This document discusses governing risks in implementing water-related SDGs. It presents different frameworks for conceptualizing and responding to risk, including adaptive governance, adaptive co-management, and anticipatory governance. It also discusses legal pluralism in water governance and how different types of legal pluralism problems require different solutions. Specifically, it examines issues around the human right to water and sanitation at international and local levels, as well as indigenous people's rights. A key conclusion is that implementing water SDGs is challenging due to significant existing legal pluralism around water and different stakeholder perspectives on risk framing.

1. Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research
Governing risks: Water SDGs
Joyeeta Gupta

2. Risk and water SDGs
 How the risks in implementing SDGs are
framed in contexts:
 Water flows are changing, demand is
changing, values regarding how water is to
be managed is changing
 Risks in governance
Type the footer here 2

3. Type the footer here 3
Risk
Principles: Participation
Legal pluralism
Subjective: Socially
constructed
Objective, Calculable
System to be governed
Governing system

4. Adapting to risk and uncertainty
Concept Approach to risk Response
Adaptive
Governance
Uncertainty about
ecosystem services &
institutions.
Enhance adaptive capacity
Adaptive Co-
mgt
Recognize different
epistemologies/multiple
uncertainties – allow
pluralism.
Negotiate agreements with
stakeholders.
Adaptive Mgt Technocratic approach
by market/policymaker.
Policy response in learning-
by doing by managers
Anticipatory
Governance
Risk operationalized in
scenarios leading to
plan; public participation?
Reflexivity developed
through scenario planning
and adaptive management.
4
Hurlbert and Gupta, 2015

5. Governing different types of problems
5
Unstructured
problems
Structured
problems
Modersatelly
structured
problems
Moderately
structured
problems
No consensus
Consensus
Values
No consensus ConsesnusScience
Adaptive
co-management
Adaptive
governance
Adaptive
management
Anticipatory
governance
Hurlbert and Gupta 2015

6. Anokye 2013, based on Based on Arnstein
(1969); Mostert (2003); Rowe and Frewer (2005). 6

7. Hightrust
Highproblemsolving
LowTrust
Lowproblemsolving
High participation
Adaptive governance
Low participation
Adaptive management
Structured problem
Technocratic policymaking
Single loop learning
Unstructured problem
Dialogue and discourse
Triple loop learning
Moderately structured
Values or Science
Double loop learning
Moderately structured
Values or Science
Zero loop learning
Increasing
citizen power
Information
Placation
Therapy
Manipulation
Educate
Take decisions
Consultation, test ideas,
seek advice
Delegated
power
Seek
consensus
Achieve
consensus
Self mgt.
Discuss
different
perspectives
Debate on
diff. values
Consensus may
be out of reach

8. Legal pluralism
 Multiple rules applying to same area/people
 Positive: allows for competition, gives space for
customary rules
 Negative: creates confusion
Type the footer here 9

9. Legal pluralism: Types
Type the footer here 10
Weak relations Strong relations
Contrary Type 1: Co-existence
i.e. rules not
implemented
Type 2: Competition
i.e. rules compete
Affirmative Type 3:
Accommodation
i.e. rules negotiated
through participation
Type 4: Mutual
support
i.e. rules that support
each other

10. Legal pluralism: Solutions
Type the footer here 11
Weak relations Strong relations
Contrary Type 1: Indifference
Solution: Knowledge, capacity
building
Type 2: Competition
Solution: unstructured problem;
requires second and third order
learning processes. It will also require
negotiation, conflict resolution and
action research.
Affirmative Type 3: Accommodation
Solution: This may be part of a
pacification strategy; this may
require the co-management of
resources in order to be effective
and lead to mutual learning.
Type 4: Mutual support
This is a favourable situation, only
calling for first order learning, and the
improvement of routines and
approaches.

11. WASH and Human Right to
Water/Sanitation
International level (HRWS & UNWC)
Co-existence HRWS (UNGA 2010), not in UNWC
Competition No priority of use in UNWC
Accommodation Non interferance with HRWS impl. & no
harm principle
Mutual Support HRWS & pollution prevention
Type the footer here 12

12. WASH and Human Right to
Water/Sanitation
Local level
Co-existence HRWS in national law, but not
implemented
Competition HRWS and water pricing
Accommodation Rules exist and are being modified through
participation
Mutual Support Local laws support access & customary
law
Type the footer here 13

13. WASH and Indigenous People
International level
Co-existence HRWS (UNGA 2010), not implemented
Competition HRWS is minimum; ILO calls for
recognizing their land and water rights
Accommodation ILO includes responsibility to consult
Mutual Support Efforts are mutually supportive at general
level
Type the footer here 14

14. Conclusions: Implementing Water SDGs
 Implemented not on an empty canvas – huge
legal pluralism in water
 Framing of risk is critical; risk is framed
differently in different contexts
 Depending on how risk is framed, different
governance approaches
 But even participation is not easy to define and
implement
 Implementing in a nexus context is even more
difficult Type the footer here 15