper provides a comprehensive and structured approach to monitoring governance from the initial stage of developing an arrangement to address an issue, through five intermediate stages to the final stage, which is whether the intervention has had a positive impact on human well-being. The framework takes into account the time lags inherent in any such intervention and so allows for tracking progress through the stages. The framework can be applied to individual transboundary arrangements or to groups of arrangements addressing a range of issues in a single transboundary water system. In the architecture and process categories, there are indicators relating to integration that apply across multiple issues to the whole system. A structured stepwise approach such as is provided by the framework could promote more comprehensive coverage of governance assessment. Concern has been expressed that the guide to the TDA/SAP process (GEF 2013a; 2013b; 2013c) does not provide adequate guidance in assessing governance (Pernetta and Bewers 2012; Mahon, Fanning and McConney, 2011; UNEP, 2016b). While there is guidance for assessing institutional arrangements and stakeholders, there is less on governance process and little or none on examining social justice issues and human well-being. Applying the Transboundary Waters Governance Assessment Framework could ensure that all aspects of governance assessment are examined during the TDA process and that the SAP monitoring activities cover them as well. References Alcamo, J., Ash, N. J., Butler, C. D. Callicott, J. B., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S. R, … and M. B. Zurek, M. B. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. London: Island Press, 245 p.

11

Bacon, N., Brophy, M., Mguni, N., Mulgan G. and Shandro, A. 2010. The state of happiness: can public policy shape people’s wellbeing and resilience? London: The Young Foundation 106 p. Bass, S., Dalal-Clayton, B. and Pretty, J. (1995). Participation in strategies for sustainable development. London: International Institute for Environment and Development 118 p. Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac R. and Pomeroy, R. (2001). Managing smallscale fisheries: Alternative directions and methods. Ottawa: IDRC. 309 pp. Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change. 17: 326-337. Biermann, F. and Pattberg, P. [eds]. (2012). Global environmental governance reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bille, R. (2007). A dual-level framework for evaluating integrated coastal management beyond labels. Ocean and Coastal Management. 50, 796–807. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Taghi Farvar, M., Kothari, A., and Renard, Y. (2007). Sharing power: a global guide to collaborative management of natural resources. London: Earthscan. 473 p. Botero, C., Fanning, L., Milanes, C. and Planas, J. (2016). An indicator framework for assessing progress in land and marine planning in Colombia and Cuba. Ecological Indicators, 64, 181-193. Breitmeier, H., Young, O. R. and Zurn, M. (2006). Analysing International Environmental Regimes: From case study to database. Cambridge: MIT Press Caddy, J.F. and Mahon, R. (1995). Reference Points for Fisheries Management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 347: 87 p. Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Pickett, K. E., … and Wilkinson, R. (2014). Time to leave GDP behind. Nature, 505, 283–285. Crowder, L. B., Osherenko, G., Young, O. R., Airamé, S., Norse, E. A., Baron, N., … and Wilson J. A. (2006). Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean governance. Science, 213, 617618. De Stefano, L., Svendsen, M., Giordano, M., Steel, B. S., Brown, B., and Wolff, A. T. (2014). Water governance benchmarking: concepts and approach framework as applied to Middle East and North Africa countries. Water Policy 16, 1121–1139 Duda, A. (2002). Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects. Washington DC: Global Environment Facility Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 10, 11 p. Duda, A. M. (2016) Strengthening global governance of Large Marine Ecosystems by incorporating coastal management and Marine Protected Areas. Environmental Development, 17 (Suppl. 1), 249–263. Duda, A. M. and Hume, H. C. (2013). A new imperative to harness sound science in the GEF international waters focal area. Environmental Development, 7, 102–108. Ehler, C. N. (2003). Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 46, 335–345. Engle, N. L. and Lemos M. C. (2010). Unpacking governance: Building adaptive capacity to climate change of river basins in Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 20, 4–13. Fanning, L., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Angulo, J., Burrows, F., … and Toro, C. (2007). A large marine ecosystem governance framework. Marine Policy, 31, 434–443.

12

Fanning, L., R. Mahon, K. Baldwin and S. Douglas. 2016. Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP) Assessment of Governance Arrangements for the Ocean: Vol 1 – Transboundary Large Marine Ecosystems. Paris: IOC Technical Series 115. FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation In: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.HTM. FAO. 2003. The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, vol. 4 (Suppl. 2). Rome. FAO, UNESCO IHP, IAH, WB and GEF. 2016a. Global Diagnostic on Groundwater Governance. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. www.groundwatergovernance.org (accessed May 24th, 2016) FAO, UNESCO IHP, IAH, WB and GEF. 2016b. Global Framework for Action to achieve the Vision on Groundwater Governance. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation. Retreived form www.groundwatergovernance.org. GEF. (2013a). GEF Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis/Strategic Action Programme Manual. Volume 1: Introduction to the TDA/SAP Process. Washington DC: Global Environment Facility, 20 p. GEF. (2013b). GEF Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis/Strategic Action Programme Manual. Volume 2: TDA/SAP ‘How to’ Guide. Washington DC: Global Environment Facility, 77 p. GEF. (2013c). GEF Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis/Strategic Action Programme Manual Volume 3: Planning the TDA/SAP Process. Washington DC: Global Environment Facility, 27 p GEF. (2014). Report on the Sixth Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund. GEF Assembly Document. Washington DC: Global Environment Facility GEF/A.5/07/Rev.01, May 22, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/GEF.A.5.07.Rev_.01_Report _on_the_Sixth_Replenishment_of_the_GEF_Trust_Fund_May_22_2014.pdf (accessed May 18, 2016). Hockings, M., S. Stolton, F. Leverington, N. Dudley, J. Courrau and P. Valentine. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: a Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas, 2nd ed. Gland: IUCN. ILEC and UNEP. (2016). Transboundary Lakes and Reservoirs: Status and Trends. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, IOC. (2006). A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management. IOC Manuals and Guides 46. Paris: IOC-UNESCO. 155 p. IOC-UNESCO and UNEP. (2016a). Large Marine Ecosystems: Status and Trends. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. IOC-UNESCO and UNEP. (2016b). The Open Ocean: Status and Trends. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Jacobson, C., Carter, R. W., Thomsen, D. C. and Smith, T. F. (2014). Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 89, 51-57. Jacobson, M., Meyer, F., Oia, I., Reddy, P. and Tropp, H. (2013). User’s guide on assessing water governance. Oslo: United Nations Development Programme, Oslo Governance Centre. 100 p. Jentoft, S., Minde, H. and Nilsen, R. (Ed.) (2003). Indigenous peoples: Resource management and global rights. Delft: Eburon, 315 p. 13

Jones, P. J. S., Lieberknecht, L.M. and Qiua, W. (2016). Marine spatial planning in reality: Introduction to case studies and discussion of findings. Marine Policy 71: 256–264. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S. and Pullin, R. (eds). (2005). Fish for life. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Kubiszewskia, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jackson T. and Aylmer, C. (2013). Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecological Economics, 93: 57–68. Lemos, M. C. and A. Agrawal. 2006. Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 297–325. Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford E., and Griffith R. (2010). Governance Principles for Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 23, 1–16. Maccarrone, V., Filiciotto, F., Buffa, G., Mazzola S. and Buscaino, G. (2014). The ICZM Balanced Scorecard: A tool for putting integrated coastal zone management into action. Marine Policy, 44, 321-334. Mahon, R., Fanning, L. and McConney. P. (2011). Observations on governance in the Global Environment Facility (GEF) International Waters (IW) Programme. CERMES Technical Report No. 45. 40 pp. (www.cavehill.uwi.edu\cermes) Mahon, R., Cooke, A., Fanning L. and McConney, P. (2013). Governance arrangements for marine ecosystems of the Wider Caribbean Region. CERMES Technical Report No 60. 99p. Mahon, R., Fanning, L., Gjerde, K. M., Young, O., Reid, M. and Douglas S. (2016). Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP) Assessment of Governance Arrangements for the Ocean: Vol 2 – areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). IOC Technical Series 115. Paris: IOC-UNESCO, Makagon J. E., Jonas, H. and Roe, D. (2014). Human rights standards for conservation, Part I. Which standards apply to which conservation actors? IIED Discussion Paper. IIED, London: IIED. 46 p. Matthew, R. 2006. Sustainable Livelihoods, Environmental Security and Conflict Mitigation: Four Cases in South Asia. Pp 67 - 71, In: Oviedo G., Van Griethuysen P. and Larsen P. B. [eds.]. Poverty, equity and rights in conservation - Technical papers and case studies. Gland: IUCN and Geneva: IUED. OECD. 2015. OECD Inventory: Water Governance Indicators and Measurement Frameworks. OECD Water Initiative. Paris: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retreived from http://www.oecd.org/gov/regionalpolicy/Inventory_Indicators.pdf accessed 22 May 2016 Olsen, S. B. (2003). Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean and Coastal Management, 46, 347–361. Olsen, S. B., Page G. G. and Ochoa E. (2009). The analysis of governance responses to ecosystem change: a handbook for assembling a baseline. LOICZ Reports and Studies No. 34. , Geesthacht: GKSS Research Center. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analysing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419-422. Paisley, R. K. and Henshaw, T. W. (2013) Transboundary governance of the Nile River Basin: Past, present and future. Environmental Development, 7, 59–71.

14

Pernetta, J. C., and Bewers, J. M. (2012). Transboundary diagnostic analysis in international waters interventions funded by the Global Environment Facility. Ocean and Coastal Management, 55, 1-12. Pernetta, J. C. and Y. Jiang. 2013. Managing multi-lateral, intergovernmental projects and programmes: the case of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea project. Ocean and Coastal Management 85 (2013) 141-152. Rogers, D. S., Duraiappah, A. K., Antons, D. C., Munoz, P., Bai, X., Fragkias, F., and Gutscher, H. (2012). A vision for human well-being: transition to social sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 61–73. RSCE and ILEC. (2014). Development of ILBM Platform Process: Evolving guidelines through participatory improvement. 2nd Edition. Shiga: International Lake Environment Committee Foundation, 85 p. Shin, Y-J., Bundy, A., Shannon, L. J., Simier, M., Coll, M., Fulton, … and Raid, T. (2010). Can simple be useful and reliable? Using ecological indicators to represent and compare the states of marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67, 717–731. Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R. Gupta, S. K. and Dikshit, A. K. (2012). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15, 281–299. Stojanovic, T., Ballinger R. C. and Lalwani, C. S. (2004). Successful integrated coastal management: measuring it with research and contributing to wise practice. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, 273–298. Tabet, L., and Fanning, L. M. (2012). Integrated coastal zone management under authoritarian rule: an evaluation framework of coastal governance in Egypt. Ocean and Coastal Management. 61, 1–9. UNESCO-IHP, IGRAC and UNEP. (2016). Transboundary Aquifers and Groundwater Systems of Small Island Developing States: Status and Trends. Paris: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris, France United Nations. (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies. Third Edition. NEW York: United Nations, 93 p. UNEP. (1992). The convention on biological diversity. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme UNEP. (2016a). Transboundary Waters Systems – Status and Trends: crosscutting analysis. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, 54 p. UNEP. (2016b). Comparison of Governance Assessments Conducted by the Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme Components. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, 46 p. UNEP-DHI and UNEP. (2015). Transboundary River Basins: Status and Trends. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP/GPA. (2006). Protecting coastal and marine environment from impacts of land-based activities: A guide for national action. The Hague: United Nations Environment Programme/Global Programme of Action, 96 p.. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Resolution 61/295, 107th Plenary Meeting, 13th September, 2007, New York: United Nations. Vousden, D. (2016). Local to regional polycentric governance approaches within the Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems. Environmental Development 17: 277– 286. 15

Young Foundation. (2009). Sinking and Swimming: understanding Britain’s unmet needs. London: The Young Foundation. Retrieved from http://youngfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/Sinking-and-swimming.pdf accessed May 23 2016 Young O. R. (Ed). (1999). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: causal connections and behavioural mechanisms. Cambridge: MIT Press. Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit interplay and scale. Cambridge: MIT Press, 221 p. Young, O. R. (2008). The Architecture of Global Environmental Governance: Bringing Science to Bear on Policy. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 14-32. Young, O. R. (2013). On environmental governance: sustainability, efficiency, and equity. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Figure 1. The Transboundary Waters Assessment Framework. The original GEF IW indicator categories (Duda 2002) are shaded in grey. The new indicator categories are unshaded.

16

Table 1. Examples of issues affecting transboundary water systems and possible indicators for each of the seven categories in the proposed assessment framework Indicator category

Examples of issues and possible indicators Small-scale fisheries Domestic and livestock Availability of water for (SSF) sustainability sewage contamination of multiple use purposes water Architecture  Transboundary  Transboundary  Transboundary agreement covering agreement covering agreement covering stocks fished by SSF release of sewage into usage of water waterway  Indicators showing  Indicators showing that that agreement is well  Indicators showing agreement is well constituted with a that agreement is well constituted with a complete policy cycle constituted with a complete policy cycle informing decisioncomplete policy cycle informing decisionmaking informing decisionmaking making Process  Fishery management  Pollution control plan  Water management plan plan  Agreed measures or regulations  Agreed measures or  Agreed measures or regulations for regulations for usage  Evidence for sustainability compliance with  Evidence for measures compliance with  Evidence for compliance with measures  Evidence that plan is measures reviewed and adapted  Evidence that plan is reviewed and adapted  Evidence that plan is  Evidence of support of reviewed and adapted resource dependent  Evidence of support of stakeholders for plans resource dependent  Evidence of support of resource dependent stakeholders for plans stakeholders for plans Stakeholder  Agreement provides for  Agreement provides for  Agreement provides for input by SS fisher folk engagement with engagement with and others who may be affected local and affected local and affected indigenous indigenous communities, farmers, communities, farmers,  Plan provides for municipalities municipalities empowerment of fisher folk to engage  Plan provides for  Plan provides for empowerment of empowerment of stakeholders to engage stakeholders to engage Social  SSF assured access to  Provisions for  Provisions for justice fair share of yield assistance with assistance with water relative to large scale remedial measures for consumption measures fisheries fishing the rural poor for rural and urban poor same stock  Major water abstraction  Water abstraction managed to enhance managed to ensure  Indigenous groups assured access dilution in critical low equitable access to 17

Pressure

State

Well-being

 Women’s involvement in fishery enhanced  Reduced fishing effort  Reduced use of destructive methods  Reduce post-harvest waste  Fish stocks increasing to desired biomass levels  Catch increased or decline halted  Income of small-scale fishers assured/increased  Per capita availability of fish protein in fishing community assured/improved

flow periods  Sewage inputs reduced to safe levels

 Levels of fecal bacteria in water safe for drinking and bathing purposes  Reduction in incidence of intestinal and skin disorders associated with fecal bacteria in drinking and bathing water

water by all users  Abstraction reduced to levels that assure regular supply  Water supply supplemented at critical times of year  Adequate water supply throughout the year

 Reduction in incidence of domestic water scarcity, unhygienic practices due to inadequate water supply and food shortages due to water relate crop failure

Table 2. Indicator categories and examples of subcategories Indicator category Governance architecture

Indicator subcategories (examples) Existence and structure of institutions Agreements concluded Mechanisms for linking stages of the policy cycle Mechanisms for integration Governance process Policy outputs Evidence of process according to agreed principles Legislation concluded Management plans Regulatory responses Ecosystem pressure (relative to some Population changes in basin target state or desired direction) Use of habitat and biodiversity Fisheries effort or demand Pollution inputs Ecosystem state (relative to some target Habitat/biodiversity status state or desired direction) Level of pollution/water quality Fisheries status Water quantity Stakeholder engagement Evidence of participation 18

Social justice

Well-being

Attention to disadvantaged groups and minorities Availability of information Access to capacity development for empowerment Income equitability Sustainability of traditions Equitability in access to resources Economic benefits Access to social services Access to ecosystem services

HIGHLIGHTS  Transboundary water systems provide critical ecosystem services  An operational Transboundary Waters Governance Assessment Framework is proposed  The framework builds on the GEF International Waters assessment indicators  The framework comprises seven indicator categories: governance architecture, governance process, stakeholder engagement, social justice, ecosystem pressure, ecosytem state and human well-being

19