Water Governance, Res ilience and Global Environm ental Chang e – A

Reass essm ent of Int egrat ed W ater Resources M an agem ent (IW RM)
Dr. Victor Galaz
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University
SE 106 91 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Phone: +46 8 16 25 18
Fax: +46 8 674 70 36
E-mail: Victor.Galaz@ctm.su.se

Introduction

Water crisis is in many senses a crisis of water governance. Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) is
gaining an increased acceptance among policy makers and water policy researchers on a global scale as a
way to create more effective water governance institutions (e.g. Jonch-Clausen 2004, GWP 2004:3). At best,
IWRM is able to work towards integrated water development solutions for poverty alleviation and address the
social, economic and environmental aspects of water challenges.
Global environmental change (GEC) poses fundamental challenges to water policy makers as it implies
vast scientific, and in the end vast policy uncertainty. Although the need to modify water management and
institutions to tackle the challenges posed by complexity, uncertainty and global environmental change have
been discussed earlier in (Clark 2002, Folke 2003, Pahl-Wolst 2006, Gunderson et. al. 2006, Falkenmark
2003), none have specified the implications for ongoing international water governance initiatives, a fact that
effectively hinders a much-needed dialogue on how current IWRM initiatives can be modified to better harness
the implications of global environmental change.
The following paper is an attempt to bridge this gap, and intends to bring to light the substantial lag
between our increased understanding of the features of resilient interconnected freshwater resources and
their governance, and the reforms being promoted by policy makers at several policy scales. I discuss this
through a “resilience lens”, i.e. by focusing on the capacity of social-ecological systems to deal with
environmental and societal change, and to reorganize after shocks and surprises (Gunderson and Holling
2002, Folke 2006). The main argument is that there is a need to rethink some of IWRM’s key components to
better harness the challenges posed by the complex behaviour of interconnected social-ecological systems
(Gunderson and Holling 2002) and global environmental change.

I. Govern ing Dynam ic Fres hwater Syst ems – Taking Thresho lds, Cross-S cale
Interact ions, and Pers istent Uncert aint y S eriou sly

Changes currently experienced by the Earth System do not add up in a linear manner, but instead can
trigger sudden and surprising changes in social-ecological systems and ecosystem services (Steffen et. al.
2004, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Freshwater is not an exception (Foley et. al. 2003, Pahl-
Wostl 2006). What is interesting is that the effects of GEC - such as changes in mean temperature, loss of
biodiversity, changes in ecosystem function and services – can seriously undermine the capacity of freshwater
systems to cope with stresses and shocks such as droughts, floods, anthropogenic pollution, loss of
biodiversity and landscape modifications. It also seems like GEC might trigger or increase the frequency of the
same kind of compounded shocks.
This creates a twofold impact on freshwater systems that is loss of resilience in freshwater systems, as
well as an increased frequency and intensity of perturbations. This twofold impact can result in abrupt
irreversible shifts in freshwater resources, a point that has been elaborated in detail for other biophysical
systems (Nyström et. al. 2000, Paine et. al. 1998). Research that support this notion is provided by (EC-JRC

1
2005) in their detailed elaboration of possible regime shifts in lake and coastal systems linked to climate
change; (Scheffer et. al. 2001) elaborate how small climatic changes can trigger major regime shifts in lake
systems leading to an elimination of clear water states; (Schröter et. al. 2005) elaborate the projected
decreases in ecosystem services due to GEC; and (Chapin et. al. 1998) and (Cramer et. al. 2001) elaborate
how changes in ecosystem function affect water quantity and quality.
Sometimes these shifts are practically irreversible. These changes denoted “regime shifts” can have vast
social, economic and ecological implication, and are far from uncommon in water resources. A number of
studies elaborate this mechanism in lake systems (Carpenter and Cottingham 2002), coastal areas (Troell et.
al. 2005) and oceans such as the Baltic Sea (Jansson and Jansson 2002). In numerous cases, the regime
shifts are resilient, a fact that can counter restoration efforts hence creating a situation where the shift is
practically irreversible (Carpenter and Cottingham 2002:57f, Folke et. al. 2004). How to avoid crossing these
critical yet uncertain thresholds in freshwater resources as well in the interconnected biophysical landscape is
a critical question that is being targeted by scientists, but also needs to be addressed by water policy makers
and managers.

Harnessing Uncertainty – Institutional and Organizational Implicat ions

Water managers and policy makers deal with uncertainty on a daily basis. This does however not imply that the
strategies used today will be successful in dealing with the sometimes surprising impacts of GEC. The
institutional and organizational mechanisms needed to build a capacity to deal with change, uncertainty and
surprises have been elaborated extensively by (e.g. Gunderson and Holling 2002, Folke et. al. 2005, Berkes
et. al. 2003), and can not be discussed in detail here. They can be summarized in three interlinked points:
I. HARNESSING SYSTEM DYNAMICS: Water managers should not only try to keep an eye on change in
the parameters defining water quantity and quality, but also try to assess the major social, ecological and
economical drivers, possible “surprises”, and provide rough estimates the thresholds in freshwater system.
Without a thorough understanding of these dynamics, conventional monitoring activities could miss the
increasing risk that the water system is becoming more vulnerable to the impacts of climate variability and
change as a result of its motion towards a threshold that is difficult or impossible to reverse (for examples see
Carpenter et. al. 2001, Peterson et. al. 2003, Walker et. al. 2002).
II. LINKING SCALES: As lessons learned from other social-ecological systems reveal, crises often occur
at the junction of large-scale processes and changing local variability (Holling 1986). Hence institutions at
different scales need to communicate and exchange information with one another especially as stakeholders
and policy-makers find themselves responding to the local effects of changes in climate, global markets, and
political initiatives (e.g. Gibson et. al. 2000). This means that information in water governance needs to flow
not only from the top to the bottom, but also in the diverse direction to be able to secure a fast response of
agencies and policy makers at higher institutional levels in times of extreme events (Dietz et al. 2003).
III. PROMOTING LEARNING AND TREATING POLICY AS EXPERIMENTS: Another implication is that water
governance initiatives should put more emphasis on establishing methodologies to test hypotheses
concerning uncertainties in the water system, and allow for experimentation with different strategies for
freshwater resources management. Governance according to this perspective is used as a tool not only to
change the system, but as a continuous learning-by-doing process that recognizes public participation and
joint learning (Schluster et. al. 2003, Folke et. al. 2005). Worth highlighting here is that these experiments
can be applied not just to the natural resource, but also to water governance initiatives themselves (Habron
2003, Ostrom 2005).

II. Res ilience and W ater Go vernan ce - IWRM at the Int ern ation al Policy Aren a

How different is the suggested governance approach from conventional IWRM when it comes to tangible
operative water management and policy? The answer will depend heavily on how we define the ambitions of
IWRM. Here I discuss IWRM as a strategic approach to water management, rather than look at its specific

2
implementation and impacts on the field. Although this certainly is a limitation, the scope of the material
analyzed is still able to provide interesting insights on how ongoing IWRM initiatives can and should be used to
tackle the challenges posed by global environmental change.
The number of policy documents, policy briefs, guideline documents and tools concerning IWRM is
nonetheless overwhelming. Here I have strategically chosen actors that represent both international water
“think-tanks” and regional water policy makers. The actors are the Global Water Partnership, the World Bank,
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) through its project Cap-Net (Capacity Building for
Integrated Water Resources Management), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank
(AfDB), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).1
It should be recognized that there are a number of recommendations in all papers that are likely to
strengthen the countries capacity to cope with the impacts of climate variability and change. More precisely,
aiming to integrate the management of linked natural systems (GWP 2000:24-26), integrate national policy-
development (ADB 2003:13f, AfDB 2000:12f, GWP 2000:26-31, Jonch-Clausen 2004, Cap-Net 20062, IDB
1998:8ff), link bottom-up with top-down strategies (GWP 2000:46, ADB 2003:9f, Cap-Net 20063), at the
same time as continuous monitoring, environmental impact and risk assessments is promoted (GWP 2000:51-
53, Cap-Net 2006), are all important components in dealing with the impacts with climate variability and
change.
On the other hand, it also clear that the recommendations in all the documents assume away the
dynamics of freshwater systems. Hence they miss out emerging water related risks resulting from global
environmental change. The argument is elaborated in the following section.

Freshwater Dynamics and IWRM

FIRST, none of the papers recognize the need to assess the thresholds, the key drivers and major
uncertainties that determine freshwater system’s ability to uphold vital ecosystem services and social welfare.
As an example, although all emphasize and elaborate the need of environmental monitoring activities, impact
indicators, and creating a “water resources knowledge base” (IDB 1998, GWP 2004:29-33, GWP 2000:51-54,
Jonch-Clausen 2004:32f, World Bank 1993:70ff, ADB 2003:14,18, AfDB 2000:14,26, Cap-Net 20064), none
of them recognize the need of conducting assessments of potentially serious abrupt and irreversible regime
shifts. The implications are not trivial. If the frequency, intensity or coverage of climate variability shifts as a
result of global environmental change, whether these events are likely to result in irreversible regime shifts
should be vital information for water managers (c.f. Steffen et. al. 2004, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005).
SECOND, all actors fail to acknowledge the need to develop water policy strategies that are able to adapt,
or cope with “surprises”, and uncertainty in freshwater systems. This becomes most clear in the discussion of
the creation of IWRM plans and the IWRM-cycle. As an example, although the need to design iterative water
planning processes is discussed extensively in (Jonch-Clausen 2004:18f, GWP 2004, World Bank 1993:40ff,
ADB 2003:17f, AfDB 2000:21), none of the documents provides any guidance on how to “plan” in a context
where both social and ecological uncertainties are vast.
Again, consider the uncertainties in water planning activities created by the undetermined impacts of
global environmental change. Many of the fundamental components of the IWRM process (such as “Build
Commitment to Reform Process”, “Prepare Strategy and Action Plan” and “Build Commitment to Actions”
summarized in Jonch-Clausen 2000:22 and GWP 2004:12) will be difficult, or even impossible to achieve
without explicit strategies that help water policy makers and communities to achieve consensus and collective
action despite uncertainty (Galaz 2005). In addition, all documents fail to recognize that climate induced
surprises such as flash floods, previously inexperienced droughts, and unexpected changes in freshwater

1 For a description of the selection process, see Appendix 1.

2 http://www.cap-net.org/iwrm_tutorial/6_1.htm [accessed 2006-03-29]
3 http://www.cap-net.org/iwrm_tutorial/3_3.htm [accessed 2006-03-29]
4 http://www.cap-net.org/iwrm_tutorial/1_3.htm [accessed 2006-03-29]

3
quality, can seriously undermine carefully negotiated water plans, one fundamental component in the IWRM
process. How to restructure, and renegotiate IWRM-plans after such events in collaboration with stakeholders
under vast social and ecological uncertainties is a challenge worth far more attention in international water
policy-guideline documents aiming to harness global environmental change.
THIRD, proponents of IWRM tend to be strong advocates for stakeholder participation (e.g. IDB 1998:7ff,
GWP 2000:11f,15f,28f,49f,55, Jonch-Clausen 2004:19,28, GWP 2004:32, World Bank 1993:16,73, ADB
2003:14,18f, AfDB 2000:23, Cap-Net 20065). At the same time, none of them recognize the need to promote
collaborative learning processes. The difference between stakeholder participation and social learning might
seem small, yet the practical implications are important. IWRM approaches seem to promote stakeholder
participation as a way to legitimize water plans, to mobilize support for the implementation process, and to get
more accurate qualitative assessments (ibid). Collaborative learning processes on the other hand are
advanced to combine scientific with local knowledge, to jointly assess the drivers and thresholds of the system
and as a key component in creating a common understanding of the major uncertainties in the system (see
Walker et. al. 2002, Berkes et. al. 2003 for examples).
FOURTH, IWRM-processes are often presented as a dynamic process that “aims at laying down a
framework for a continuing and adaptive process of strategic and coordinated action” (GWP 2004:27), or as
“an ongoing learning and development process” (Jonch-Clausen 2004:33, see also GWP 2000, ADB 2003:14,
IDB 1998:14). However, none of the documents discuss the need to cope with uncertainty by treating policy
as experiments. On the contrary, the recommendations build on the bold assumption that policy is realized in
a non-changing natural and social environment, and assumed by policy makers with a close to perfect causal
understanding of the world (e.g. Cap-Net 20066). As discussed earlier, treating policy as experiments from
which managers can learn is a requisite in dealing with change and vast uncertainties such as those created
by global environmental change (c.f. Ostrom 1999, 2005, Folke et. al. 2005).
FIFTH, capacity building is often identified as a key element in promoting IWRM-processes (e.g. GWP
2000:16,50, Jonch-Clausen 2000:22ff,37f, Rogers and Hall 2003, World Bank 1993:65-78, ADB 2003:30,
AfDB 2000:6,40, Cap-Net 20067, IDB 1998:16-19). “Capacity building” in IWRM initiatives focus on
institutional and policy improvement, monitoring and evaluations skills. These initiatives do however, not aim at
enhancing the capacity of water managers and water dependent communities to deal with the local
implications of climatic change. Building this sort of capacity requires strengthening by IWRM hitherto ignored
organizational and social components (e.g. GWP 2000:11,53f), such as the promotion of social capital (Pretty
2003, Adger 2003, Berkes and Seixas 2005), the stimulation of social learning aiming to understand system
dynamics (Tompkins and Adger 2004, Schlusler et. al. 2003, Walker et. al. 2004:3), and nurturing social
networks (Cutter et. al. 2003, Woolcock and Narayan 2000).
SIXTH, it is also worth noting that the problem-solving capacity of catchment-based governance
promoted by IWRM is likely to be drastically challenged when shocks to the water system resulting from global
environmental change induced extreme events (Re Munich 2006, Steffen et. al. 2004), risk to cascade and
trigger crisis and non-linear behaviour in social, ecological or economical domains that clearly surpass the
scale of the river basin and the scale of catchment based social networks (c.f. Kinzig et. al. 2006, Moench and
Dixit 2004). Kinzig and others (2006) provide a number of illustrations of the governance challenges posed
by cascade effects. Projections of the social, economic and ecological state in the Australian wheat-belt display
a number of interacting thresholds. Abrupt shifts from sufficient soil humidity to saline soils and from
freshwater to saline ecosystems, might make agriculture a non-viable activity at a regional scale and trigger
migration, unemployment and the weakening of social capital. Hence many of the existing strategies to cope
with e.g. extreme weather events require a policy-integration different from that usually promoted by
conventional IWRM approaches (e.g. Cap-Net 2006, World Bank 1993, GWP 2000). As an example, the
possibility to migrate in times of drought or flooding, strategies to achieve income diversification, nurturing
social networks and social capital, etc. (c.f. Moench and Dixit 2004, Adger 1999, Dowding et. al. 2005) are all

5 http://www.cap-net.org/iwrm_tutorial/3_3.htm[accessed 2006-03-29]
6 http://www.cap-net.org/iwrm_tutorial/6_1.htm [accessed 2006-03-29]
7 http://www.cap-net.org/iwrm_tutorial/5_3.htm [accessed 2006-03-29]

4
risk-reducing policy initiatives that will require different collaboration patterns among state agencies and civil
society.

III. Reass ess ing th e Three Pillars of IW RM

The need to realize a more integrated management of water resources should not be underestimated. There
is nonetheless also a serious need to take the dynamics of freshwater systems in an era of global
environmental change seriously. The implication of the argument presented here is not to discard IWRM
altogether, but rather to rethink some of its key components in the light of our increased understanding of the
features of interconnected freshwater resources and their governance. The interesting question is obviously
which components, and in what ways. The general principles of IWRM are numerous, yet four Dublin principles
seem to stand out as “they have been carefully formulated through an international consultative process
[…].” (GWP 2000:13). I will discuss three of the four principles in detail, as these seem to be those mostly
affected by the perspective offered in this paper.8

Pillar I. Freshwater is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the
environment.

This pillar identifies water as a fundamental and finite resource, but also the need to create a “water sensitive
political economy” and “co-ordinated policy making at all levels” (GWP 2000:14-15).
Taking the dynamics of freshwater systems seriously in an era of global environmental change however,
also implies a need to recognize that water resources do not respond to change in a smooth way. Freshwater
resources with diminished resilience can move beyond thresholds that are difficult and even impossible to
reverse resulting in less social welfare, or a collapse in the whole system. The first pillar also needs to
recognize that freshwater resources are subject to cross-scale interactions as they are strongly
interconnected with other ecological and social systems at diverse geographical and time scales. This implies
that freshwater governance must be able to harness high uncertainty and surprises resulting from these
interactions. One suggested strategy is to promote co-ordinated policy making across sectors and levels and
policy experiments, learning and adaptive approaches to water governance.

Pillar II. Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users,
planners and policymakers at all levels.

This second pillar highlights the need to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. From a
perspective where water resources are viewed as dynamic and vulnerable to global environmental change, this
second pillar should recognize the need to promote stakeholder participation as a way to deal with
uncertainty, change and “surprises” in freshwater resources. That is, not only is stakeholder participation
needed to achieve “long-lasting and common agreement” (GWP 2000:16), but also as a process that: 1)
combines local knowledge with scientific expertise and promotes joint learning processes to better understand
the dynamics of freshwater resources, that is threshold behaviour, key drivers and major uncertainties, 2)
builds a joint capacity to better cope with, or recover from surprises and extreme events by nurturing the
evolution of social networks and social capital amongst stakeholders and water managers, 3) builds a joint
capacity to monitor and adapt to gradual change in water resources, or in social, economical, political or
ecological conditions vital for nurturing the resilience of freshwater resources.

Pillar III. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic
good.
8
This is not to say that gender aspects are unimportant in increasing the capacity of water governance to tackle
the impacts of global environmental change. The challenge is that resilience scholars have yet to integrate
gender issues.

5
 This third pillar highlights the problems created by viewing water as a free good. This principle points out
the need to manage water demand and supply by using economic instruments (GWP 2000:18-21) and/or
recognizing and setting up water rights-based management systems (World Bank 1993, 2004). The argument
that water should be treated as an economic good has gained wide acceptance by a number of international
water policy actors such as the Wold Bank (Bauer 2005), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB
1998:19ff) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB 2003:24f).
Yet the non-linear dynamics of these systems seem to challenge the efficiency of assigning property rights
(Dasgupta and Mäler 2004). More precisely, recognizing that freshwater systems are complex and
interconnected also implies realizing that minor disturbances can move the system to a new degraded and
practically irreversible state. For example, compounded perturbations transforming an oligotrophic water
system into a eutrophic lake, or a system where modifications in the landscape irreversibly affect the flows of
blue and green water (c.f. Falkenmark 2003), respond in a stable fashion to further disturbances but it now
moves toward a new equilibrium state with less social welfare. Property rights to goods and services allocated
before crossing the threshold are no longer available, and the assumptions of the economic model are no
longer valid (Limburg et. al. 2002:415ff). The increased potential for regime shifts, surprises and conflict
resulting from uncertain hydrological changes, and the desires of competing water users for certainty,
flexibility and protection of environmental values call for a much closer examination of the ways in which
economic tools and incentives can be used to facilitate or hinder adjustment to the effects of GEC.

Conclusion

It should be highlighted that the argument is not that all realized IWRM-approaches throughout the world
fail to recognize the interconnected dynamical and non-linear characteristic of freshwater resources. What is
argued is however, is that IWRM as a strategic approach as represented in key global policy documents, does
not seem to strengthen water governance in such a direction. The analysis shows that there is a substantial
lag between advances in research on what constitutes resilient interconnected freshwater resources and their
governance, and what is being promoted by policy makers at several policy scales, from the international to
the national arena. Ongoing IWRM-processes provide an important window of opportunity to build a capacity to
tackle the challenges posed by global environmental change. But only with a number of important
adjustments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Oskar Wallgren, Johan Rockström, Thomas Hahn, Lennart J. Lundqvist and
Stephan Barthel for comments on earlier drafts. The support from The Swedish Research Council for
Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas) and the Swedish Water House through the
“Resilience and Freshwater Initiative” is acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Adger, N.W. (1999). “Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal Vietnam”, World
Development, 27(2), pp. 249-269.
Adger, N.W. (2003). “Social Capital, Collective Action and Adaptation to Climate Change”, Economic
Geography, 79(4), pp. 387-.
ADB (2003). Water for All – The Water Policy of the Asian Development Bank. Asian Development Bank.
AfDB (2000). Policy for Integrated Water Resources Management. African Development Bank.
Bauer, C.J. (2005). Siren Song: Chilean Water Law as a Model for International Reform. Resources for the
Future, Washington D.C.

6
Berkes, F., J. Colding and C. Folke (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems – Building Resilience for
Complexity and Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Berkes, F. and C.S. Seixas (2005). ”Building Resilience in Lagoon Social-Ecological Systems: A Local Level
Perspective”, Ecosystems, 8, pp. 967-974.
Carpenter, S.R. and K.L. Cottingham (2002). “Resilience and Restorations of Lakes” in Gunderson, L.H. and L.
Pritchard (eds.) Resilience and the Behavior of Large-Scale Systems. Island Press, London.
Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J.M. Anderies, N. Abel (2001). “From Metaphor to Measurement – Resilience of What
to What?”, Ecosystems, 4, pp. 765-781.
Chapin, F.S., O.E. Sala, I.C. Burke et.al. (1998). “Ecosystem consequences of changing biodiversity”,
BioScience, 48(1): pp. 45-52
Clark, M.J. (2002). “Dealing with uncertainty: adaptive approaches to sustainable river management”, Aquatic
Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst, 12, pp. 347–363.
Cramer, W., A. Bondeau, F.I. Woodward (2001). “Global response to terrestrial ecosystem structure and
function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models”, Global Change
Biology, 7, pp. 357-373.
Cutter, S.L., B.J. Boruff and W.L. Shirley (2003). “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards”, Social
Science Quarterly, 84(2), pp. 242-261.
Dasgupta, P. and K.G. Mäler (2004). ”The Economics of Non-Convex Ecosystems”, in Dasgupta P. and K.G.
Mäler (eds.). The Economics of Non-Convex Ecosystems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Pp. 1-
27.
Dietz, T., E. Ostrom and P.C. Stern (2003). “The Struggle to Govern the Commons”, Science, 302, pp. 1907-
1911.
EC-JRC (2005). Climate Change and the European Water Dimension – A Report to the European Water
Directors. The European Commission Joint Research Committee, EU Report No. 21553.
Falkenmark, M. (2003). Water Management and Ecosystems – Living with Change. Global Water Partnership,
Stockholm [TEC Background Paper].
Foley, J.A., M.H. Costa, C. Delire et. al. (2003). “Green Surprise? How terrestrial ecosystems could affect
earth’s climate”, Front Ecol Environ, 1(1): 38-44.
Folke, C. (2003). “Freshwater for Resilience: A Shift in Thinking”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 358, pp. 2027–
2036.
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker et. al. (2004).”Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem
Management”, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35, pp. 557-581.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson et. al. (2005). “Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems”, Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 30, pp. 441-473.
Folke, C. (2006). ”Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological system analyses”, Global
Environmental Change, 16(3), pp. 253-267.
Galaz, V. (2005). ”Social-Ecological Resilience and Social Conflict – Institutions and Strategic Adaptation in
Swedish Water Management”, Ambio, 34(7), pp. 567-572.
Gibson, C., E. Ostrom and T.K. Ahn (2000). “The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global
change: a survey”, Ecological Economics, 32, pp. 217-239.
Gunderson, L.H. and C.S. Holling (2002). Panarchy – Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans
and Nature. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Gunderson, L.H., S. Carpenter, C. Folke et. al. (2006). ”Water RATs (resilience, adaptability, and
transformability) in lake and wetland social-ecological systems”, Ecology and Society, 11(1): 16.
GWP (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. [TAC
Background Papers, No. 4].

7
GWP (2004). Catalyzing Change: A handbook for developing integrated water resources management (IWRM)
and water efficiency strategies. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm.
Habron, G. (2003). “Role of Adaptive Management for Watershed Councils”, Environmental Management,
31(1), pp. 29-41.
Holling C.S. (1986). “The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change” in Clark, W.C.
and R.E. Munn (eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. pp.
292–317.
IDB (1998). Strategy for Integrated Water Resources Management. Inter-American Development Bank,
Washington D.C.
Jansson, B-O and A-M Jansson (2002), ”The Baltic Sea: Reversibly Unstable or Irreversibly Stable?”, in
Gunderson, L.H. and L. Pritchard (eds.). Resilience and the Behavior of Large-Scale Systems. Island
Press, London. Pp. 71-110.
Jonch-Clausen, T. (2004). “…Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005”
Why, When and How?, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm.[TEC Background Papers, No. 10].
Kinzig, A. P., P. Ryan, M. Etienne et. al. (2006). ”Resilience and regime shifts: assessing cascading effects”,
Ecology and Society, 11(1): 20.
Limburg, K.E., R.V. O’Neill, R. Constanza and S. Farber (2002). “Complex Systems and Valuation”, Ecological
Economics, 41, pp. 409-420.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being – Synthesis. Island Press,
Washington D.C.
Moench, M. and A. Dixit (eds. 2004). Adaptive Capacity and Livelihood Resilience – Adaptive Strategies for
Responding to Floods and Droughts in South Asia. The Institute for Social and Environmental Transition
(ISET), Boulder, Colorado.
Nyström, M., C. Folkle and F. Moberg (2000). ”Coral reef disturbance and resilience in a human-dominated
environment”, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15(10), pp. 413-417.
Ostrom, E. (1999).”Coping with Tragedies of the Commons”, Annual Review of Political Science, 2, pp. 493-
535.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2006). “The implications of complexity for integrated resource management”, Environmental
Modelling and Software, (in print).
Paine, R.T., M.J. Tegner and E.A. Johnson (1998). “Compounded Perturbations Yield Ecological Surprises”,
Ecosystems, 1, pp. 535-545.
Peterson, G. D., T. D. Beard Jr., B. E. Beisner, E. M. Bennett, S. R. Carpenter, G. S. Cumming, C. L. Dent, and T.
D. Havlicek. (2003)“Assessing future ecosystem services: a case study of the Northern Highlands Lake
District, Wisconsin”, Conservation Ecology, 7(3): 1. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art1
Pretty, J. (2003). “Social capital and the collective management of resources”, Science, 302, pp. 1912-1914.
Re Munich (2006). Weather catastrophes and climate change: is there still hope for us? Münchener
Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft. München, Germany.
Rogers, P. and A.W. Hall (2003). Effective Water Governance. Technical Background Papers, No. 7, Global
Water Partnership, Stockholm.
Scheffer, M., D. Straile, E.H. van Nes, Harry Hosper (2001b). “Climatic Warming Causes Regime Shifts in Lake
Food Webs”, Limnology and Oceanography, 46(7), pp. 1780-1783.
Schluster, T.M., D.J. Decker and M.X. Pfeffer (2003). “Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource
Management”, Society and Natural Resources, 15, pp. 309-326.

8
Schröter, D., W. Cramer, R. Leemans et. al. (2005). ”Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global
Change in Europe”, Science, 310(25), pp. 1333-1336.
Steffen, W. et. al. (eds.) (2004). Global Change and the Earth System – A Planet Under Pressure. Springer
Verlag, Berlin.
Troell, M., L. Pihl, et. al. (2005). ”Regime shifts and ecosystem service generation in Swedish coastal soft
bottom habitats: when resilience is undesirable.”, Ecology and Society, 10(1): 30. [online] URL:
Tompkins, E. L. and W. N. Adger (2004). “Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience
to climate change?” Ecology and Society, 9(2): 10. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10
UNDP (2006). IWRM Tutorial through Cap-Net.org. URL [online: http://www.cap-
net.org/iwrm_tutorial/mainmenu.htm. Sitemap available at http://www.cap-
net.org/iwrm_tutorial/sitemap.htm] accessed 2006-03-28 and 2006-03-29.
Walker, B. and J. A. Meyers. (2004). “Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: a developing
database”, Ecology and Society, 9(2): 3. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art3/
Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies et. al. (2002). “Resilience Management in Social-Ecological Systems: a
Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach”, Conservation Ecology, 6 (1):14. [online] URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14
Woolcock, M., and Narayan, D. (2000). “Social capital: Implications for development theory, research and
policy”, World Bank Research Observer, 15, pp. 225–249.
World Bank (1993). Water Resources Management. The World Bank, Washington D.C.
World Bank (2004). Water Resources Sector Strategy – Strategic Directions for World bank Engagement. The
World Bank, Washington D.C.