Diploma Thesis Proposal – Martin Korcek
Topic
Water Governance and reaching the MDG’s in CEE and Arab States region.
Case study of Virtual Water Knowledge Fair and Water Wikipedia. The most innovative tools of UNDP BRC and Beirut SURF for reaching regional Water Governance.
Background
The “good governance” as a theoretical approach is based on following principles:
· respect human rights (do no harm),
· legitimacy and voice ( participation in governance, consensus orientation),
· subsidiarity,
· fairness (fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources) ,
· accountability (rule of law and transparency ),
· performance ( responsiveness effectiveness and efficiency) and
· direction (strategic vision embracing complexities), (IUCN,2004)
According to the IUCN definition of the governance of natural resources can be understood as “the interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say in the management of natural resources…” (IUCN, 2004)
The most basic and important principle of good governance is that a nation's political institutions have to be democratic.
The governance consists from the networks which connecting different social actors i.e. government, corporate sector and community. The management tools, which come from the governance of natural resources, could be described as:
· decentralization ,
· devolution,
· co-management ( community based management),
· effective natural resource management
Decentralization is the shift of the responsibility from the central body (government) to regional or local bodies. Additionally, it is fostering the participation, local development and control of natural resources by local authorities.
The devolution is granting the responsibility and power from central government to government at regional or local level. (Wikipedia, 2006) In addition, it implies the shift in the decision-making from the center authorities to periphery authorities and it is redistribution of responsibility and power to lower decision level.
Therefore the good governance is catching shift in the focus and locus. That means strong decentralization process become valid and there is empowerment of the sub-national actors. The NGOs and the transnational networks, for example labeling schemes are empowered. If we have a look on the environmental political system of EU we can recognize fragmentation and polycentric development, what is good mark of governance process. Also it is very markable, that it appears in process of governance the interplay between formal and informal practices between the parts of EU. This is called supranational dichotomy and it means that some decisions are beyond the member states concerns and interests. By the good governance it appears new political spaces and arenas where rules are negotiated.
Good governance should lead to different transnational and multi level arrangements. For example: Network governance, Committee governance, Multi-level governance, Informal governance1. These governances should be focused on society, co-ordination and self-governance.
If we have a close look on governance process we will find out that there are interactions between states, civil society and market actors. This is happening on different levels of states as supranational (UN, EU), National, Local and Regional. The policymaking is appearing as some kind of multi level game, where interdependencies between UN and member states have a big role. The competencies are shared, policies are diversified and it is focus on the dynamics of formal and informal practices2.
Interplay of formal and informal policy in environmental governance is good, because it improves openness, accountability and transparency of institutions. Therefore the actors of policy making are empowered and there appears larger space for problem solving.
But there are also information and learning streams in other direction, from local communities to the state. This will ensure proper governance in which state laws will be not against local directives.3
Problem description
The sharing of information and dealing with personal experiences is the most crucial focusing point in Water governance. It could help with more efficient and progressive reaching of the MDG’s. This was neglected in the past because of not sufficient mediums for dealing with information. In present time the virtual portals and open sources are very progressively developing. This new approaches opened to wide public brings also a lot of questions connected with its development.
In connection with bigger interest in Governance trough information also associated activities as Virtual Water Knowledge Fair and Water Wikipedia are appearing. These forms of Governance became more available not only for communities of scientists, but also for wider public. It appears as a good tool to fulfill the gap in Governing the water resources management. There is the question if these sources of knowledge are suitable for the mass public use, if the information provided by these open sources are enough safe and reliable for further use.
Research Objective
The objective of my Diploma thesis is: to clarify the flows of information through the innovative approaches to water governance in both regions by providing an understanding of Water Wikipedia and Virtual Water Knowledge Fair.
Research Questions
- What are (or will be) the overall effects of virtual information sources as Water Wikipedia and Virtual Water Knowledge Fair on regional Water Governance?
- Is the virtual portal as Water Wikipedia suitable for sharing of knowledge regarding Water issues?
- Are there involved enough parties in the process of data pool sharing?
- Are the flows of information between participants enough sufficient? And if it are, how does it improve Water governance and reaching the MDG’s?
- What are the outcomes of Virtual Water Knowledge Fair on Water Governance and MDG’s fulfillments?
- May Virtual Water Knowledge Fair and Water Wikipedia cause more effective dealing with information within Community of practice (CoP) and wider public?
Scope and limitations
According that my data collection will be executed in UNDP BRC and Beirut SURF, all results will be connected with CEE and Arab States region.
Methods
I will use mostly as the method of qualitative data collection semi-structured oral interviews, site visits and focus groups. Literature research will be done with focus on empirical part.
Conceptual framework
I will introduce this concept:
· Water Governance concept: the concept needs to be seen as instrument to reach MDG’s.
Water Wikipedia: Does it work?
Is it a good tool for good governance?
How Water Wikipedia does perform in term of: Legitimacy
Accountability
Decentralization
Democracy
Democracy: Can everybody put information to this portal?
Are there some restrictions in managing the data? (who can read it…)
Decentralization: Building of regional governance?
Connecting networks of regional governance?
Legitimacy: Do everybody recognized it as a valid tool for governance?
Accountability: Is it transparent?
Time schedule
May till August 2006: Literature study, writing of Diploma proposal
August till November 2006: Data collection in UNDP BRC
November 2006 till January 2007: Writing Diploma thesis
Bibliography
The literature will be reviewed comprehensively ahead of the empirical stage of research and during the study research and data collection as in grounded theory.
References
1. Andrew Jordan (2005), The Rise of ‘New’ Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government? , POLITICAL STUDIES: 2005 VOL 53, 477–496
2. LARS K. HALLSTROM, Eurocratising Enlargement? EU Elites and NGO Participation in European Environmental Policy, http://econ.tu.ac.th/class/archan/somboon/on%20eu%20enlargement/hallstrom.pdf , accessed 02.07.06
3. W. Neil Adger (2005), The Political Economy of Cross-Scale Networks in Resource Co-Management, Ecology and Society 10(2): 9., www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art9/ES-2005-1465.pdf , accessed 26.06.2006