مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد امنیت در مدیریت یکپارچه منابع آب – الزویر ۲۰۱۸

current state of water sector reforms Water management has been in a state of constant change since the first Rio conference in 1992. Water sectors across many countries have reacted to increasing risks and water crises by adopting new institutional frameworks, decentralizing water resources planning or developing new infrastructures. According to a comprehensive status report by the UN prior to the Rio plus 20 conference in 2012, 82% of the 130 surveyed countries indicated the adoption of reforms to improve an enabling environment for IWRM, 79% changed their water policies, 65% have adopted Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) plans, and 71% facilitated water management at the basin level (UN, 2012). Such worldwide wave of restructuring and reforms has left its impact on the water sectors in terms of performance improvements in some countries and the emergence of an array of new water institutions like water ministries, basin agencies or regulatory bodies (Ait Kadi, 2014). While scarcity and crises represented the drivers of reforms, the ideological reasoning and implementation blueprint were provided by celebrated concepts such as water governance and IWRM. Both concepts have generated a great deal of attention and confusion among scientists and practitioners. While water governance in its original meaning was more concerned with ‘rules of the game’ or the set of principles to ensure ‘effective’ or ‘good’ governance, this understanding has been supplanted by or incorporated within IWRM or extended concepts of it emphasizing a principle like inclusiveness or effectiveness (Lautze et al., 2011). In its pure understanding, IWRM, a term influenced by advocacy and literature of Global Water Partnership (GWP) since 1996, has referred to practical measures to align water management decisions to predefined water governance principles, especially those set in the international consensus of the Dublin Principles of 1992. For many countries, (good) water governance principles and IWRM meant initiating reforms to increase participation, e.g. of women or affected communities, decentralize water management, often to the basin level, introduce economic instruments and commercialize water institutions, and introduce integrated water plans and laws. Water sector reforms have not, however, been an all-round success nor have they halted the water crisis. IWRM and water governance principles triggered serious changes in terms of policies, laws and institutions. Water management reforms can fail for a multiple of broader socio-economic factors like lack of funding, political instability or the interference of global drivers like trade policies or droughts (e.g. Warner et al., 2015). However, stakeholder engagement and participation in water management institutions and decision are key premises of IWRM, which remain relatively low while the financing of these IWRM institutions, and importantly of water services, remain weak and has not changed significantly (UN, 2012). Criticism regarding the lack of significant, tangible improvements related to IWRM implementation has been around for a while now (Allan, 2003; Biswas, 2004; Blomquist and Schlager, 2005). While IWRM’s role in consolidating water management functions and initiating institutional and legislative reforms across countries is undeniable, its implementation did not meet the initial expectation of producing a comprehensive policy solution to national water management challenges.