Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Arda Bilgen
(London School of Economics and Political Science)
Ramazan Caner Sayan (Swansea University)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Paper panel
- Stream:
- Resilience and wellbeing
- Location:
- CB4.5, Chancellor's Building
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 25 June, -, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract
We seek to examine the global common good approach to water, and draw attention to the risks involved in ambitions to discursively re-define water and practically re-design its governance to contribute to the debate on ways to navigate the perceived water crisis across multiple scales.
Description
Convened by the government of the Netherlands and facilitated by the OECD, the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) has rekindled a debate as to how water should be governed across different levels. In its inaugural report, ‘Turning the Tide’, GCEW diagnosed the past approaches to water governance to be ‘too narrow, too local, too short-sighted, too divided, and too incremental’, and pushed for the promotion of water as a ‘global common good’ (GCEW, 2023). In a recent report, ‘The Economics of Water’, GCEW has scaled up its focus to frame the whole hydrological cycle as a global common good (GCEW, 2024). While the idea of ‘globalising’ water gains increasing currency in the global water governance scene, the risks related to the re-framing of water and re-scaling of its governance have not been adequately assessed, except a few works (Heller et al., 2023; Linton & Saadé, 2024; Mehta & Nicol, 2023; Puy & Lankford, 2024). In this roundtable discussion, we seek to examine the global common good approach to water and its potential implications, particularly in terms of the paradigms (water as a human right vs water as a commodity), financing (public sector vs private sector), scales (local vs global), and instruments (context-sensitive vs mission-driven) of water governance. Thus, we aim to draw attention to the risks involved in ambitions to discursively re-define water and practically re-design its governance, and make a critical contribution to the debate on ways to navigate the perceived water crisis across multiple scales.
Accepted papers
Session 1 Wednesday 25 June, 2025, -Paper short abstract
This study examines the global common good approach to water through the lens of Global Hydro-Hubs (GHHs). The study discusses whether or how GHHs transform the conception of water, the governance structures that will be built around this specific framing of water, and the scale of its governance.
Paper long abstract
In this study, we examine the redefinition and promotion of water as a ‘global common good’ through the lens of Global Hydro-Hubs (GHHs) (Bilgen & Mukhtarov, 2024). We define GHHs as nations and cities that brand themselves, and are also branded by others, as the centres of excellence in water engineering, management, and governance and, by implication, as a natural choice for future clients to turn to with water-related problems. We argue that GHHs offer a productive lens for conceptual exploration of the current global water governance scene because GHHs themselves (1) draw on a combination of developmentalist and neoliberal logics that commodify and financialise water, (2) cut across through their operations multiple levels of water governance – global, regional, and local, (3) showcase the characteristics of a unique form of policy mobility – a kind that would facilitate the deployment of a globalised understanding of water, and (4) embody a promise of sustainable development and better water management without necessarily placing at its centre water justice and water struggles of local communities. We examine whether or how GHHs facilitate or hinder the transformation of the very understanding of water, the techno-economic governance structures that are likely to be built around this specific framing of water, and the scale of its governance. Finally, we discuss the implications of the disproportionate concentration of political and techno-economic power into the hands of a few influential actors in the global water sector on the future of water governance and water justice.
Paper short abstract
This study examines the interplay between securitization theory and the global public goods concept in transboundary water disputes. Analyzing cases representative case studies, it explores how de-securitization can strengthen cooperative governance and conflict resolution on water resources.
Paper long abstract
Freshwater resources are increasingly recognized as part of the common heritage of humankind, yet transboundary water disputes persist due to competing national interests. As a nonexcludable and nonrivalrous resource, water governance requires cooperative mechanisms that balance sovereignty concerns with shared management. However, the securitization of water disputes, where states frame water access as an existential security issue that in turn undermines the cooperative governance structures necessary for treating water as a global public good. This study examines the interplay between Copenhagen School's securitization theory and the basic concept of global public goods in the context of transboundary water conflicts. Through case studies including the Nile River Basin represented by the GERD Conflict, Tigris-Euphrates Basin, Lake Chad Basin, and Jordan River Basin, the study analyzes whether de-securitization strategies can reinforce cooperative management and how speech acts and emergency measures influences governance structures. Findings reveal that third-party actors (for example, the African Union, World Bank) can either exacerbate conflicts or facilitate de-securitization by promoting shared governance mechanisms that treat water as a global public good. By comparing patterns of securitization, de-securitization, and non-securitization, this study highlights policy pathways for sustainable and inclusive transboundary water governance. Recognizing freshwater as a global public good, the research advocates for institutional mechanisms that promote equitable consumption, shared decision-making, and fair distribution of benefits, ensuring long-term cooperation and conflict mitigation.
Paper short abstract
I’d like feedback on the abstract’s clarity, the critique of new institutional economics, and the integration of development economics. Does the case study on the Colorado River effectively support the argument? Are the policy implications clear and actionable for sustainable water governance?
Paper long abstract
In 2023, seven U.S. states reliant on the Colorado River reached a historic agreement to reduce their collective water consumption by 3.5 million acre-feet, marking progress in collaborative governance during a 22-year drought. However, this temporary agreement, set to expire in 2026, highlights the ongoing difficulties of managing water resources under frameworks shaped by structural inequities and competing interests. This paper critiques the dominant paradigm of new institutional economics by applying its key methodological tool, the self-enforcement contract game, to explain why each state accepted the revised allocation of Colorado River water. Using the Colorado River negotiations as a case study, the analysis demonstrates that new institutionalism can effectively explain governance outcomes. Crucially, it also exposes the framework’s inability to address why water consumption in capitalist systems consistently exceeds ecological boundaries. Specifically, by employing the self-enforcement contract game—designed to resolve the tragedy of the commons—this study reveals that new institutional economics fails to confront systemic incentives that prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability. To address these shortcomings, the paper incorporates insights from development economics to propose an alternative framework for equitable and sustainable water governance. This interdisciplinary approach redefines water not simply as an economic commodity but as a vital resource for human development and ecological resilience.
Paper short abstract
This study explores accountability and responsibility in UK water governance by comparing public and private ownership models. It examines their sustainability implications amid climate change and investigates water resource mismanagement to understand political action in the sector better.
Paper long abstract
As climate change and resource mismanagement intensify, the global water crisis now affects the Global South and countries in the Global North. In the UK, all four nations face growing water scarcity risks, exposing critical tensions between water as a human right and an economic good. These tensions are particularly pronounced in England and Wales, where privatised water management raises questions about where accountability and responsibility should lie—government bodies or private water companies.
This research addresses a critical gap in the political ecology literature by examining how accountability and responsibility in water governance are distributed across different ownership models in the UK. At the current data collection and analysis stage, preliminary findings suggest that under private ownership, responsibility and accountability remain in flux between government bodies and private water companies, often prompting political intervention. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study compares England and Wales (private ownership) with Scotland and Northern Ireland (public ownership). It employs Natural Language Processing (NLP) to analyse parliamentary debate transcripts and corporate reports, alongside semi-structured interviews with corporate and government officials, to offer a multi-faceted perspective on water governance.
This study critically examines the implications of differing governance paradigms on water sustainability by interrogating the UK's response to water scarcity. It seeks to contribute to ongoing debates around the balance of public and private responsibility in water management. It offers insights into how countries can navigate growing water challenges in an era of climate uncertainty.
Paper short abstract
The study evaluates the extent to which Kyrgyzstan has been coping with multi-faceted challenges caused by climate change in water resources management, highlighting water and sanitation services in Bishkek. Particular attention is paid to institutional rearrangements.
Paper long abstract
The study evaluates the extent to which Kyrgyzstan has been coping with multi-faceted challenges caused by climate change in water resources management, highlighting water and sanitation services in Bishkek. The country abounds in water with more than 3,500 rivers and 1,900 lakes that are filled up by glaciers, snow, and rainfall. A myriad of challenges have entailed water insecurity, such as extreme hydro-meteorological events, deterioration of water infrastructures, and inefficient management of water resources. Special attention is placed on institutional change in water policy, such as the introduction of the National Water Strategy 2040 together with the National Strategy for Sustainable Development 2018-2040. The government established the Program for the Development of Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Systems for Settlements 2026 for enhancing water and sanitation services with a total of US$ 784 million. The study sheds light on Bishkek’s water and sanitation services as a case study. The case study discloses various problems, i.e., insufficient water supply due to frequent droughts, deteriorating water quality, inefficient management systems, and the lack of funding due to inadequate economic instruments. Further efforts are necessary for improving water and sanitation services, i.e., climate-resilient institutional rearrangements, capacity building for water organizations, enhancement of economic instruments, and more investment.
Paper short abstract
This paper moves beyond the dichotomy of water commodity and water commons, and examines the coevolving process and local dynamics of hybrid water governance with an integration of state interventions and market-based mechanisms under China’s centralized political and institutional context.
Paper long abstract
Amidst a global trend toward neoliberal water governance since 1980s, water markets and water rights trading have been widely introduced to reallocate water for higher-value uses within and across sectors as a response to water-related development challenges. Critical scholars have contested this market environmentalism paradigm, articulating the complexity and contention of variegated neoliberalization processes on the ground. However, most studies are limited to the debate on water commodity and water commons, often framed in a traditional and binary view of state versus market. Little is known about the processes and mechanisms of hybrid water governance with an integration of state interventions and market-based mechanisms. Drawing on a case study of agricultural-to-industrial water rights trading in T county, northern China, this paper moves beyond the dichotomy and examines the coevolving process of “state-directed water marketization” within China’s centralized political and institutional context. Through a nuanced analysis of local political, socioeconomic, and environmental dynamics, this paper makes two arguments. First, the hybrid water rights trading is not the result of deliberate institutional design but is shaped by and contingent upon specific political-economic conjunctures, in which the water market is adopted by the county government as an ad hoc, practical solution to accommodate water abstraction permits for the industrial sector within the cap of total water use quotas. Second, it reflects a state-centric utilitarian strategy to address and balance competing water demands for both economic growth, agricultural and rural development, navigating the blurred boundaries of water as an economic, public, and common good.
Paper long abstract
Drought is a recurrent hazard around Lake Naivasha, Kenya, an area known as a centre for commercial irrigated agriculture and horticulture. Drought affects smallholder farmers, pastoralists and larger scale agricultural enterprises differentially. We gathered qualitative data through semi-structured individual and group interviews with representatives of all Water Resource User Associations (WRUAs) in the area, focusing on the impacts of drought on various actors, and the strategies they undertook to alleviate the effects of drought. We used an original framework combining insights from equitable resilience and environmental justice literatures, to understand how absorptive, adaptive and transformative resilience capabilities are distributed among different groups within the catchment. Historical processes of land alienation and promotion of commercial farming have reduced pastoralists’ and smallholders’ access to land and financial social and political capital, and their involvement in water governance processes, which are dominated by large scale commercial flower farms. Thus, smallholders, pastoralists, and downstream water users are more vulnerable to drought and less able to enact strategies that enhance their drought resilience, such as establishing water storage infrastructure and fencing off water access points. The study confirms the importance of analysing how historical processes influence contemporary drought resilience capacities. This method will enhance analyses of resilience to climate-related hazards, which are becoming more prevalent in an era of climate change, with widespread implications for livelihoods and business.
Paper short abstract
Known for beautiful parks, ranches, and wildlife conservation, Laikipia County is Kenya’s epicenter of conservation efforts, with 43 ranches occupying 50% of the total land area and 24 private conservancies. Drought has led to tensions in recent years between the conservancies and the pastoralists
Paper long abstract
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) set out to conserve nature. This led to the creation of conservation institutions. This was supported at a conference in Arusha in 1961. Thereafter, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) funded European conservation experts to come and conserve nature in Africa. Although a report by the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations observed that indigenous people ensure the protection of world territory, this does not apply in Laikipia. The experts believed nature could only be conserved by pushing away the natives from their ancestral areas to create protected areas for wild animals.
Pastoralism is a community’s way of life, their cultural identity that is pegged to land. The conservation carried out in Laikipia ought to have a mutual understanding among the inhabitants: both human and non-human, land for pasture and water for their animals. The hiving off and fencing of conservancies are tantamount to selling indigenous rights in the name of conservation. Compensation, savage remarks on the people’s culture and boardroom consultations may not end perennial conflicts in Laikipia.