GWG Synthesis report update 30 april 2012 · realities – quantity ‐ Hydrogeological realities...

Synthesis of Thematic Papers/Case Studies

Preparing the ground for Regional Consultations and Global Diagnostic Report

Groundwater Governance

Working Draft for Regional Consultations - 30 April 2012

WorkingDraftforRegionalConsultations–30April2012

1

GROUNDWATERGOVERNANCE:AGlobalFrameworkforCountryActionGEFID3726

GroundwaterGovernance:SynthesisofThematicPapers/CaseStudies

(preparingthegroundforRegionalConsultationsandGlobalDiagnosticReport)


2

Contents

1. Introduction:whygroundwatergovernancematters

Part1:GroundwaterGovernance–statusandtrends

2. Definitionsofgroundwatergovernance‐ Watergovernanceingeneral‐ Distinguishingcharacteristicsofaquifersandgroundwateruse‐ Particulargovernanceissuesforgroundwateruseandaquiferprotection‐ Thegovernancechallenges‐ Aworkingdefinitionofgroundwatergovernance

3. Acontextforgroundwatergovernance‐ Hydrogeologicalrealities–quantity‐ Hydrogeologicalrealities–quality‐ Conjunctiveuseandconjunctivemanagement‐ Reconcilingpublicandprivateinterestsinaquiferservices‐ Takinggovernancetoscale‐ Governanceandtime–slowonsetandrapidreversals

4. Whygroundwatergovernancebeimportanttosustainessentialservicesintothefuture

‐ Sustaininggroundwateraccessandqualityforwatersecurityandpublichealth‐ Servicinganurbanizingworld‐ Sustainingtrendsinagriculturalintensification‐ Maintainingecosystemfunctionsandservices‐ Macro‐economicrationale

5. Whatisdrivinggroundwatergovernance?

‐ Humandemandandcompetitionforgroundwaterquantityandquality‐ Latentappreciationofaquiferstate;depletionanddegradation‐ Ratesofchange:rapidurbanization,technologyuptakeandland‐usechanges‐ Regionalandglobalpolicyinnaturalresourceconservation

6. Evidenceofgroundwatergovernanceinpractice(asampleofCaseStudies)

‐ Aquifersasstrategicreserves–ultimatesources‐ Aquifersforeconomicdevelopment‐ Aquifersaspartofriverbasinmanagementplans‐ Aquifersasenvironmentalgoodsandservices–andultimatesinks‐ Institutionaladaptation–theevolutionandimplementationofgroundwaterpolicies,lawsand

regulations

Part2:Howcouldgroundwatergovernancebeimproved?

7. Enhancedprinciplesforgovernanceofgroundwater

‐ Sustainability;incorporateaquiferresponsetimeand‘renewability’‐ Transparency:makegroundwaterandgroundwatermanagement‘visible’‐ Participation‐engagewithgroundwaterusersataquiferscale‐ Accountability‐stresseconomicbenefitsandconsequencesofgroundwateruse


3

‐ Integrationwithwaterpolicy‐learntoplaywithgroundwater,andgroundwaterplayers‐ Precautionaryprinciple‐ Knowledgemanagementprinciple

8. InstitutionalResponses‐ Makinggroundwaterinformationaccessible‐ Makinganinstitutionalhomeforgroundwater‐ Removingconstraintstogroundwatergovernance‐ Facilitatinginvestmentingroundwatermanagement

9. Stressingthebenefitsofgovernance‐ Livelihoodsoutcomesandgroundwatertransactions‐ Macro‐economicoutcomes‐ Environmentaloutcomes

10. Promotinginstitutionalstrategies‐ Engagingwithusersataquiferscales‐ Definingmutuallyacceptablelevelsofdepletionanddegradation‐ Anticipatingtheevolutionofgroundwaterquality‐ Spreadingproductionandenvironmentalrisks‐ Whattodowhenaccesstogroundwaterdisappears‐ Structuringinvestmentingroundwatergovernance

Part3:Newhorizonsforgovernance‐dealingwithfutureuncertainties

11. Preparingfortheanticipatedimpactsofclimatechange

‐ Acceleratedhydrologicalcyclesandaquifercirculation‐ Changingpatternsoflanduseandrecharge

12. Anticipatingtheimpactoftechnologiesandgroundwaterfrontiers‐ Geophysicalexploration‐ Drillingandpumpingtechnology‐ Furtherimpactsonthebuiltenvironment‐ Implicationsofcrustalencroachment‐ Evolutionofenvironmentalinstrumentsandaquiferprotection

13. ConclusionsandRecommendations


4

GLOSSARYOFACRONYMS

APGP AdvisoryPanelonGroundwaterPolicy(thisprojectdocument)APPR AnnualProjectProgressReportAWP AnnualWorkPlanBD BiodiversityGEFFocalAreaBH BudgetHolderBRGM BureaudeRecherchesGéologiquesetMinièresCGIAR ConsultativeGrouponInternationalAgriculturalResearchCPR CommonPropertyResourceECA EuropeandCentralAsiaEUWFD EuropeanUnionWaterFrameworkDirectiveFA FrameworkforAction(thisprojectdocument)FAO Food&AgriculturalOrganizationoftheUnitedNations(seeAnnex7)GEF GlobalEnvironmentFacilityGEO GlobalEnvironmentalObjectiveGRAPHIC GroundwaterResourcesAssessmentunderthePressuresofHumanityandClimateChange

(UNESCO‐IHP)GWMATEGroundwaterManagementAdvisoryTeam(WorldBank)GWADI WaterandDevelopmentInformationforAridLands(UNESCO‐IHP)GWES GroundwaterforEmergencySituations(UNESCO‐IHP)GWP GlobalWaterPartnership(seeAnnex7)IAEA InternationalAtomicEnergyAgency(seeAnnex7)IAH InternationalAssociationofHydrogeologists(seeAnnex7)IBNET TheInternationalBenchmarkingNetworkforWaterandSanitationUtilitiesIGRAC InternationalGroundwaterResourcesAssessmentCentre(seeAnnex7)IHP InternationalHydrologicalProgramme(UNESCO)INBO InternationalNetworkofBasinOrganizationsINWEB InternationalNetworkofWater‐EnvironmentCentresfortheBalkansIOC InternationalOceanographicCommission(UNESCO)IR InceptionReportISARM InternationalSharedAquiferResourceManagement(UNESCO‐IHP)IUCN InternationalUnionfortheConservationofNatureandNaturalResources(seeAnnex7)IW InternationalWater(GEFFocalArea)IWC InternationalWatersConferenceIW‐LEARN InternationalWatersLearningExchangeandResource NetworkIWMI InternationalWaterManagementInstitute(seeAnnex7)IWMR IntegratedWaterResourcesManagementLAC LatinAmericaandtheCaribbeanLD LandDegradationGEFFocalAreaMAB ManandtheBiosphereProgramme(UNESCO)MAR ManagementofAquiferRecharge(UNESCO‐IHP)MDGs MillenniumDevelopmentGoalsMENA MiddleEastandNorthAfricaMODFLOW U.S.GeologicalSurveymodularfinite‐differenceflowmodelNEPAD NewPartnershipforAfrica’sDevelopmentNGO Non‐governmentalOrganizationOAS OrganizationofAmericanStatesOECD OrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopmentPC ProjectCoordinatorPCU ProjectCoordinatingUnitPDO ProjectDevelopmentObjectivePIR ProjectImplementationReviewPSC ProjectSteeringCommitteePOPs PersistentOrganicProducts(GEFfocalarea)PTS PersistentToxicSubstance


5

SA SouthAsiaSADC SouthernAfricaDevelopmentCommunitySEEAW SystemofEnvironmental‐EconomicAccountingforWaterSIDA SwedishAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentCooperationSC SteeringCommittee(thisprojectdocument)SIDS SustainableDevelopmentofSmallIslandDevelopingStatesSPPR SemiAnnualProjectProgressReportSTAP ScientificandTechnicalAdvisoryPanel(GEF)TDA TransboundaryDiagnosticAnalysisToR TermsofReferenceTWAP TransboundaryWaterAssessmentProgramme(GEF)UNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(seeAnnex7)UNEP UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(seeAnnex7)UNESCO UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization(seeAnnex7)UNESCO‐IHPUNESCOInternationalHydrologicalProgrammeUNICEF UnitedNationsChildren’sFund(seeAnnex7)UN‐ILC (UnitedNations)InternationalLawCommissionWB TheWorldBankWHO WorldHealthOrganization(seeAnnex7)WHYMAP World‐wideHydrogeologicalMappingandAssessmentProgrammeWMO WorldMeteorologicalOrganization(seeAnnex7)WSSD WorldSummitonSustainableDevelopmentWWAP WorldWaterAssessmentProgramWWC WorldWaterCouncil(seeAnnex7)WWV WorldWaterVision


6

1. Introduction:whygroundwatergovernancemattersThepurposeof this ‘global’ project on groundwater governancepresents somethingof a paradox – it is looking for a globalsolutiontoasetofessentiallylocalproblems.Patternsofgroundwaterusearenecessarilydeterminedbytheaquifersthathostthe groundwater and the hydrogeological process that condition groundwater flow. Governance of that use is relativelystraightforward–groundwaterusersandtheirpumpscanusuallybeidentifiedandappealedtoaspolicytargets.Butpromotingimprovedgovernanceofgroundwaterprotection involves amoreextendedsetofpolicytargets, fromdirectusersofaquiferservices, to landusemangersandall thosewhodispose solidand liquidwaste to landandsurfacewater. Overall, themainobjective is the long term functionality of aquifer systems that furnish groundwater and other related economic andenvironmental services. In this sense, the termsaquifer andgroundwater arenotequivalent and carehas tobe takenwhenreferringtothegroundwaterderivedfromaquifers,andtheaquifersystemsthemselves(seeBox1).Box1:GlossaryofhydrogeologicaltermsfundamentaltogroundwatergovernanceGroundwater:Waterpresent in theearth’s crust ina saturatedornon‐saturated soil ,weatheredmantleor consolidated rock formation.Groundwaterismovinginandoutoftheserelatively‘static’geologicallayers–sometimesmakingclearcutdistinctionsbetweensurfaceandgroundwaterimpossibleAquifer:Anidentifiablegeologicalformationcapableofstoringandtransmittingwaterinuseablequantities.Thehydraulicstateoftheaquifer(whetherconfinedorunconfined)determinestheresponseoftheaquifertodevelopment.Anaquifercomprisesthehostingmatrixofrockandthegroundwaterheldbetweenthematrix.AquiferDevelopment:Theprocessofpumpingorexploitinggroundwaterinanaquifer.Thiscanbethroughpumpingorthroughcontrolofartesianflowsoraquiferdischargeinseepagezones.Thelevelofdevelopmentwillincuraspecificaquiferresponsewhichwilltendtoanewequilibriumlevelinthelongrunorresultinaquiferexhaustionorthelimitsoflifting.AquiferDepletion:Thereductioninaquiferstorage(inunconfinedaquifers)orpressure(inconfinedaquifers)asaresultofdevelopment.AquiferDegradation:Thechange ingroundwaterqualitybroughtaboutby introductionofpollutants intoanaquiferorthereplacementofgroundwaterbylowerqualitywaterAquiferRecharge:Therateatwhichanaquiferacceptswaterfrommeteoricsources(directrainfallortransmissionlossesfromstreambeds)orleakagefromadjacentaquifers.AquiferDischarge:Therateatwhichanaquiferdrainstosprings,seepagezones(includingcoastalsabkahs)undernaturalconditionsAbstraction: Withdrawals of groundwater from an aquifer against natural flow gradients – the human development of an aquifer. Thedevelopmentofaspringcanalsobecountedasanabstractionfortheincrementalflowthatisreleased.Sustainableuse:Asocio‐economicinterpretationratherthanaphysicalonethatiscriteriadependant.Continuedaccesstoacceptablequalitygroundwaterinthelongterm.Thishastobedistinguishedfrom‘sustainableyield’or‘safeyield’First, theprojectneeds to formulateworkingdefinitionof ‘groundwater governance’. Froma reviewofexistingdefinitionsapossiblewordingissuggestedhereasastartingpointfordiscussionintheRegionalConsultations;

Groundwatergovernanceistheprocessbywhichgroundwaterresourcesaremanagedthroughtheapplicationofresponsibility,participation,informationavailability,transparency,custom,andruleoflaw.Itistheartofcoordinatingadministrativeactionsanddecisionmakingbetweenandamongdifferentjurisdictionallevels–oneofwhichmaybeglobal.(AdaptedafterSaunierandMeganck.2007.DictionaryandIntroductiontoGlobalEnvironmentalGovernance)Second,theprojectispredicatedontheassumptionthatthestateofgroundwaterandgroundwatergovernanceisnot‘good’and needs improvement. However, this presumes that we can distinguish ‘good’ governance from ‘bad’ or ‘indifferent’groundwatergovernance.Whilecriteria formakingsuchadistinctionmaybeavailable forwatergovernanceasawhole, theformulation of specific criteria for groundwater will need advice from the project’s regional consultations and consultationmechanisms.Withthisgeneralprovisiononaworkingdefinitionandcriteria,‘groundwatergovernance’couldbeinterpretedasthesetofpolicies or decisions that impact groundwater use and groundwater protection. Governance can be distinguished from‘government’(whodecides)and‘management’(whatisdonetoimplementdecisions).Inthissensegroundwatergovernanceisnot‘fuzzy’butinvolvesspecific(andnon‐trivial)decisionsaboutwhethertoturnonapump,applypesticidesormanagewaste


7

etc.Thesearedecisionsthatcanbemadedayafterdaybywatersupplyutilitiesandhundredsofmillionsofgroundwaterusersandlandusemanagers.Buttheremaybemanydecisions,publicandprivate,thatappeartofalloutsidetheimmediatedomainof‘groundwatergovernance’butwhichstill impactgroundwateruseandgroundwaterprotection.Thesecanbeinenergyandland‐usepolicyasmuchastradeandagriculturesubsidies.AseriesofdraftThematicPapers(listedinAnnex1)ongroundwatergovernance issues and prospects have been compiled to form a baseline for the project and illustrate the current scope ofgroundwatergovernance.AtpresentthesedraftswillonlybeavailableinEnglish.Mankind has long interfered with the earth’s crust and has build habits around geological patterns as a source of buildingmaterials, metals, minerals ‐ and groundwater. These habits persist and can become entrenched through subsidies andexpectations about access to groundwater (Shah et al. 2012). The imposition of hydraulic gradients on aquifers throughenhanceddrainage(developmentofspringsandfalajsystems)uptotheinstallationofhighcapacityelectro‐submersiblepumpsimposes stresses on aquifer systems and raises questions on equitable access to groundwater and its protection as a publicgood.Figures1and2illustratetheseimpactsongroundwaterlevels–wheretheycanbeinferredfromreliablemeasurementsofgroundwaterlevels.The impactsof thesestresses– theaquifer response toabstraction ‐areoften invisibleandunlike themonitoringof surfacewater systems there is no clear integrated measure of system state. Indeed the guess work is in the integration, theapproximations that aremade in time and space as individual geological and groundwater level observations are scaled upacross an aquifer. Prior to any interference, groundwater heads determined by uplift, erosion and the shifting patterns ofrechargeanddischarge.Thatconfigurationwasnotstable‐asclimaticzonesshifted.Withtheadventofenergisedpumpinginthe20thcentury, thisdynamicequilibrium in themostaccessibleandmobilegroundwatercirculationwas tochangeradically(Konikow,2011).Butchangesinlocalrechargeanddischargehadalreadystartedtooccuronalargescaleasland‐usepatternschanged–urbanization,de‐forestation.Subsequentagricultural intensification,notably theapplicationof inorganic fertilizers,wasalreadyimpactinggroundwaterqualitybeforethewidespreadadoptionofpumpingtechnology.(ThematicPaper1).Someaspectsof governance relate toabstraction fromvery localisedaquifers,butothers relate to rechargeprocessesand relatedland management over large areas and extensive aquifers. These present two distinct but not necessarily exclusive sets ofgovernance.Figure1:ObserveddrawdownintheSoussbasin,Morocco

Source:GWMATE.StrategicOverviewNo.4.


8

Ifwecouldalldipourhandsintoareadilyaccessibleandinexhaustiblepoolorflowofunpollutedfreshwateratanytime,therewouldbenoneedforanywaterresourcemanagement‐orliterature.Butaccesstoresourceshasalwaysbeenastruggleandastrugglethathasdefinedcivilizationsandmouldedlandscapes.Eveninhumidenvironments,thesecurityofferedbyaccesstogroundwaterhasmadeallthedifference–anditpaystolookaftertheaquifersthatfurnishthatgroundwater.Underanymodeand intensityofgroundwaterdevelopment, thepointatwhichdrawdownexternalitiesbecomesignificant in termsofhumanhealth and livelihoods is important to recognize. Understanding how and when these externalities are felt physically andeconomicallyisthereforecrucialtoanydiscussionofgovernance.Figure2:Observeddrawdown1980‐2005inthePunjab(Pakistan)

Source:GWMATE.StrategicOverviewNo.4.

In the 1950s and 60s, the case forwell informed large scale development of groundwater for social and economic benefits(UnitedNations1960)wasmade. Environmental impactswere factored in,butnotseenassignificant to theextent that theenvironmentalcostsofdevelopmentwouldoutweigh thebenefits.50yearson the lessonshavebeen instructive.Atagloballevel, groundwater is estimated to service70%ofpotable and industrialwater supply and40%of agricultural demand.Datacompiledforthisprogrammeindicatetherapidgrowthofgroundwateruse,particularlybyagriculture(Box2).Box2:MappingthestateofglobalgroundwaterresourceanduseGroundwater resources have been mapped at global and regional scale (e.g. WHYMAPhttp://www.whymap.org/whymap/EN/Home/whymap_node.html;BRGM‐Africa;SADChydrogeologicalmapping)togetherwithawiderangeof national hydrogeological mapping initiatives ranging from 1: 1M to 1: 100: 000 scale. Individual development projects have mappedgroundwaterresourcesandpiezometricdataatmuchhigherresolutions,sometimesincludingdetailedGIScompilationshavebeenmadeatcountrylevel(theMali,)This legacy of aquifer mapping, borehole inventories, drilling records is sometimes buried in the grey literature, but there are genuineattemptstoputthesereportsinthepublicdomain(http://www.bgs.ac.uk/sadc/index.cfm).Thecombinedeffortshouldnotbeforgottenandcanbetakenwithglobalanalysisofavailablestatisticaldatafordominantagriculturaluse(Siebertetal.2010http://www.hydrol‐earth‐syst‐sci.net/14/1863/2010/hess‐14‐1863‐2010.html) which compiles the results of available detailed national reports such as the 4th MinorIrrigationCensusforIndia.Urban/Industrialuseasafractionoftotalusemayberelativelysmall(andwillhavedeclinedinsomepost‐industrialaquifers(TheChalkbelowLondon),butremaineconomicallyimportant.However,comprehensiveestimatesofalldrinkingwatersupplysuchasthatcarriedoutfortheUNICEFandWHOJointMonitoringProgramme(http://www.wssinfo.org/data‐estimates/table/)stillgiveestimatesthatpointtolocallyimportantsourcesofsupplyforurbanareasandstrongdependenceinruralareasofdevelopingcountries(UNICEF/WHOJointMonitoringReportDecember2011)Thestateoftheearth’sgroundwaterresourcesandtheheathoftheaquifersthatsupplyhumanusesofgroundwaterarecloselylinked to the state of groundwater governance – the local arrangements that directly impact groundwater use and aquiferpollution.ButthestateoftheshallowgroundwatercirculationintheEarth’scrust,uponwhichwehavenowcometodepend,is


9

not‘good’byanymeasure.Thesustaineduseofgroundwatermaysimplynotbearealisticprospectformanyofourintensivelyexploitedaquifers.Elsewhere,since thestateofsurfacewaterbodiesdegradationmaybeevenmoresevere,the interactionbetweensurfacewaterandgroundwaterwillbetransmitted.Thisbegsafundamentalquestionofhowwegovernouruseandabuseofgroundwater,theaquifersthathostitandthesurfacewatersystemsthattransmitessentialrecharge.This reliance on groundwater is growing as alternative sources of surfacewater comeunder pressure. Indeed reliance upongroundwater canbetakenasthefirstsignofwaterscarcity (Shah,2006).Butagainst this trendofgrowingdependency, thedepletionofnon‐renewablegroundwaterresourcesandtheirreversibledegradationofaquifershaveproduced,insomecases,dislocationofpeopleandlivelihoodsinsomecases.Theinevitableaccumulationofdemandforfreshwaterandtheproductionofwasteismodifyingthecirculationandqualityofgroundwaterintheearth’scrusttosuchadegreethatoncereliableaccesstohighqualitygroundwaterisnolongertakenasagiven.Ultimatesource,ultimatesink–butwearenowinastatewheresciencecanpredictgroundwatersystemresponses–modellingandthemanagementoflargedatasetshasadvancedconsiderably.In broad definitions of natural resource governance, the principles of inclusive participation/representation, accountability,informationflows,transparencyandtherespectforformallawandcustomaryregulationcountinthecaseofgroundwaterasmuchasanyothernaturalresource.Butintwocrucialrespectsitisperhapsdifferent,largelyunseenandsystemsrespondovertime.Thevisibilityoftheannualhydrologicalcycle isnotthereandtheoccurrenceandstateoftheresourceisnevercleartousers–particularlyhowindividualactionscanimpactapublicresource.Asscarcityofhighqualitysourcesofwaterintensifiesandtreatment/alternativesupplycosts(energyprincipally)increase,watersuppliersarehavingtolookathewaterriskingeneral.Manyusersofgroundwatermayrealisethatwhiletheconvenienceofgroundwatermobilisationoffersmanyadvantages, the issueofultimate sourceandultimate sink soon comesback tohauntthemasrelianceturnstodependency.Infossilaquifersde‐coupledfromcontemporaryrecharge,thecaseforabstractioncanbemadeonthebasisofdischargethatwillhappenanyway–thenon‐beneficialseepagetosabhkasorsubmarinesprings.Butassoonasarechargecomponentisrecognisedinaquiferresponsetorainfalleventsordevelopment,thenotionof‘sustainability’becomesmuchmoredifficulttotrack.Inaddition,acrossarapidlychangingworld,thepointatwhichgroundwaterabstractionscan ‘flip’ frompredominantlyagriculturaluse tourbanuse is important to recognize this transitionwillunleashanewsetofgovernanceandmanagementchallenges.Thehydrogeological setting frames the sustainability problemand constrains the solutions.Marrying these settings to socio‐economicpatternsisessentialtoframeworkworkablesolutions.Ifpatternsofabstraction,landuseandpopulationcontinueasprojected, itmaybe impossibletorelaxsomepressures,but itmaybepossibletobea littlemore imaginativewithtechnicalapproaches (re‐cyclingand re‐use)andwasteminimization. For this, sustainableuseofgroundwater andaquifer services isperhapsamore realistic target thanabroadnotionof ‘sustainability’whichassumes that aquifer state remainsunchanged.Depletion anddegradationwill continue to occur so that the itmaymake sense to think in termsof admissible ormutuallyacceptablecriteriaorindicators.Thespectrumofgroundwaterchallengesfromintensiveuseforagriculturetoleachatefromland‐fillsitesarecommontomostcountries. As the utility of the earth’s crust and groundwater circulation becomes apparent, new geological frontiers haveopenedupfromhydrothermalproduction,hydro‐fracturing(fracking)togasstoragetocarbonsequestration.Theserelativelynewusesoftheundergroundspacehavedirectimplicationsforadjacentaquifersandthedegreetowhichfurtherprotectionofaquiferswillbeextendedisbeingtestedthroughenvironmentalimpactsassessmentsandpublicenquiriesorjudicialreviews.The profession of groundwater developers andmanagers – the hydrogeologists – tend scare planners and economistswithstoriesofend‐games.Whatwillhappenifthereisnoaction–casestudiesandscenariosfordepletedanddegradedaquifers.Theyscarebecausetheycare.Butevidenceofprescientactiontoavertgroundwatercrises ishardtofind. Irrespectiveofthelegalstatusofgroundwater(generallyclassifiedaspublicwater), theresourcecontinuestobeperceivedas ‘private’.There isstillagaptobebridgedbetweenthescienceandnaturalresourcepolicymakinginbuildingthecaseforimprovedgroundwatergovernance.Aretheresolutions?Pastsattemptstoregulateandmanagegroundwateras justanothernatural resourcehave informeduswhatnottodo–andsomeindicationofwheretostart.Someenvironmentalreportingrequirementsarenowpromptingmoreinclusive assessments of groundwater status and risks to economic, social and environmental services derived fromgroundwater.Butatthesametimeopportunitiesforconjunctiveuseandconjunctivemanagementarebeingmissed–asthenecessary understanding of surface water‐ groundwater interactions has lagged and the structural role of groundwater inintegrated water resource management has been ignored. In this sense, the explicit recognition of groundwater in watergovernancedebatesishardtofind.Theemphasisremainscentredonthesurfacewaterdominated‘hydraulic’administrationswhereinvestmentsaremoresupplydriven,‘lumpy’andhencemorevisible(OECD,2011)


10

To whom can a message for improved groundwater governance be addressed? This initiative is predicated on changingindividualgroundwateruserandpolluterbehaviours inorder toconserve the integrityofaquifersandsustaina setof socio‐economicandenvironmentalservices.However,theappealtomodifyspecificbehaviourswillbemediatedbyinstitutionsthatcanrangefrommulti‐nationalcorporateintereststhroughpublicagenciesandcommunitygroups.It isthereforeimportanttounderstandthatalthoughthepotentialtargetstopropagatesuchamessagearewide,maintainingequitable,longtermaccesstogroundwaterofacceptablequalitywillnecessarilyinvolvehighlylocalised,tailoredsolutions.Inthissensefindingpoliticallyviable institutional arrangements will be more critical that simply fixing the broader institutional environment (throughlegislation or resource pricing) or relying on supply‐driven technological fixes. The relative perspectives of users, naturalresourcemanagers, regulators and legislators areall relevant,but thepointof groundwateruseand theactofpollutionarebehavioural responses that have shown themselves resistant to change ‐ evenwhen the consequences of our groundwater‘habits’ are terminal.


11

Part1:GroundwaterGovernance–statusandtrends

2. DefinitionsofgroundwatergovernanceWhatmakesgroundwaterparticularanditsgovernanceproblematic?Generaldefinitionsofwatergovernanceareheldtoapplytogroundwaterinmostlegal/jurisdictionaldomains(ThematicPaper5and6)buttheoccurrenceofgroundwaterinaquifersisdistinguishedbygeological‘granularity’andmuchfuzzierboundaryconditions.Forinstance,conventionalriparianlawrelatedtoclearly identifiedchannels throughwhichwater flowscannotapply. Inaddition,groundwatermaybedistinguished fromothermineral resources hosted in geological formations (including oil and gas) on the basis of its ubiquity, renewability andessentialservicetolife.Addedtothisisthecomplicationofthirdpartyeffects.Notalllandmanagersabstractgroundwaterfroma specific aquifer for economic gain, but all land management will have an impact on aquifer recharge. This makes theapplication of community basedmanagementmodels or classical common property theory problematic for groundwater inparticular(vandeSchans,2003).Since the large scale and intensive use of groundwater has only occurredwith the advent of the energisedpump (ThematicPaper8)itisperhapsunderstandablethatwatergovernancehasnotbeenabletocatchupandthatthelonglegacyoflargelyriparianbasedwaterlawhasbeenhardtoadapt(ThematicPaper6).Indeed,whilesystemsofwaterallocationhavehistoricallyconcentratedonwhogetswhatandhowmuchoftherenewablehydrologicalcyclethatisapparentinriverandstreamflow,theformalinclusionofwidespreadcustomaryuseofgroundwaterhastendedtolagbehind.WatergovernanceingeneralIn broad terms, effective water governance mechanisms should be accountable, transparent and participatory and shouldfunctioninanintegratedmanner(FAOWaterTenureGuidelines,inpress–seeBox3).ThematicPaper5providesanaccountofprinciplesthathavebeenappliedinwatergovernancemodels–socio‐cultural,political,institutional,economicandecological.Inaddition recentsurveyfromOECDcountries(OECD,2011)hasstressedthemulti‐levelgovernance ‘gaps’thatcompromiseeffective co‐ordination and implementationof nationalwater policies.However, such is the localisednatureof groundwateraccess and use, it may help to distinguish between the general institutional environment in which policy, legal andadministrationnormsaresetatnationallevel,andthemuchmoredetailedsetofrulesthatgovernwateruseandtransactions(Shah2005).Box3.GeneralWaterGovernancePrinciples

Effectivenatural resourceallocationandmanagementdecisionsrequireaccountability.Decisionmakersneedtobeheldtoaccount for thedecisionsthattheymakesuchthatmistakesandpoordecisionscanberemediedandrectified.Thisisparticularlyimportantasregardswatertenure which may be adversely affected by bad governance in terms of loss of livelihoods, investment and so on. Decisions made bytechnocratsinsecretbehindcloseddoorswithnocomebackorchanceofcome‐backarenotlikelytobegooddecisions.

Transparencyisakeyprincipleforensuingbetterdecision‐makingandaccountability.Ofcoursetransparencyisimportantinallwalksoflifebutitisparticularlyimportantinthewaterresourcessectorwherelegislationislessaboutsettingoutlegalrulesandmoreaboutsettingoutaprocess for resourcemanagement, one that invariably impacts onwater governance arrangements. Transparency implies: public access toinformationaboutwaterresourcesandwatertenurearrangements includingpublicaccesstowaterrightsregisters;decisionmakingonthebasis of publicly recognised and agreed criteria such as river basin management plans; an obligation to provide reasons when adversedecisionsaremade;cheapandrapidappealprocedures;andseparating,asfaraspossible,politicsfromthedecisionmakingprocess.

Participation is necessary to ensure that better decisions are made. This is particularly important as regards water governance as suchdecisionsmayaffectarangeofdifferenttypesofgovernancearrangementaswellasdifferenttypesofuse.Ifdecisionsarenotmadeonthebasisofparticipationand‘buyin’,notonlyaretheylikelytobesubstantivelyworsebuttheyarealsolikelytobelesseasytoimplement.

Integratedwater resourcesmanagement (IWRM)hasbecome thedominantparadigm forwater resourcesmanagement. Oneof themostcitedisthatit is‘aprocesswhichpromotesthecoordinateddevelopmentandmanagementofwaterlandandrelatedresourcesinordertomaximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitablemanner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems’(GlobalWaterPartnership).However, intermsofgovernance,thekey integrationrequirement isthatasfaraspossibleallaspectsofwatertenure should be subject to a single basic water resources regime in terms of both legislation and institutional arrangements for theimplementationofsuchlegislation.Putanotherway,waterisasingleresourcesandshouldbemanagedassuch.Inpracticethismeansisthatalltypesofwateruseandthuswatergovernancearrangementsshouldbesubjectasfaraspracticabletothesamebasiclegislativeframework,withcertainexceptionsexploredfurtherbelow, irrespectiveof thetypeofactivity.Akey feature is thatallwateruseswithinagivenbasinand/oraquiferdirectlyorindirectlyimpactuponeachother.


12

DistinguishingcharacteristicsofaquifersandgroundwateruseGroundwaterandtheaquifersthathostitcanbedistinguishedfromsurfacewaterresourcesinseveralkeycharacteristics:

• unseenorunacknowledgedevenwhenexposed(groundwaterinopen‐castpits)buthighlydistributed(ubiquitous);• aquiferresponsestodevelopmentgenerallyoccuroverlongperiodsoftime–butcanrapidlychangewhensystems

movefromaconfinedtounconfinedstate;• theresponsesandaccessibilityofshallowgroundwatercirculationneedtobedifferentiatedfromdeepcirculation;• aquiferdegradationmoredifficulttoaddressthanaquiferdepletion–varyingimpactsofcontaminantloadsdepending

onaquifervulnerability;• somedepletionsandaquifercontamination/degradation(includingsalineintrusion)maybeirreversible.• levelsnotvolumescountformostpracticalpurposes;• recharge:intensiveabstractioninfluencesrechargeratesandreplenishmentofaquiferscanbemisinterpreted–• nonaturalintegratedmeasureandmonitoringandassessmentcostsarehigh;• rechargehardtogetahandleonbutglobaloverviewsbecomingpossible;• aquifersaretheultimatesource–andtheultimatesink;and• modesandintensityofexploitationarehighlyvaried–andinstitutionalresponsesequallyso.

ParticulargovernanceissuesforgroundwateruseandaquiferprotectionThisleadstoasetofspecificgovernanceissuesthatwhiletheyrelatetowatergovernanceasawhole,areparticulartogroundwater.Thesecanbebroadlystatedas:

• theeffectiveownershipofgroundwaterstillperceivedasintenselyprivateinmanypartsoftheworld,afactwhichinterfereswithmodernnotionsoftheStateorlocalgovernmentastheguardianortrusteeofwhathasbecomearesourceofstrategicimportance;

• theallocationofgroundwaterforeconomicusesanditsconservationtosupportgroundwaterdependentecosystemsandthebaseflowofwatercourses;

• protectingnaturalgroundwaterrechargeprocessesfromland‐basedinterferences;• protectinggroundwaterqualityfromland‐based,‘diffuse’sourcesofpollution(e.g.,therunoffofcroplands,butalso

stormwaterrunoffinurbanareas),andfromthediffusepollutionoriginatingfrompointsourceslikewastedumps,landfills,andtheundergroundstoragesofsubstances;

• theinterfacebetweenformalgroundwaterabstractionrightsandcustomaryrightsandpractices,• theroleofgroundwaterusersandofrelevantgroupingsinmanagingaquifersunderstress;and• theroleofriverbasinagenciesandorganizationsinintegratingthegroundwatervariableinwaterresource.

management.ThegovernancechallengesThesecharacteristicsofgroundwaterandaquiferspresentaspecialsetofgovernancechallenges,notleasttheapplicabilityofgeneraleconomic instruments toguideresource conservationanduse.Tosomedegree, thecommonpool resourceanalysis(Ostrom,2001)providesmethodforrecognizingatypologyofchallenges,butwhenconsideredalongsideothercommonpoolor‘public’resources,theprinciplesthatarederivedmaynotbesufficient(ThematicPaper5).Aquifersdonotnecessarilyfallintoneat typologies of common pool resources. There a wide diversity in terms of scale and three‐dimensional character andresponse–fromtheshortcirculationinthindiscontinuousalluvialaquiferstothelongperiodsofdeep,structurallycontrolledcirculation. Adaptive management of such systems, including conjunctive management with surface water resources andprotectionofrechargeareaswillnotnecessarilyinvolveneat,wellboundedgovernancearrangements.Thedefiningfeatureinmanywaysisthemodeofaccess,which(apartfrompublicallyconstructedandmaintainedboreholes)tendstobeprivate(ThematicPaper8),andthesusceptibilityofgroundwatercirculationtoalltypesoflanduseaspartofthenaturalrechargecycle(ThematicPaper4).Whilenoteverybodyreliesongroundwatersource,allhumanspossesstheabilitytopolluteanddegradegroundwater.While thisconfersaspecialsetof responsibilitiesonthosewhoabstractgroundwater, theconsumptivebehavioursofallcanbeexpectedtohavesomeeventualimpactonthequalityofwatercontainedinaquifers.Generic definitions of governance and water governance provided above give some help, but the distinction between‘Institutional Environment’ and ‘Institutional Arrangements’ is fundamental and important in terms of groundwater. Anexaminationofgroundwatergovernanceneedsafocusoninstitutionalarrangementswithrespecttobothpointsofabstraction(conditionedbylandtenure/access)andtheconservationandprotectionofaquifersthroughlandmanagement(spatialplanningandmanagement).Howeverdefinitionsofgroundwatergovernanceassumeaninclusivedefinitionofinstitutionsinrelationtoenvironmentandtechnology.TheCommonPropertyResource(CPR)literatureisinstructiveinsomerespects(Box4).


13

Box4:CommonPropertyResourcesInasummarypaperpreparedfor(Ostrom,2001)Notesthat“considerableconsensusexiststhatthefollowingattributesofresourcesandofappropriatorsareconducivetoanincreasedlikelihoodthatself‐governingassociationswillform”Ostrom(1990‐2001)identifiesfourresourceattributesand6appropriatorattributes:AttributesoftheResource:R1.Feasibleimprovement:Resourceconditionsarenotatapointofdeteriorationsuchthatitisuselesstoorganizeorsounderutilizedthatlittleadvantageresultsfromorganizing.R2.Indicators:Reliableandvalidindicatorsoftheconditionoftheresourcesystemarefrequentlyavailableatarelativelylowcost.R3.Predictability:Theflowofresourceunitsisrelativelypredictable.R4.Spatialextent:Theresourcesystemissufficientlysmall,giventhetransportationandcommunicationtechnologyinuse,thatappropriatorscandevelopaccurateknowledgeofexternalboundariesandinternalmicroenvironments.AttributesoftheAppropriators:A1.Salience:Appropriatorsaredependentontheresourcesystemforamajorportionoftheirlivelihood.A2.Commonunderstanding:Appropriatorshaveasharedimageofhowtheresourcesystemoperates(attributesRI,2,3,and4above)andhowtheiractionsaffecteachotherandtheresourcesystem.A3.LowDiscountrate:Appropriatorsuseasufficientlylowdiscountrateinrelationtofuturebenefitstobeachievedfromtheresource.A4.TrustandReciprocity:Appropriatorstrustoneanothertokeeppromisesandrelatetooneanotherwithreciprocity.A5.Autonomy:Appropriatorsareabletodetermineaccessandharvestingruleswithoutexternalauthoritiescountermandingthem.A6.Priororganizationalexperienceandlocalleadership:Appropriatorshavelearnedatleastminimalskillsoforganizationandleadershipthroughparticipationinotherlocalassociationsorlearningaboutwaysthatneighboringgroupshaveorganized.Ostrom then goes on to set out a set of 8 design principles that can be assumed to apply to ‘long –enduring common‐pool resourceinstitutions”DesignPrinciples1.ClearlyDefinedBoundaries:Individualsorhouseholdswithrightstowithdrawresourceunitsfromthecommonpoolresourceandtheboundariesofthecommon‐poolresourceitselfareclearlydefined2.Congruence:a.Thedistributionofbenefitsfromappropriationrulesisroughlyproportionatetothecostsimposedbyprovisionrules.b.Appropriationrulesrestrictingtime,place,technology,and/orquantityofresourceunitsarerelatedtolocalconditions.3.Collective‐ChoiceArrangements:Mostindividualsaffectedbyoperationalrulescanparticipateinmodifyingoperationalrules.4.Monitoring:Monitors,whoactivelyauditcommon‐poolresourceconditionsandappropriatorbehaviour,areaccountabletotheappropriatorsand/oraretheappropriatorsthemselves.5.GraduatedSanctions:Appropriatorswhoviolateoperationalrulesarelikelytoreceivegraduatedsanctions(dependingontheseriousnessandcontextoftheoffense)fromotherappropriators,fromofficialsaccountabletotheseappropriators,orfromboth.6.Conflict‐ResolutionMechanisms:Appropriatorsandtheirofficialshaverapidaccesstolow‐cost,localarenastoresolveconflictamongappropriatorsorbetweenappropriatorsandofficials.7.MinimalRecognitionofRightstoOrganize:Therightsofappropriatorstodevisetheirowninstitutionsarenotchallengedbyexternalgovernmentalauthorities.Forcommon‐poolresourcesthatarepartoflargersystems8.NestedEnterprises:Appropriation,povision,monitoring,enforcement,conflictresolution.andgovernanceactivitiesareorganizedinmultiplelayersofnestedenterprises.InrelationtotheresourceandappropriatorattributesOstrom(op.cit)goesontonote;“Itisveryimportanttostressthatmanyofthesevariablesareinturnaffectedbythetypeoflargerregimeinwhichusersareembedded.Largerregimescanfacilitatelocalself‐organizationbyprovidingaccurateinformationaboutnaturalresourcesystems,providingarenasinwhichparticipantscanengageindiscoveryandconflict‐resolutionprocesses,andprovidingmechanismstobackuplocalmonitoringandsanctioningefforts.Theprobabilityofparticipantsadaptingmoreeffectiverulesinmacro‐regimesthatfacilitatetheireffortsovertimeishigherthaninregimesthatignoreresourceproblemsentirelyor,attheotherextreme,presumethatalldecisionsaboutgovernanceandmanagementneedtobemadebycentralauthorities.”


14

The point about the institutional environment conditioning the eventual institutional arrangements is well understood, butperhaps because of groundwater’s invisibility and perceived technicalmystique, groundwater governance falls victim to anexpectation that “all decisions about governance andmanagement need to bemade by central authorities”. It is thereforeinteresting to note that in relation to specific groundwater institutions that have evolved in southern California, Blomquist(1992)stressescriteria forevaluatingtheperformanceofgroundwater institutionswhichareappliedtoevaluate institutionalresponsestogroundwatermanagementinsouthernCaliforniaare(innoparticularorderofpriority);

1. Compliance2. Effectiveness3. Efficiencyinadministration(basinmanagementcosts)4. Efficiencyinresourceuse5. Equity–fiscalequivalence6. Equity–distributionalconsiderations7. Adaptability

This detailed evaluation illustrated the evolution and diversity of institutional responses across a set of aquifers in richinstitutionalenvironmentwithrecoursetolegaladjudication.Ifthisrangeofresponsesispossibleinaverysmall,butdenselypopulated, area, how uniform or generic can we expect institutional responses elsewhere with possibly more variedhydrogeologicalconditions?AsBlomquist(1992)arguesinthecaseofCalifornia,thereshouldbestrongincentivestomanagegroundwaterresourceslocallygiventheexpenseofimportingwaterfromothersources.AworkingdefinitionofgroundwatergovernanceAsindicatedintheIntroduction,theprojectneedstoformulateworkingdefinitionof‘groundwatergovernance’.Fromareviewofexistingdefinitionsapossiblewordingissuggestedbelow.ThisdefinitioncanserveasastartingpointfordiscussionintheRegionalConsultations.Groundwater governance is the process by which groundwater is managed through the application of responsibility,participation,informationavailability,transparency,custom,andruleoflaw.Itistheartofcoordinatingadministrativeactionsand decision making between and among different jurisdictional levels‐–one of which may be global.(AdaptedafterSaunierandMeganck.2007.DictionaryandIntroductiontoGlobalEnvironmentalGovernance).Accordingly,‘groundwatergovernance’couldbeinterpretedasthesetofpoliciesordecisionsthatmoderatesgroundwateruseandpromotesaquiferprotection.Governancecanbedistinguishedfrom‘government’(whodecides)and‘management’(whatisdonetoimplementdecisions).Inthissensegroundwatergovernanceisnot‘fuzzy’buthastoframespecific(andnon‐trivial)decisionsaboutwhethertoturnonapump,applypesticidesormanagewasteetc.Thesearedecisionsthatcanbemadedayafterdaybyhundredsofmillionsofgroundwaterusersand landusemanagers.Buttheremaybemanydecisions,publicandprivate, that fall outside ‘groundwater governance’butwhich still impact groundwateruseandgroundwaterprotection. Thedistinction between management and governance is important. Broadly, groundwater management is the set actions toimplementdecisionsthatderivefromtheprocessofgovernance.Assuming that a definition can be agreed, the project is predicated on the assumption that the state of groundwater andgroundwatergovernanceisnotnecessarily‘good’andneedsimprovement–i.e.thatthereisagovernancegap.However,thispresumes that we can distinguish ‘good’ governance from ‘bad’ or ‘indifferent’ groundwater governance.While criteria formakingsuchadistinctionmaybeavailableforwatergovernanceasawhole,theformulationofspecificcriteriaforgroundwaterwillneedadvicefromtheproject’sRegionalConsultations.


15

3. AcontextforgroundwatergovernanceThematicPaper5describesasetofinstitutionalconstraintsandbarrierstotheimplementationofeffectivegovernance.Thesehave to be taken together with the physical hydrogeological realities set out in Thematic Papers 1‐4. Starting from thesehydrogeological‘realities’,theissuesofpublicversusprivateinterests,scalingandtimearebrieflydescribed.Hydrogeologicalrealities‐quantityAssessing the level of groundwater demand and state of aquifer depletion needs to be approachedwith care (Konkikow&Kendy, 2005; Konikow, 2011). The hydrogeological community have been at pains to educate public and policy makers intechnicallycorrectdefinitionsandavoidcasualuseofsuchtermsas ‘over‐exploitation’(Margat,1992)orpresumptionsaboutusing recharge as a criterion for development limits (Sophocleous, 1997, Custodio, 2002). The reason for this is that suchmisconceptions have fuelled attempts at governance which may prove misguided – or counterproductive (Ward, 2008).Therefore hydrogeologists have advocated abandoning the notion of ‘sustainable yield’ as a criterion for groundwaterdevelopment(Broedehoft,2007).Understandingrechargeinrelationtointensivepumpingandthe‘capture’offlowinaquifersystems isnowa critical issue ingroundwater resourceplanning (ThematicPaper4).But in sub‐humidclimates (for instanceEurope)groundwatermanagementhascomeinandoutoffocusdependinguponthepointatwhichpolicyismade–indroughtyears or years of flood. This political reality notwithstanding, Figure 3 presents a generalised account of how aquiferdevelopmentcanprogressandtheimpactsongroundwaterlevels.Figure3:Thestagesofgroundwaterresourcedevelopmentandtheirimpactonthenaturaldischargeofgroundwaterbodies

Source:GWMATEBriefingNote11

This pattern of development over timewill be familiar tomany groundwatermanagers and in trying to copewith observeddepletion of aquifer storage (when unconfined) or aquifer flow (when confined). The technical response once groundwaterresourceandriskassessmentshavebeenmadecanbeclassifiedasillustratedinFigure4–assumingthattechnicalmanagementispossibleandpoliticallyacceptable.ThematicPapers2,3and4havefocusedonthetechnicalscopeforaquifermanagement.


16

Figure4:Targetsforgroundwaterresourcemanagementin‘rationalizationscenarios’followingindiscriminateandexcessiveexploitation

Source:GWMATEBriefingNote11

Butthedepletionconcernisjustonefacetofsustainableuse.Maintaininggroundwaterqualitywhilealsoseekingtostabilisegroundwaterlevelscompoundsthegovernancechallenge,implicatingnotjustgroundwaterabstractorsbutthewholearrayofactorsinvolvedinland‐useandpollutionmanagement(ThematicPaper1).Actual institutional responses have tended to opt for technocratic regulation – some of which is necessary in the case ofprotecting aquifers for crucial water supply purposes. Other attempts to regulate demand have required clear incentives ordirect and indirect resource and energy pricing policies. In addition, preciselywhere sustainable use of groundwater shouldmatter(e.g.Spain,Mexico,India,China)thescaleofagriculturalabstractionhasprovedimpossibletoregulate(e.g.Westeretal.2011).Threebasicquestionsarise

• Hastheunderstandingofpressuresontheresourcebaseanditsinherentvulnerabilitybeenappreciated?• Havenationalplanningprovisions/lawsbeenadequate?• Haslocalisationofresourcemanagementbeeneffective?Thescaleofgroundwaterissuesmaybequitesmallandlocal

solutionstheobviousstartingpointanyway).Hydrogeologicalrealties–qualityThelong‐termaccumulationofnaturalandman‐madepollutantsinaquifersystemsandthetwo‐wayimprintingofgroundwaterandaquifermatrixmaypresentamoreintractablegovernanceproblemthengroundwaterquantityorlevels(ThematicPaper1).The role of drilling and pumping in mobilising naturally occurring pollutants such as arsenic or fluoride or inducing salineintrusion canbe contrastedwith thebroader ‘non‐point’ impactof landusemanagementongroundwaterquality. Improvedgovernance of drilling and pumping involves engagement of clear‐cut governance target – even if they can be counted inhundredsofmillions.Engagementofgroundwaterpollutersontheotherhandpresentsamoreuniversalgovernanceissueandis asmuch an issue for urbanwater supply utilitymanagers (Thematic Paper 3) as agricultural and environmental agenciesseekingtoregulatetheapplicationfertilizersandpesticides.Amuchmoresophisticatedevaluationof the roleofgroundwater in furnishingsetsofecosystemfunctionshasnowbecomeavailable(Morriset.al.1993).Manyoftheenvironmentalservicesmaintainedbygroundwaterlevelsarelinkedtoamenityvalueandfreshwaterbiodiversity(preferenceforwetlandsasopposedtodrainedagricultural land,forexample)butotherssuchascontinuedfunctioningofoasesinaridareashavedirectimpactsonlivelihoods.Decidinghowtheseecosystemvaluesaretobemaintained (either by active management of groundwater pumping regimes to augment surface flows or by relaxation ofaquiferdevelopment tomaintaingroundwater levels) isnot trivialparticularly indenselypopulatedareaswheredemand forecosystemservicesislikelytobehighest.


17

ConjunctiveuseandconjunctivemanagementItisarguedthatthefullpotentialofconjunctivemanagementofsurfaceandgroundwaterhasnotbeenrealised,inspiteofthecallstocommitintegratedwaterresourcemanagement.Althoughitispossibletoobservealotofconjunctiveuse(groundwaterscavenginginsurfaceirrigationschemes),proactiveconjunctivemanagementtoresolvescarcityandqualityconstraintshasonlyseenpartialapplication. In fact, theuseofaquifers formanagedstorageofsurplussurfacewaterhasbroadapplication fromsmallscalewatersupplyand irrigationschemestomunicipalsupplywheresomeformofaquifer‐storage‐recovery ispossible.Butbeyond this, the regulationof recharge through landmanagementalsooffers scope to improvegroundwaterqualityandquantity.However, as observed above, the incentives tomanage for quantity (in terms of reduceddrawdown)will bemoredirecttogroundwaterusers.Persuadingindividualstoreducechemicalinputsonlandorchangelandmanagementandwastedisposalpracticesismoredifficultsincetheremaybenodirectbenefitthem(asopposedtootherdirectusersoftheimpactedaquifer). Thegovernancechallenge for full adoptionof conjunctivemanagement (where it canmakeadifference) thereforeextends across the technical management of water storage along a river basin and into the broader domain of rechargeregulationthroughlandmanagement.ReconcilingpublicandprivateinterestsinaquiferservicesUntangling thewebof customaryuseof groundwater andmore formalwater allocationprocedures still provesproblematic.Free access to groundwater for de minimus use is taken as a given in most current water law (Thematic Paper 6). Somejurisdictions still give unfettered rights in use to land holders. If this private use did not impinge upon public interests ingroundwater access and groundwaterquality therewouldbeno immediate governanceproblem.But it does– and inmanycomplexanddifficulttopredictways.Wellinterference,irreversiblepollutionofaquifermatrixalldemandalevelofresponsiblebehaviouronthepartofusersofgroundwaterandthe landthroughwhich it is recharged.Theseparationof landandwaterrightshasgenerallyoccurredtoavoid‘grabbing’ofpublicresources(nottoinducetradingassomehaveinterpreted).TakinggroundwatergovernancetoscaleScaling presents the major institutional challenge, particularly when taken with the scale of water administration generally(ThematicPaper5).Manycasestudiespointtothepotentialforinnovativebutlocalsolutionstoimproveorprolongthestateofalocalresource(ThematicPaper7).Indiastandsoutintermsofthescaleandintensityofdevelopment–abutalsointheUSAwherethearidwest/SWhasreliedondevelopmentofdeeperaquifers.Identifyingtherangeofhydrogeologicalproblemsthatneedtobeaddressedneedscarefulanalysisandpresentationattheoutsetiftheresorttogovernanceistohaveanylegitimacy.Resourceassessmentsandhydrogeologicalmappingatascalethatcanbeusedbyplannerscanprovevitalinthisregard.ButitissignificantthatevenintheUnitedKingdomhydrogeologicalmappingavailableatscalesusefultoplanners(1:100,000)wasonly available in the 1980s and only then in the strategic southern Chalk and Limestone aquifers. The scale at which suchgroundwaterproblemsaspost‐industrialgroundwaterriseandassociatedpollution.nitrateandpesticideapplicationoruseofgeothermalenergyneedtobeanalysedandplannedformaynotbecompatible.Governanceandtime–slowonsetandrapidreversalsFinally, anticipating governance requirements over time presents levels of risk and uncertainty not normally associatedwithconventionalwaterresourcemanagement.Theoperationofasurfacewaterreservoir,forexample,isnotbesetbyunforeseenevolutionofwaterqualityorincrementalrisesinpumping(slowonsetproblems)orrapidreversalsoncethehydraulicstateofanaquifersystemisalteredorpolluted(rapidreversals).Thepoliticalresponsestogroundwater‘problems’maysimplybetooshort‐termtoalloweffectivegovernancemodelstobeapplied(ThematicPaper5).


18

4. WhygroundwatergovernancewillbeimportanttosustainaquiferservicesintothefutureGroundwaterhashadmoreaproblemwithsustainability.Hydrogeologistsarekeen todisabuseperceptionsof ‘safe‐yield’or‘sustainable yield’ for (Sophocleous, 2000; Custodio, 2002) as a technical criterion for development. This is simply becauseaquiferresponsetoapumpingstressinvolvesestablishmentofnewsystemequilibriumwhichneedstobemodelledaccuratelybeforebeingappraised.However,thereareverygoodreasonsforkeepinggroundwaterlevelsandgroundwaterqualitywithinlocallyacceptablelimits.AsGleesonetal.(2012)note;“We believe that the solutions to both groundwater quantity and quality issues should be developed inclusively and locally. Aquifer‐basedcommunitiescan implementpolicy toachievemultigenerationalgoals thatcan laterbemodifiedusingadaptivemanagement. In theshort‐term,defining locally relevantgoalsandvaluesand locallychanginggroundwaterusageandprotectionwillbecritical.Hydrogeologistscanplay an active role by using groundwater models to simulate effects of management polices and measures in achieving the long‐termsustainablegoalsandbymonitoringtheeffectivenessofpolicesandmeasures.Informationfrommodelingandmonitoringprovidesscientificbasis foradaptingmanagementmeasures.Watermanagers, localcommunities,andhydrogeologists shouldwork together toset long‐termgoals, todevicepolicesandmeasuresbybackcasting, and toadapt futuremeasures inachieving the long‐term sustainablegoals. This is afeasiblepathtowardssustainablegroundwateruse.”It is to be expected that the regional priorities will reflect state of development and the hydrogeological opportunity aspresentedbythehydrogeologicalsettingsinthatregion‐thephysiographiccharacterofthehydrogeologywillmouldthestyleandintensityofuse.Fourbroadareascanbeidentified‐innoparticularorderorprioritySustaininggroundwateraccessandqualityforwatersecurityandpublichealthAccesstocleansafedrinkingwaterfromlocalaquiferswillcontinuetobeapriorityconcern.Currentassessmentsofmunicipalsupplyindicatelevelsofdependencyof60%fortheEuropeanCommunity.Producingbulkwatervolumesfromsourcesusedforpotableandindustrialsupplyisakeydeterminantofmanagementandneedoverallmaintenanceofaquiferlevelstocontinuetosupply individual borehole abstractions and keepmunicipal systems pressurized. But thewater quality priorities are equallyimportantforbothcaseswherenotreatmentispossibleoraffordable(ruralwatersuppliesandurbanself‐supply)andtokeepdown the costs of treatment for supply into reticulated systems for small towns and cities. Inmany cases it is public healthlegislationthathelpdrive‘aquifercare’ratherthanwaterresourcemanagementperse.Theseconsiderationsarenotjustforpermanent settlement. The critical role of groundwater supplies in providing services for refugee camps, post‐disasterreconstructionisneverfarfromthepubliceye.Systemsofwatergovernancedevelopedintimesofpeacemightanticipatehowaccesstogroundwatercanbegovernedintimesofunrestorfollowingnaturaldisasters.ServicinganurbanizingworldItisnotjustwatersupplytourbanareasbuttheimpactofurbanland‐useandindustrialactivityonlocalaquifersasrepositoriesof waste (Thematic Paper 3). The concentrations of urban surfaces, waste and built space are combined with a set ofgeotechnical impacts resulting from both aquifer depletion and recovery. As urbanization proceeds, these impacts can beanticipatedandplannedforifthepaceofurbanizationisrelativelyorderlywhileremediationafterthefactislikelytobemuchexpensive(Figure5).The implications formunicipal water supply have been highlighted in a subsidiary paper also commissioned for this projectFosteretal.(2012).Whileisimportanttonotethatthepreciseproportionofgroundwaterforruralandurbanwatersupplyisnot captured by such initiatives as the Joint Monitoring programme ofWHO and UNICEF or the IB‐NET, the reliance upongroundwatersourcesforspecificcitiescanbeashighas100%eveninrelativelyhumidclimatessuchasBrazil.FortheEuropeanCommunityasawhole,groundwaterisestimatedtosupplysome60%ofurbaninhabitants.


19

Figure5.Typicaltemporalevolutionofwater‐supplysourceswithlarge‐scaleurbandevelopment

Source:Fosteretal.(2012)

The patterns of urbanization in relation to aquifers are significant. As Thematic Paper 3 points out, the urban groundwatergovernanceissueswithincitylimitscanbecontrastedwiththoseissuesoccurringbeyondthecitylimits.Definingpreciselywhoisaccountable,knowledgeableandresponsibleforgroundwatermanagementappearstobecomedifficultinastheintensityofurbanizationanddemandforurbangroundwaterservicesincreases.SustainingtrendsinagriculturalintensificationGlobally,almost40%ofequippedirrigatedareasarenowservicedwithgroundwater(Siebertetal.2010). Intheyearsahead,thelargestcontributiontoincreasedagriculturaloutputislikelytocomefromintensificationofproductioninexistingirrigatedareas (FAO, 2011b). Thiswill require increasedwater productivity and higher cropping intensities, andwill only be achievedthroughimprovedflexibility,reliabilityandtimingofwaterserviceandmoreefficientwateruse,forwhichinvestmentsinbothmodernization of irrigation infrastructure and in institutional improvement will be necessary. Groundwater is the perfectdeliverysystemforthisanticipatedintensification‐andaquiferstheperfectvictim.Becauseofthedependenceofkeyfoodproducersongroundwater,decliningaquifer levelsmaycreatearisktoregionalfoodproduction, with possible implications on food prices at global level. FAO has projected that the global area equipped forirrigationmayincreaseatarelativelymodestratetoreach318millionha.in2050,comparedtoaround301millionha.in2009.Mostofthisincreaseinequippedareasisprojectedtotakeplaceindevelopingcountries.Thiswouldrepresentanincreaseofaround11%,or0.24%peryear,muchslowerthaninrecentyears,butwithavailablesurfacewatersuppliesseverelylimited,thisincrease canbeexpected to translate into yetmorepressureon aquifers, not just fromwithdrawals. Increase applicationofagrochemicalscanalsobeexpectedunlessapplicationefficienciesaresubstantiallyimproved.MaintainingecosystemfunctionsandservicesEnvironmentalvalueslinkedtogroundwatermaybeamoreexplicitconcerninpost‐industrialeconomies.Thisdoesnotmeanthat theyarenotan issue indevelopingcountrieswhereecosystemservicesmaintainedbygroundwatercanbesignificant–even if not recognized. Much of this value relates to the maintenance of wetlands and associated bio‐diversity andenvironmentalservices(Sophocleous,2002a,2002b).Maintainingnaturallyoccurringandfluctuatinggroundwater levelsthatgivethelong‐termpulsetosuchwetlandshasproveddifficult.Suchwetlandsaresensitivetosmallfluctuationsingroundwaterlevels. Inadditionsuchwetlandsaresensitivetotheaccumulationofpollutantstransmittedthroughgroundwatercirculation.Formanypost‐industrialeconomies,theamenityvalueplaceduponsuchgroundwatersupportedenvironmentsmaybemuchhigher than any direct livelihood value. But for countries addressing poverty and rapidly expanding urban populations, theprioritiesmaythedirectandindirectusevaluessuchastheprovisionofwastewatertreatmentservices.Macro‐economicrationaleThemacro‐economiccontributionofgroundwaterismostapparentinagricultureandurbanwatersupply(wherethebulkofthedevelopmentinvestmentanduseoccurs).Forruralwatersupply,althoughtheuseislessintensivecomparedwithagriculture,theinvestmentsarealsohighlydistributed.Thedifficultiesofestimatingjustthegroundwaterwaterresourcecontributiontoagriculture have been explained in Siebert et al. (2010), and the difficulties in assessing the groundwater contribution tomunicipalservices(Fosteretal.2012)andwatersupplyandsanitation(UNICEF/WHO,2011)atnationallevelarewellexplained.


20

Broadly,themacro‐economiccontributionofgroundwatercanberelatedtoaavoidedtreatmentcosts,just‐in‐timeservice,andhigheragriculturalproductivitiesresultingfromprecisionirrigation.ThebroadersetofaquiferservicesarenotcapturedHowever, themacro‐economicdependencyongroundwaterdoesnotnecessarily formtheactualpointof interest forpeoplewhodependongroundwaterservices.Whiletheoveralleconomicsignalsmaybestrong, theeconomicengagementthatwilldeterminegovernanceoutcomes ismore likelytobecentredon individualbehaviourwithregardtogroundwaterabstractionand the protection of the aquifer services that guarantee the supply. Thiswill relate to livelihoods and themanagement ofindividualrisk.Inthissenseitisnotsomuchpubliccontrolofnaturalresourcesthathasnecessitatedgovernance,butprivateinterestsinmaintainingaviablefutureforhouseholds.Howevertheinstrumentalvalueofgroundwatercirculationismorelonglivedthansurfacesystemssincethetimetakentoemplacetheresourceandthelongmemoryofpollutionimpacts......


21

5. Whatisdrivingtheperceivedneedforgroundwatergovernance?Ifanythingistobeconcludedaboutthedriversofgroundwatergovernance,thenitisprobablythelatentappreciationofaquiferstate; depletion and degradation has prompted most institutional responses. The facts about groundwater depletion anddegradation have always apparent for some time (for instance cholera outbreaks in London in the 19th century ) and thescientificbasiswellestablishedforsometime(ThematicPaper1:Morrisetal.1993).Humaninducedaquiferdepletionontheotherhandhasonly becomeapparent since the secondhalf of the20th century . The sheer intensity andpaceof growthofhuman demand and competition for groundwater quantity and quality in the late 20th century has no precedent. Rapidurbanization,widespreadavailabilityofdrilling andpumping technology, and theassociated land‐use changes (Scanlonet al,2007 ) have tended to overtake the capacity of natural resource institutions to plan and regulate anorderedprogressionofaquifer development. Regional and global policy in natural resource conservation has only shown a mixed response orawareness of the state of global groundwater resources and its use. In addition, it can be argued that much of the globaldiscourse on water makes very little recognition of the particular character and vulnerability of aquifers and the room formanoeuvre.Across Asia, the Americas, Africa, Europe and many regulatory systems show a trend to move from free appropriation ofgroundwater to regulatory, permit based systems (Thematic Paper 6). This has place new responsibilities onwater resourceagencies primarily concerned with surface water management. But since intensive development of groundwater is recent,institutionalresponseshavelaggedbehind.However,itisnotagiventhataquifersystemscanalwaysbufferdemand.Depletionanddegradationcanbefastandaquifersystemscan‘flip’fromconfinedtounconfinedstateorrespondtoapollutionevent.Withthisexperienceinmind,somebroad‘thematic’driverscanbeidentified–asdescribedbelow.HumandemandandcompetitionforgroundwaterquantityandqualityAttitudeandcultureshapeapproachestoeverypublicissue,includinggroundwater.Oftentheincentivestouseandprofitfromgroundwater are high – but the externalities are largely unregulated. In some cases users refuse to act collectively andgovernments have had to amend water laws to allow government‐forced constitution of water organizations. Irrigationsubsidies can be introduced without social, economic and environmental impact assessment. The legal relationship togroundwatermaybeunclearundercertain landtenureandripariandoctrines–orsimplynotconditionedbyhydrogeologicalknowledgeorlocalcontext.Thegovernancearrangementthatmayworkacrossasmallaquiferdevelopedforirrigationmaynotwork in largeaquifers supplyingwater toa range differentactivities in largeurban,agricultural, industrialandminingareas.Indeed there are relatively few examples of self‐organization in relation to the scale and intensity of the groundwaterdevelopment(ThematicPaper7)orindeedexamplesofhowcompetitionovergroundwatercanberesolved.However,therearegeneralprinciplesofwaterand regulatory law thatare common todevelopedanddevelopingcountriesand substantiveandproceduralrulesareneededtoensurethatconflictadjudicationandadministrativedecision‐makingarenotarbitrary(ThematicPaper6).Latentappreciationofaquiferstate;depletionanddegradationTheperceptionthathumandependenceongroundwater is introublehasonlybeflaggedin internationalfora inthe lasttwodecades.Priortothis,groundwaterwasmainlyperceivedasadevelopmentopportunity(UnitedNations,1960).However,thestateofaquiferdepletionanddegradationisnotsomethingthatcanbeeasilyassessedwiththerequiredlevelofprecisiontoeffectgovernance inallplacesallatonce. Accountsof long‐termgroundwater ‘depletion’withhighqualityobservationwelldataarenotthatcommon(examplesforChile,Morocco,andIndiacanbefoundintheGWMATEcasestudyseries).However,muchofthegroundwatermanagement‘action’hastendedtobereactiveratherthanmorepro‐activeapproachestoprudentgroundwaterdevelopmentadvocatedatthedawnofthegroundwaterboominthe1960’s.Today,dismantlingpublic interestresearchmayhavelongtermimpactsincludingthedebilitationofthecareersofwatermanagersthroughvariousmeasures(lowsalaries,lowsocialprestige,lackoftenure,uncertaincareerpath,political‐transitoryappointmentshaveanegativeonresourcemanagement). At the same time knowledge and research are of no use if there are no organizationswith resources (legal,financial,technical)tocarrythemtofieldimplementation.Theindependenceandcompetenceoftheseorganizationsandtheirmanagersandpersonnelareimportantforgroundwatergovernance.Theyareinmanyrespectssimilartoregulatorsofpublicutilities. Butasageneral rule, it isnotpossible to protectwhat isnotknown.Even if known, it isnotpossible toprotectwithout the necessary legal, logistical, tools to do so. The lack of financial resources tomaintain public interest research ingroundwater development and management will continue to constrain efforts to work toward improved groundwatergovernanceRatesofchange:rapidurbanization,technologyuptakeandlandusechangesThe rate of change of human demand and pressure on aquifers since the mid 20th century cannot be underestimated. Ananalysisofland‐usetrends(FAO,2011)indicatesthatthelocationofdemandandtechnology(includinggroundwaterpumping)


22

willbeconcentratedonexistingurbanandrurallandlands.Therehasbeennonetexpansionofagriculturallandsince1960andfeedingandhousingaprojected9.3billionpeoplewill occuron land that is alreadydeveloped. This spatial concentrationofproductive andpolluting activityhasdirect consequences for aquifers (Scanlonet al. 2006). Itmayprove impossible to relaxaquifersincertainlocationswheregroundwaterusehashigheconomicdependency.Equally,thecostsofcontrolling,letalonemitigating,pollutionfromurbanoragriculturalsourcesmayproveimpossibletoabsorb.RegionalandglobalpolicyinnaturalresourceuseandconservationWhathappensbeyondnationalpolicymakingandsettingofregulationstoconserveaquiferservicesalsoneedstobetakenintoaccount.Regionaltradepatternsandthenationalsubsidiesofagriculturalproductioncanhavedirectimpactsongroundwateruse.Irrigatedstaplessuchascorn,wheatandricearehighlyresponsivetoglobalpricesandlevelsofnationalsubsidy(includingbiofuels)andmuchofthiscantranslateintodemandforgroundwaterwhereithasgivenproducerstheflexibilitytogetinandout of agricultural markets. Equally, it can be argued that the protection of international investments in land assets maytranscend national codes. These signals on natural resource development may be at odds with regional conservationagreements or international conventions. For these reasons it is important that customary laws, uses, and organizations forconflictadjudicationandwatermanagementberecognizedbynational formal legislation. A real risk is thatwell intentionednationallegislationcanbeoverruledbyinternationalinvestmentagreements.


23

6. Evidenceofgroundwatergovernanceinpractice(asampleofCaseStudies)(6pages)The literature on groundwater governance in practice is extensive as indicated in the bibliography for Thematic Paper 5.Howeverakeysourceofcases inrelationtospecificaquifersarenowbeingpublishedthroughthe IAHHydrogeologyJournal(http://www.iah.org/publications_hydro_journal.asp) which tends to be where international experience in applyinggroundwatermanagementisconcentrated,asopposedtogroundwaterprocesseswhicharegenerallyfoundinthehydrologicalscienceliterature.TherangeofcountrycasestudiesproducedfortheprojectthroughtheWorldBankinclude;

• India(http://water.worldbank.org/water/node/83814)• Kenya• Morocco• SouthAfrica• Tanzania• Tunisia

To these can be added a set of individual aquifer case studies compiled under the World Bank GWMATE programme(http://water.worldbank.org/water/related‐topics/groundwater‐management‐advisory‐team ) togetherwithbriefingnotesonthematic areas and strategic overviews. In addition case studies are being submitted through the PCM (see Box 4: for anexample).Threebroadtypesofaquifergovernance‘problematique’canbeidentified.Aquifersasstrategicreserves–ultimatesourcesFromsmallislandcountriestothelargestratiformcontinentalaquiferswithintensivedevelopmentbutlimitedorrechargeandthere isnowacomprehensive setofaquifer studiesandsomeexamplesof institutional responses thathave tried to reversetrends.Issuingboreholepermitscombinedwithvolumequotasorareaquotashavebeenstandardresponsestoreducedemandonstressedaquifersbuthavealsometwithlimitedornosuccessevenwhenaquifersarethe‘lendersoflastresort’(FAO,2006‐http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0994e/a0994e00.htm).Under suchcircumstances, a solution that isnotpolitically viable isunlikelytochangethebehaviourofindividualabstractorsandpolluters.AquifersforeconomicdevelopmentManycountriestryingtogrowruraleconomiesthroughintensificationhaveresortedtoexplicitsubsidiestotheruralsectorinorder to reduce groundwater pumping costs with the prime example being groundwater energy tariffs in peninsular India(WorldBank,2011–IndiaCaseStudy).Thedependencyongroundwaterforruralwatersupplyhasalsobeenrecognizedinruralwatersupplycampaignstoextendcoverage(UNICEF/WHO,2011).Overthe last25yearseconomicwaterpolicymodelshaveevolvedinconcept,theoreticalandtechnicalmethods,scopeandapplicationtoaddressahostofwaterdemand,supply,andmanagementpolicyquestions.Therehavebeenanumberof theoreticalandempiricaladvancesover thisperiod,particularlyrelated to the estimation of non‐market, public goodwater‐ related values involving different valuationmethods.Modellingadvancesincludemultiple,competingdemands,typesofincentivesandtechnologiesandbehaviouralresponses,incorporationof groundwater and other supply alternatives, integration of institutional factors and increasing attention to system‐wideimpacts.AquifersaspartofriverbasinmanagementplansWiththeadventofstandardisedfinitedifferencecodes(MODFLOW)runningonrelativelycheappersonalcomputers.dedicatedgroundwater models for specific aquifers are now used widely since the early 1990s. However, the explicit inclusion ofgroundwatermodels in largescaleriverbasinplanningandmagementisrare.Challengeslie inputtingthesemodelstogetherand integratingof the individualdemandandsupply components, includingofenvironmental impacts,across riverbasinandeveninter‐basinscalesofanalysis(ThematicPaper2)Aquifersasenvironmentalgoodsandservices–andultimatesinksThe explicit appreciation of aquifers as suppliers of environmental goods and services has tended to occur in the OECDcountries or arid countries with groundwater sustained wetlands or oases (Thematic Paper 9). While the susceptibility ofaquiferstodegradationiswellestablished(Morriset.al.2003),theeconomicappraisalofthepositivecontributionof‘insitu’goodsandservicesislesscertain.Valuationofexistencevaluesarelocallycontingentandinsomecasesthelongtermamenityvalueofmaintainedbaseflows,forinstance,canbedifficulttocomparewiththeimmediatebenefitofabstraction(FAO,2004).Thegoodsandservicesthatderivefromtheindirectuseofaquifers(e.g.asregulatorsofwaterquality)ortheirexistencevaluein maintaining public amenity values cannot be de‐coupled from the vulnerability of aquifers. Eventually, all poor qualitywastewatergeneratedonthelandsurfacewillfindapathwayintoanaquifer.


24

Institutionaladaptation–theevolutionandimplementationofgroundwaterpolicies,lawsandregulationsThereappeartobefewsuccessfulapproachestodirectmanagementofgroundwaterabstractionandpollution.IslandssuchasMalta have attempted such reforms to conserve its main strategic reserve. At the other end of the spectrum, the federalinitiativesofIndiatoencourageStategovernmentstoadoptamodelGroundwaterBillandformStateGroundwaterAuthoritiesarerelativelyrecentandtheevidencetoassesstheeffectivenessisnotavailable.Atthesametime,moreinformalattemptstoregulatethroughinformationandself‐monitoring(APFAMGShttp://www.fao.org/nr/water/apfarms/index.htm)havemetwithsome success at local level. Perhaps themost notable advance is in the adoptionof theWater FrameworkDirectiveby theEuropeanCommunitywhereprotectionofgroundwaterqualityhasbecomeakeyconcernandtarget.Box4:PCMsubmittedcasestudy

InstitutionU.S.GeologicalSurvey

CaseStudyTitle

EffortstoachievesustainableyieldofgroundwaterintheSanPedroRiverValleyandSierraVistaSubwatershed,Arizona,USA

Country UnitedStates

RelevancetoGroundwaterGovernance

Like many parts of the American southwest, the population of the Sierra Vista subwatershed is rapidly expanding.GroundwateristheprimarysourceofwaterfortheresidentsoftheSierraVistaSubwatershed,Arizona, includingFortHuachuca, Bisbee, Sierra Vista, Huachuca City, Tombstone, and the rural residents of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed.GroundwaterisalsoanessentialcomponentamongthewatersourcesthatsustainthebaseflowoftheSanPedroRiveranditsassociatedriparianecosystem.WateroutflowfromtheSierraVistaSubwatershed,includingwaterwithdrawnbypumping,exceedsnaturalinflowtotheregionalaquiferwithintheSierraVistaSubwatershed.Asaresult,groundwaterlevelsinpartsoftheSierraVistaSubwatershedaredecliningandgroundwaterstorageisbeingdepleted.Intheabsenceofeffectivemanagementmeasures,continueddeclineofwaterlevelsandassociateddepletionofstoragewilleventuallydiminishgroundwaterflowtotheSanPedroRiver. InNovember1988thelegalcontextoftheupperSanPedroRiver(SouthernArizona,USA)anditsattendantripariansystemchangeddramatically,asalmostitsentirelengthwithintheSubwatershedwasprotectedbyPublicLaw100‐696thatcreatedtheSanPedroRiparianNationalConservationArea(SPRNCA).TheUpperSanPedroBasinprovideshabitat for 389 avian species—almost half the bird species found in North America, 84 species ofmammals, and 47reptile and amphibian species. Per Public Law 100‐696, the U.S. Bureau of LandManagement has been charged tomanagetheSPRNCA“…inamannerthatconserves,protects,andenhancestheriparianarea…”andtheotherresourcesfoundthroughouttheSPRNCA.I n2003,TheUnitedStatesCongresspassedPublicLaw108‐136.Section321ofthislawrecognizedtheUpperSan Pedro Partnership, a consortium of 21 local jurisdictions, state and federal agencies, and non‐governmentorganizations,anddirectedthePartnershiptorestoreandmaintainthesustainableyieldoftheregionalaquiferwithinthe Sierra Vista Subwatershed by and after September 30, 2011. Some of the Partnershipmembers are owners ormanagersoflandand(or)arecapableofimplementingwater‐managementmeasures.Othermembersincluderesourceagencieswithexpertiseinpublicpolicy,variousscientificfields,andengineering.Inpursuitofitsgoals,thePartnershiphas initiated and/or funded studies to better understand the regional hydrologic system, the riparian system, andrecharge processes. The Partnership has also invested significant resources into systematically identifying, evaluating,anddocumentingwater‐managementmeasuresthatwillbeusedtoattainsustainableyieldoftheregionalaquifer.

Geographicalscopeandaquiferlinkage(physicalareaandaquifersystemsimplicated)

TheSanPedroRiveroriginatesnearCananea,Sonora,MexicoandemptiesintotheGilaRivernearWinkleman,Arizona,275kmtothenorth.Itisdividedintoanupperandlowerbasin,withthetwoseparatednearthecenterofthebasinbyabedrockconstriction.TheUpperSanPedroBasinissubdividedinto3subwatersheds.TheSonoranunitextendsfromtheriver’s source in Mexico to the international boundary; the Sierra Vista Subwatershed begins at the internationalboundary and terminates at the USGS gaging station near Tombstone, AZ, about 45 km north of the internationalboundary;theBensonSubwatershedextendsfromtheTombstonegagingstationtotheNarrows.ThecasestudywouldfocusontheSierraVistaSubwatershedbecausetheSPRNCA,createdbyPublicLaw100‐696,isentirelycontainedintheSubwatershedandbecauseSection321ofPublicLawdirectedtheSanPedroPartnership torestoreandmaintain thesustainableyieldoftheregionalaquiferwithintheSierraVistaSubwatershedbyandafterSeptember30,2011. The2,460km2SierraVistaSubwatershedispartofabroadalluvialvalley1,200to1,500mabovesealevel.Locatedinthesouthernpartofthebasinandrangephysiographicprovince,itisboundedtotheeastandwestbyfaultblockmountains.TheHuachucaMountains(2,890m)andMustangMountains(2,000m)aretothewestwhiletheMuleMountains(2,250m)andTombstoneHills(1,620m)aretotheeast.ThenorthernflankoftheSierraSanJose(2,500m),justsouthoftheinternationalboundary,drainsintoGreenbushdraw,amajorephemeraltributarythatreachestheSanPedroRivernorthofPalominas.Groundwaterfromtheregionalaquiferbeneaththesubwatershedistheprimarysourceofwaterfortheresidentsofthearea.GroundwaterisalsoanessentialcomponentamongthewatersourcesthatsustainthebaseflowoftheSanPedroRiveranditsassociatedriparianecosystem.

Populationimplicated(numberandstructure)

The2010censuscountedabout77,300peopleintheSubwatershed.SierraVistaisthelargestcitywithanestimatedpopulationof45,000peopleincluding7,200peopleonFortHuachuca.TheincorporatedcitiesofBisbee,Tombstone,andHuachucaCityaddanother8,800people.Theremaining23,500peoplewerelivinginunincorporatedareasoftheSubwatershedunderjurisdictionofCochiseCounty.

Dateofcompilation January4,2012

Website(ifany)


25

MaterialGroundwaterGovernance

Photography/figures


26

Part2:Howcouldgroundwatergovernancebeimproved?

7.EnhancedprinciplesforgovernanceofgroundwaterThe foundations forany ‘GlobalFramework’needsasetofguidingprinciples thatcan findcommonacceptance inallaquifersettingswheregroundwaterdevelopmentandprotectionistakingplace.Theinherentcharacterofgroundwaterpresentsasetofquiteuniquegovernancechallengesanditcanbearguedthatattemptsatinfluencingthemillionsofindividualdecisionstouseorabusegroundwaterhavefailedtotakeholdbecausethesechallengeshave not been adequately addressed. Pasts attempts to regulate andmanage groundwater as just another natural resourcehave informed us what not to do – and some indication of where to start. For instance, some environmental reportingrequirements are now prompting more inclusive assessments of groundwater status and risks to economic, social andenvironmental services derived from groundwater. But at the same time opportunities for conjunctive use and conjunctivemanagementarebeingmissed–asthenecessaryunderstandingofsurfacewater‐groundwaterinteractionshaslaggedandthestructural roleof groundwater in integratedwater resourcemanagementhasbeen largely ignored. In this sense, theexplicitrecognitionofgroundwater inwatergovernancedebates ishardto find.Theemphasisremainscentredonthesurfacewaterdominated‘hydraulic’administrationswhereinvestmentsaremoresupplydriven,‘lumpy’andhencemorevisible.Therefore, the basic or foundational water governance principles of accountability, transparency, user participation and therequirement to integrate assessments andmanagement responses still apply butmayneed ‘enhancing’ tomake themmoreapplicable to groundwater use and address the ‘governance gap’. In addition there may be a set specific principles ofgovernancethatrelatetogroundwaterbasedonthepresumptionthatthatpatternsandintensityofgroundwaterusewillneedtobesustainedinthefuture.Insummary,thesegroundwatergovernanceprinciplesarelistedwithbriefcommentsbelow.Alltheseprinciplesareexpectedtoapplyatalllevelsofmanagement–fromlocaltoglobal.Sustainability:incorporateaquiferresponsetimeandrenewabilityA general notion of ‘sustainability’ in terms of simple recharge and withdrawal budgets is not sufficient. A more informedappreciationofhowgovernancearrangementscanbeusedtomanageorrelaxaquifersunderpressureiscalledfor.Thesewillnecessarily involvequitesubjectivecriteriaastowhatsocial,economicandenvironmentalconsequencesareacceptableforaparticularsystemofgroundwatersupplyanduse.Inaddition,thetimeoverwhichaquifersrespondtodevelopmentorbecomeimprintedwithpollutionpresentsaparticulargovernancechallengewhenconsideringlongtermssustainabilityofgroundwateruse. Finally, the development of non‐renewable groundwater presents a specific governance challenge since decisions overplanneddepletionhavetobemadeinpurelysocio‐economicterms.Transparency:makinggroundwaterandgroundwatermanagementvisibleAccesstoclearlypresentedinformationisthereforeafundamentalpre‐requisiteforanywatergovernance,butneedsspecialeffort in thecaseofgroundwater. Inaddition, tomakinggroundwater informationaccessibleandvisible, thehighly localisedprocessofgovernancealsoneedstobetransparent–actors,communicationchannelsandthemeansofnegotiatingdecisionsovergroundwateruseandaquiferprotection.Participation:engagewithgroundwaterstakeholdersataquiferscaleGroundwaterusersandpollutersalsoneedtobevisible.Theengagementwithusersandpollutersataquiferscale isseenasessential inorder tomonitorandagreedrawdown limitsoracceptable limits topollution.Tobe inclusiveatevery stageandlevel of the governance process in aquifer development and protection has proved a challenge for many water agencies.However,thereisnowevidencethattheclearpresentationoflocallyrelevantgroundwaterinformationcanbecombinedwithparticipatorymonitoringofaquiferstatetoagreeacceptablelevelsofdrawdownorgroundwaterquality.Accountability:stresseconomicbenefitsandconsequencesofgroundwateruseIthasbeenstatedthatmorecouldbedonetostressthesocialandeconomicbenefitsofgroundwater.Howeverthisrealisationisonlylikelytohaveimpactifaccompaniedbyanaccountofthecostsorconsequencesofuseandasystemofrulesthateffectscompliance. This including the impacts of poor drilling andborehole construction and the adherence to commonly acceptednormsandstandards.Determiningwhobenefitsandwhostandstoloseasaresultofuseisfundamental–alongwithasystemofallocatinggroundwateruseinanequitablefashion.Moreproblematicistheidentificationofthosewhocausegroundwaterpollutionbutdonotusegroundwater.Forinstancerecognitionofapolluter‐paysprinciplemayworkwellforallwaterusers,butmayprovedifficulttoextendtoallthosewhochangeland‐useorapplyagro‐chemicals.Testsorcriteriafordeterminingwhoisaccountableforgroundwateruseandaquiferprotection‐andunderwhatsystemofcompliancestandards‐wouldseemtobefundamentalprincipleofgroundwatergovernanceinparticular.


27

Clearintegrationwithwaterpolicy:learntoplaywithgroundwater–andgroundwaterplayersIf groundwater governance is a neglected area of water policy, improved governance is only likely to occur if groundwatermanagement can be integrated with water policy and management processes. An explicit shift from conjunctive use toconjunctive management is expected to yield benefits where the buffering and storage advantages of groundwater can berealised across landscapes and economic sectors. In this sense groundwatermanagement needs to becomemore expert inplayingwithgroundwateruse inconjunctionwithsurfacewatersuppliesandwastewaterstreamsthrough imaginativeuseofeconomic and technical instruments (such as payment for environmental services, wastewater re‐use) and imaginativecollaborationwithotherwatersectorplayers.PrecautionaryprincipleThe vulnerability of aquifer systems to surface processes and the human encroachment of the earth’s crust has been wellestablished–andfurtheranalysisofprocessesandimpactsshouldnotbeanexcuseforinaction.Itmakessoundeconomicandpublic health sense to identify andprotect rechargeareas ‐ and rechargeprocesses. For instance it is hard to improveuponnatural processes of recharge for introducing groundwater and improvingwater quality andmaintaining the integrity of theland‐aquifercouplingwillcontinuebeakeyconcerninacrowdedworld.Butitalsomakessensetoregulatethedirectinjectionof pollutants and the disruption of aquifer fabric on the basis of a precautionary principle in the knowledge that suchinterferencemayprovedtohaveimpactsthatareirreversible.ThisprinciplewillbeparticularlyimportanttotheSmallIslandsDevelopingStates(SIDS)intheCaribbeanandPacificregionswheretheoptionsforobtainingalternativesourcesofwaterareextremelylimited.KnowledgemanagementprincipleA common plea made to hydrogeologists from non‐hydrogeologists is that more could be done to popularise groundwaterinformationandgroundwaterdynamics.Whileitisacceptedthatbasicaquifersystembehaviourinrelationtosupply(recharge)and demand (abstraction) still has to be modelled to fully appreciate storage depletion in particular, these sophisticatedinterpretationsneedgetacrosstogroundwateruserstothepointwheregroundwateruseismoderatedandaquiferprotectionadvance can remain problematic. Therefore, beyond the basic dissemination of groundwater information, the use ofgroundwater information and knowledge to assess the risks to groundwater depletion and pollutionwill be key in assigningapplyinggroundwatermanagementcriteria.Inthecaseofgroundwater(asopposedtosurfacewater)itisessentialtoanticipatethe evolution of groundwater quality and hydraulic state over time. The obligation to promote the use of groundwaterknowledgeisthereforeseenasfundamentalprincipleunderpinninggroundwatergovernance8. InstitutionalResponsesFromtheoutset,itisapparentthatremovingbarriersbetweengroundwaterscienceandpolicymakerscannotbedonewithoutmaking the invisible somehow ‘visible’. The scaleand intensityof currentand future impactsapparent.Howsuchmaterial ispresented by the hydrogeological community together with range of multi‐disciplinary science that is associated with itsdevelopmentandmanagement(fromepidemiologytopowerutilitymanagement)isimportanttogivegroundwatergovernancean institutional ‘home’ and demonstrate that there is an economic return for investing in groundwater governance. All thishingesonaworkingsystemofmutuallyacceptablearrangementsbetweenusersandpolluterstomoderatebehaviourandactinthe localpublic interest. In theabsenceofany formal institutional response, sucharrangementsmayoccur spontaneouslyaslocal aquifer communities react to commonly felt threats or impacts. However, as discussed before, such is the invisible,transientnatureoftheresource,arealistic appreciationwillneedtechnicalsupportwhenproblemsemerge–andpreferablybefore. How should that support be structured? In addition, even when an institutional framework for natural resourcegovernanceisinplace,thelackofanypoliticalviabilityinregulatoryapproachesmayworkagainstdesiredoutcomes.Inthosecases,removalofconstraintsmayneedtobeafirstorderresponse.MakinggroundwaterinformationaccessibleTheadvancedhydrogeologicalknowledgethathasbeengainedinstudyingaquiferresponsestohumandemandswillcontinuetobeessentialbutpiercingtheconsciousnessofpolicymakersandwatermanagersalikestillremainsachallenge.Theabsenceorclearpresentationofhydrogeologicalinformationcanoftenmeanthattheessential informationonthescalegroundwaterrelated risks to development or environmental services are simply not getting through. But for governance to work thisgroundwater informationhas to be accessible anduseable by thosewhohave a direct impact on groundwater quantity andquality. For instance, the APFAMGS project in Andhra Pradesh (http://www.fao.org/nr/water/apfarms/index.htm ) and hadsomesuccessinhelpingbothfarmersandpotablewaterusersinvillagecommunitiestomanageinter‐annualgroundwaterlevelfluctuations in local aquifers – largely by self‐monitoringof pumpedboreholes .While this is necessary, it is not likely tobesufficienttopromptself‐regulationbyuserstotheextentthataquiferlevelscanbestabilized,asinthecaseoftheGuanajuato


28

Statetechnicalwatercouncils(COTAS)reportedbyWesteret.al(2011)wheremoreproactivemechanismsforenforcementofgroundwaterregulationsandpromotionoftransparencyandaccountabilityareseenasnecessarycomplements.MakinganinstitutionalhomeforgroundwaterBeyond the information hurdle, simply making an institutional ‘home’ for groundwater amongst related water andenvironmentalinstitutionsstillappearstobedifficult–particularlywhendealingwithurbangroundwatergovernance(ThematicPaper3).Traditionally,geologicalsurveysoragencieshaveinformedwaterresourceandenvironmentalregulators.Onlyafewcountries have attempted to set up dedicated groundwater management agencies. India, for example, has had a CentralGroundwater Board since 1970 and recently introduced a Central Groundwater Authority in an attempt to co‐opt StateGovernmentsinpromotingmoreactivegroundwaterregulation.ClearlyinalargecountrysuchasIndia,thescaleanddiversityofgroundwaterchallenges isunprecedented.Attheotherendofthespectrum,many local initiativesrelatedtogroundwatermanagement, such as rechargemovements citedby Shah (2007)may arise in an information vacuumorwithout up todatescientificvalidationoftheirefforts.RemovingconstraintstogroundwatergovernanceWhile the points above have suggested areas where a positive approach can support groundwater governance, it is alsoreasonabletoaskiftherearenayinstitutionalconstraintstogovernanceidentifiedinThematicReport5thatcouldberemoved?Many seemingly straightforward approaches to natural resource governance – including direct and indirect ‘pricing’ – mayimpose a rigid set of institutional instruments that are not politically viable and hence produce no governance solution.Adherencetoabstractionlicencequotasfromacentralagencyorreformofelectricitytariffstoruralareasmaybethingsthatjust run into a political roadblock and do not obtain a political constituency for aquifer conservation or protection. Moreacceptableapproaches,includingamnestieson‘illegal’boreholesmayhavemorepositiveimpactiftheybringthescaleoftheproblemtolightandsetthebasisformutuallyacceptablesolutions.Judgingwhethertoregulategroundwateruseatall,andifso,determiningpreciselywheretostartneedstobecarefullythoughtthrough.FacilitatinginvestmentingroundwatermanagementIdentifyingand facilitating investment ingroundwatermanagementhas rarelybecomeapriorityorhabit.Onceadroughtorgroundwaterpollutioneventhaspassed,interesttendstodeclineandinstitutionsthatwereonceconsideredvitalinsolvingagroundwaterresourceproblemarenolongerfashionable,eveniftheriskpersists.Inmanysensesitisthelackofspecificandpersistent institutional responses to groundwater governance that has constrained efforts conserve and protect aquifers(ThematicPaper5).Thegovernancechallengetendstobelumpedwiththoseofwatergovernanceingeneral.Thisiscertainlynecessary,butnotsufficient.Theintensityoflocaldemandforgroundwaterservicesissuchthatthereisalotofprivateinterestwhichisoccasionallymobilisedintoapublicinterestmatter,bywhichtimeitmaybetoolatetoresolve.Itcouldbearguedthatnational and regional initiatives suchas the specific groundwaterpollutiondirectivesembedded in theEUWater FrameworkDirective–or theUSA’sCERCLASuperfund– are simply too late to remediate aquifer services even if they are successful inpreventing further degradation. Hence it is probably necessary to establish the specific policy and investment ‘space’ forgroundwater management at scales suited to the grouping of groundwater interests and the effectiveness of mitigationmeasures.Butevenhereitcanberealisedthattheinterestsoflocallivelihoodssupportedthroughaccesstogroundwatermaybe incompatiblewith theneed toprotectanextensiveaquifer toprovidemunicipal supply . In thisway, thegovernanceandinvestmentchallengeisnotasstraightforwardasfinancingriverbasinsurfacewaterresourcedevelopmentandmanagement.Tailoring the investment space for groundwater governance is beset by the low‐intensity but highly distributed nature ofgroundwaterconservationandaquiferprotectionmeasures.


29

9. Stressingthebenefitsofgovernance LivelihoodsoutcomesandgroundwatertransactionsThe equity andwelfare affordedby access to groundwater cannot be under‐estimated, but is often overlooked in economicterms. The social and public health benefits deriving from what many water legislations recognize as ‘de minimis’ use aresignificant–butonlyas longas theseuserightsareprotectedandcombinedwithaquiferprotectionmeasures.Thecomplexmicro‐economictransactionssurroundinggroundwaterusehavebeendocumentedparticularlywellinIndia‐fromtheseminalworkofShah(1993)onward.Aformalgroundwatermarketisanarrangementinwhichgroundwaterrightholderstradetheirrights(eitherwithinthemarketitselforwithoutsideparties).Thereisnosinglemarketmodel–andtheexperienceislimitedtojustthreecountries(Australia,ChileandtheUSA,),butthecharacteristicsformarketdesignwilldependon(a)theprevailinghydrogeological regime, (b) theprevioushistoryof informal tradingand/or rights, (c) the typesandnumbersofgroundwaterrightholdersandusersand (d) thephysicalarrangements formovingwaterbetweenusers. Research into thewatermarketinitiativeswehavefound,inaddition,isthatthereisnoexplicitconnectionbetweensurfaceandgroundwaterrightallocation,that no legal provisions tend to be ascertained to take account of external impacts and that transaction costs tend to beoverlooked(ThematicPaper10).Macro‐economicoutcomesThespecificeconomicdependencyongroundwaterhasnotbeensystematicallyanalysedor incorporatedexplicitly innationalresourcesaccounts(forexampleSEEAW).Theeconomicliteratureongroundwaterispredominantlyofapartialequilibriumtype(ThematicPaper10)assumingtherestofthe takingtherestoftheeconomycanbetreatedasasetofparameters.Workingtoward general equilibrium solutions would not seem appropriate but there are some key considerations. Economicinstrumentscanprovide incentives toallocateand/orusegroundwatermoreefficientlyalthoughsuchefficiency, tends tobeanalysed(ifatall)fromastaticperspectiveandalsode‐linkedfromequity.Theretwomainpolicymeasurestoreducedemand–direct pricing through resource abstraction fees and indirect pricing through increasing energy tariffs, These have to be setagainst‐Positiveeconomicincentivestochangeproductionpatternsandsubsidiesforefficientuse(suchasirrigationsystems–orwaterconservation. It isnotcertainthatsuchattemptstomanagementthedemandforgroundwater leadtoactualwatersavingsandrelaxingofaquifers(Ward,2007).While the renewablenatureofwater resources isoftenassumed, thismaynotapplyatallaquifer scalesandoverall time–aquiferscangothroughperiodsofnon‐replenishment.Fromawelfareperspective,thereisanargumentthattheoptimizationofgroundwateruseshouldbe linkedtodynamicefficiency(andnot juststatic),and intergenerationalequity.This is linkedtophysicalreturnflows,whicharenotalwaystakenintoaccountinsomewaterlegislationsandmanagementapproaches.Thereisaneedtodistinguishandpossiblyreconciletwodifferenteconomic interpretationofgroundwaterresources.Muchemphasishasbeenplacedfromamanagementperspectiveonthe“flow”dimension(incomegeneratedfromgroundwaterdevelopment),but not somuch on the “stock” dimension. Given that groundwater resources are generally recognized as “natural capital”assets,which amongst other things, generate income flows as an input for production but also can positively contribute toeconomicandsocialwelfareandsustainbiophysicalflowsofecosystemservices.Finally,fromaneconomicviewpoint, itdoesnotmakesenseatalltosplitqualityandquantitydimensions.Actualgroundwaterdemandoccursspecifictime,place,andwithspecificqualityattributes.EnvironmentaloutcomesEnvironmentaloutcomescanbebroadlyinterpreted,frommaintenanceofenvironmentalqualitystandardsingroundwatertothemaintenance of low flows orwetlands and their associated biodiversity. Such is the array of environmental externalitiesassociatedwithgroundwaterabstractionandpollution,thatenvironmentalimpactassessmentsmaynotcatchallofthem,oriftheyattempttodoso(suchasintheUSASuperfund),thecostsofremediationcanbeinfinite(NationalResearchCouncil,1997).Capturingall theexternalities andassigninga value tobenefits foregonemaybeanexercise that canonlybeundertaken inspecific (well financed)cases.However,theregionalexperiencewiththeEUWaterFrameworkDirective isalso instructive intheregulationofchemicalsandpracticesthatcauseaquiferdegradation,togetherwithreportsontheenvironmentalstatusofthebasins inwhichgroundwatercirculationmayplayakeyrole inmaintainingaquaticecosystems.Thekeyconsiderations inadvancingsuchbroadenvironmentalregulationwithrespecttogroundwaterare;

• Capacitytoassessandmonitorandregulate• Costsofenvironmentalimpactassessmentandmonitoring• Costsofremediation


30

10. PromotingviableInstitutionalstrategies:It has already been noted that the governance of groundwater use can be promoted through a combination of initiativesappropriatetothehydrogeologicalsettingandsocio‐economicconditionsaboveanaquifer.Certaininstitutional‘conditions’asnotedbyOstrom(2001)andtheapplicationofcriteriaBlomquist(1992)alsoappeartobenecessaryinsomecaseseveniftheinstitutionalresponsesandeventualoutcomesarediverse.Sothereappeartobenoquickwins.Whattypesofstrategyhavebecomeapparent?Listedbelowisasampleofinstitutionalstrategiesthatcanbeidentifiedfromtheavailableevidence.Itisnotexhaustive or inclusive of all the local hydrogeological and socio‐economic conditions that exist, but suggests some startingpointstoimprovethestateofgroundwatergovernance‐ Engagingwithusersataquiferscalesanddefiningmutuallyacceptablelevelsofdepletionanddegradation‐ Anticipatingtheevolutionofgroundwaterqualityandmigrationofnaturalpollutants(arsenic,fluorideetc…)‐ Accountingforeconomicimpactsandspreadingproductionandenvironmentalrisks‐ Whattodowhenaccesstogroundwaterdisappears‐ Investingingovernancetakeaccountofspecificregionalrisks(conditionedbyhydrogeology)Groundwater development and regulationmay be subject to ‘unreasonable expectations’ if policy is notwell informed. Thismightapplytoexpectationsthatlowyieldingbasementcomplexaquiferscanfurnishadequatesuppliesforirrigationorequallythatcurbsareputondevelopmentofhighlyproductivekarstaquifersifrechargeprocessesarenotwellunderstood.Thereisacase for a balanced investment policy that recognizes the essential differences between shallow and deep groundwatercirculation–andthepoliticalviabilityofchanginguserbehaviour.EngagingwithusersataquiferscalesTheflowofgroundwaterthroughaquifersmaybecomplex,butdevelopmentpracticecanbesimplesuchasagreeingmaximumacceptable drawdowns in pumped wells or simply banning the storage and application of pesticides across an aquifer thatfurnishespotablewatersupplies.Thesecanbethingsthatawellidentifiedcommunityofgroundwateruserscanagreeuponifbasic information is made available and explained (Thematic Paper 7). How groundwater managers engage with usercommunitiesattheoutset is important. Ifwaterresourceagencieshavefailedto‘socialise’groundwaterbecauseoftechnicalpreferences forhydraulicmanagement, then thismight requireaquiet revolutionwithin theagency toestablisha legitimateand respected platform to engage groundwater users. Equally, an initiative could be promoted as an autonomous, self‐governingadaptationinwhichcaseitmaymakesenseforwateragencytosimplygetoutoftheway.AnticipatingtheevolutionofgroundwaterqualityProtectingaquifersfromsurfacepollution,themigrationoflowqualitywaterorthemobilizationofnaturalpollutantssuchasarsenic isperhapsthemosttechnicallychallengingstrategytoput inplace(ThematicPaper1) .Notonly isthereaburdenofproof (who caused the degradation) when a damaging level of pollution becomes apparent, but anticipating the aquifervulnerability risk ahead of the damage to public health and reduction of economic output is something for whichhydrogeologistsmanyloosepublictrustoftheytheycry‘wolf’toooften.DefiningmutuallyacceptablelevelsofdepletionanddegradationOnceapointofentryfor improvedgroundwatergovernance isestablished,thepromotionofspecificgroundwaterobjectivesthataddressspecific livelihoodconcerns‐andarepoliticallyviable‐becomespossible. Withclearlyboundedcommunitiesofusers on small aquifers or aquifer blocks the task can be straightforward, but as the aquifer scale increases alongwith a ecommunity of uses that encompass a diversity of economic and social interests, the task becomes complex. How it isapproachedinhighlydispersedruralcommunitiesonthindiscontinuousaquiferswillbeverydifferentfromtheapproachtakenforarapidlyexpandingurbanareareliantuponasetofdeepaquifersandaquicludesthatgivesarangeofsupply,disposalandgeotechnicalservices.SpreadingproductionandenvironmentalrisksIngeneralmoreanalyticaleffortcouldbemaderegardingthe increases ingroundwaterdevelopmentcosts (i.e.asaresultofprolonged and non‐sustainable extraction), transfer of surface water from rural (irrigation) to urban (domestic) uses, andreductions of water availability due to severe drought and scarcity (Thematic Paper 9). This requires moving from a strictfinancial perspective (extraction costs, financial profitability in irrigation, financial cost of bulkwater forwater utilities, etc.),which isessentialanyway, toamorecomprehensiveeconomicperspective that takesaccountofexternalitiesandmultipliereffectsonmacroeconomic variables– that is, a formalefficiencyanalysis) andamore complexanalysisof social (i.e. equity)concerns.Economicanalysiscouldalsobeabletoshedsomelightontheeconomiccostofsomemanagementdecisionswithin


31

an overexploitation context: inter‐basin transfers compensation for potential (financial) losses to those farmers that havealreadycontributedtooverexploitation,publicpurchaseofwaterrightsetc.WhattodowhenaccesstogroundwaterdisappearsAtthelimitofeconomicpumpingorcompletesalinizationofaccessiblegroundwater,agriculturalgroundwaterusersmaybeabletomovetootherruralareastopracticefarmingorexittheruralruraleconomyaltogether.Mixturesofthisoutmigrationand partial return once aquifers have recovered have been observed in South Asiawithout awholesale breakdown of ruraleconomies.Options forurbancommunitieswhoarerelianton localgroundwatersources (ThematicPaper2)are less flexibleand imports of alternativewater supplies have become standard solutions in post‐industrial economies such as California asmuchasrapidlyurbanizingdevelopingcountriesinSouthAsia.Atthisstageitmayalsobeimportanttolooktowardthefrontiersofgroundwaterresearchandaquiferuse(ThematicPaper10)andconsiderprovisionsforthegovernanceofthese‘exotic’usesof aquifersbeforeunintendedenvironmentalorpublichealth impactsoccur. For these reasons, itmakes sense toalwaysgoback to the basics of aquifer recharge, storage and discharge (Thematic Paper 3) to evaluate the long‐term impacts ofdevelopmentandjudgewheremanagementoftheseprocesses,includingconjunctivemanagement(ThematicPaper2),isviableinbothtechnicalandpoliticalterms.StructuringinvestmentingroundwatergovernanceThe regional differentiation is important to stress. Groundwater governance targets will be conditioned as much byhydrogeological realties as expanding human demand for groundwater and related aquifer services. Being aware of thestructuralroleofgroundwaterineconomicdevelopmentandhowitsuseisshapingeconomictransitionsmaybehigherpriorityforsemi‐aridcountriesseekingtostabilizeruraleconomies(ThematicPaper9).Buteveninhumidsettingswherewaterscarcitydoesnotappeartobeaconstraintfordevelopment,relianceuponarangeofaquiferservicesforcontinuedurbanexpansioncan be locally intense. In either case, management of groundwater and aquifer services to sustain these uses will need afoundation innatural resourcegovernance that recognizes the instrumental valueofgroundwater. For this reason, itmakessensetoconsiderinvestmentin‘soft’foundationalsteps.Amongthosestepsthatcanberelevant;

• pulltogetheraquiferandgroundwateruseinformationintoacoherent,transparentbaseline–patternsofgroundwaterdependency;

• makeaninstitutionalhomeforgroundwatergovernance;• establishusercommunitiesandtheirrightsingroundwaterusewheremanagementisrequired;and• maketransparencyandaccountabilityingroundwatersupplyanddemandarequirement.


32

Part3:Newhorizonsforgovernance‐dealingwithfutureuncertainties

11. PreparingfortheanticipatedimpactsofclimatechangeThematicPaper12hasreviewedtherangeofgroundwaterrelatedimpactsthatcanbeanticipatedandthetypesofadaptationmeasuresthatarelikelytobeappropriate.ThespecificimplicationsforgroundwaterareechoedinFAO(2010)astheyrelatetotwomainimpacts;

• acceleratedhydrologicalcyclesandaquifercirculation;and• shiftsinlanduseandpatternsofrechargeandpollution.

Thevulnerabilityofgroundwatersystemsacrossdifferentcontinentshasrecentlybeenassessed(ThematicPaper12)inrelationtoexistingutilization,theeffectsofclimatechangeonrechargeandsea‐levelrise,andwealth;thisissummarizedinTable4.Asaquifers inhumidandeven semi‐arid zonesare intimately connected to streamsandotherwaterbodies, changes in aquiferlevel can lead tochanges innetworkbehaviour, suchas the reversal fromrecharge froma river todischarge into itandviceversa.Table4PreliminaryAssessmentofSusceptibilityofGroundwaterinWorldBankRegionstoClimateChange(ThematicPaper12)

AcceleratedhydrologicalcyclesandgroundwatercirculationAquifers have an important strategic value as accessible over‐year stores of water in a relatively stable condition withoutevaporationlosses.Inaddition,percolatingwaterisnaturallyde‐contaminatedalongdiffuserechargeandcirculationpathways.Thedevelopmentofgroundwaterhasthereforebeenanimportantstructuraladaptationtodroughtandislikelytobemoresoin the future.Clearly this characterof groundwater isofmore strategic importance topotablewater supply thanagriculturesinceagricultureisgenerallyindifferenttothequalityofmostfreshwaterstoredinaccessibleaquifers.However,agriculturehasbeenquicktoexploitgroundwatercirculationandnowaccountsforover80percentofallgroundwaterwithdrawals(Siebertetal.,2010).Patternsofgroundwaterrechargedrivegroundwatercirculationandaredeterminedbothbyrainfall(directrecharge)andtransmissionlossesalongwatercourses(indirectrecharge).Whenlocalizedalluvialaquifersareannuallyreplenished,theyhavegoodconnection tosurface flowsandaredependentonstreamflow (durationandstage)andsurfacewaterbodies forrecharge.Groundwater insuchsystemsservestobufferannualandseasonalvariations inrainfallandrunoff,andwill requireincreasinglycarefulmanagementforsustainableuse.How are arrangements for groundwater governance likely to change as a result of this?. First groundwater as a means ofbuildingresiliencetoreducedrechargeandwaterscarcitywillbeafirstorderresponse,butthereareothercaseswhereclimate


33

changemaypresentnichesofenhancedaquiferrecharge.Theimportantpointtorecogniseisthatwhilelevelsofrisktoexistinghydrologicalregimesarebroadlypredictable,theuncertaintyofcconrainfall/runoffpatternsissuchthatpreciseprojectsmaybeimpossible.WhiletemperatureimpactsandincreasedETcanbeexpectedwithahighdegreeofcertainty,rainfallprojectionsmaysimplyadd‘noise’withtheresultthatnoconclusivemodellingofrainfall‐runoffprojectionscanbeexpected(Chiewetal,2010).ChangingpatternsoflanduseandrechargeThe influence of land use on groundwater recharge is generally well documented in post‐industrial economies wheregroundwaterisanimportantcomponentofpotablesupply(ThematicPaper4).However,itwillbeimportanttounderstandtherelativeimportanceofbaseflowversusfloodeventsinlong‐termrechargeofalluvialaquifers.Theroleofforestsinraisingbaseflow,evenwhile reducingoverall runoff,needsmoreunderstanding.Agoodandclearunderstandingof the likely impactsofclimatechangeongroundwatercirculationisthereforeveryvaluable,butisunfortunatelybedevilledbythegeneraluncertaintysurrounding the prediction of rainfall and runoff under current conditions (Scanlon et al., 2006) . The sustainability ofgroundwateruseisdeterminedbytheratesofabstractionandrecharge,andalsoqualityoftherechargewater.Inbroadterms,rechargeisexpectedtobehighwhererainfall ishighandviceversa.Rechargewillalso increasewherepermafrostthawsandmay increasewhen runoff increases, particularly if over‐bank flood events occurmore frequently. Although there is a broadcorrelationbetweenrechargerateandrainfall,replenishmentinaspecificaquifer isfurthergovernedbygeology,topographyandlanduse.Forestedcatchmentstendtohavelowerratesofaquiferrechargethanagriculturalandclearedcatchments,andafforestation, although desirable to sequester CO2 , will probably reduce recharge; this would require compensation ifgroundwaterresourcesaretobemaintained.


34

12. Anticipatingtheimpactoftechnologiesandgroundwater‘frontiers’GeophysicalexplorationTheadvancesinearthscienceremotesensingandtheapplicationofpetroleumexplorationtechniquestosolvehydrogeological‘unknowns’(fromrockcharacterizationtogeo‐statisticalappraisalofaquifersystems)canbeexpectedtoadvancetheprecisionandresolutionofhydrogeologicalinformation.Thedegreetowhichthisnewinformationisinterpretedtoframebasicresourceallocationquestionsremainstobeseen.Generally,theapplicationofhighresolutiongeophysicalsurveyswillremainexpensiveinrelationtothebudgetsgiven forgroundwaterexplorationandmanagement.Whenpublicdomaindatasuchas thegravityanomalydataderivedfromtheGRACEmissionhasbecomeavailable,carefulcalibrationandvalidation is requiredbeforetheresultscanbeappliedataquiferscale.(Dolletal.inpress)DrillingandpumpingtechnologyTheapplicationofprogressivelyadvanceddrillingtechnologyisexpectedtomakeanimpactinhighvaluewaterwelldrillingatdepthorindifficult(mixedmatrix)geologywhiletraditionalmethodsofdrilling(includingmanualmethods,jetting,cable‐tool,rotary, down‐hole‐hammer) will continue to be applicable. Costs of drilling (and hence access by private users) are onlyexpectedtocomedownwherecompetitivemarketsindrillingcandevelop.Licensingofdrillingcontractorsandobligationstofiledrilling reportswithregulatorsare thecorollary toopenaccess todrilling technology–andtheassuranceofprofessionaldrilling and borehole construction standards. But in many cases the drilling industry is not regulated and opportunities forgettingawaywithpoorconstructionstandardsabound.Inthesecases,theadoptionofnationalcodesofpracticefordrillingandboreholeconstructionmakessense.Thelimitsofpumpingdepthandpumpcapacityarenotexpectedtochangesignificantlyintheforeseeablefuture(ThematicPaper8).Whatwillchangeistheefficiencyandreliabilityofgroundwaterpumpingequipment– including the efficiency of solar panels andwind turbines. Thiswill only intensify the pumping potential in both deep andshallowaquifersandextendareasoflowintensityabstraction(thoughalternativeenergysources).Butapartfrommakingthepumping technologymoreenergy efficient and reliable, the access to technology and the responsibleuseof it in relation toaquifer properties that presents a specific governance challenge. In this respect, governance of groundwater pumpingbehaviour FurtherimpactsonthebuiltenvironmentSubsidenceasa resultofaquiferdrainagewillcontinuetoafflicturbanandagricultural infrastructureandmaybe combinedwithgroundwaterriseinurbanareaswhereindustrialpumpinghasceasedandaquiferrecoveryhasoccurred(ThematicPaper3).Theinstitutional ‘handle’onintensiveagriculturalusehasbeenwellexplored,butthewholesale managementofaquifersunderlyingurbanareasmaygobeyondsimpleurbanlanduseplanningproblemandinvolvemanagementofaquiferzonesintheurbanhinterlandastheriskstopollutionofurbanwatersupplyandgeotechnicalstabilitybecomeapparent.Whathappenstogroundwaterquantityandqualityinthesezonesof‘transition’couldbemoresignificantintermsofeconomicandsocialimpact.If thereareoptions to import surfacewaterandabandongroundwater sources thenperi‐urbanaquifersmaysimplybecomeaccepted repositoriesofwaste.But inmany cases, particularly for theurbanpoor relyingon self‐supply, thedepthatwhichgroundwatercanbeobtainedanditsqualitywillremaincriticallivelihoodissues.ImplicationsofcrustalencroachmentUseofaquifersandadjacentgeological structures forabstractionofshalegas (hydro‐fracturing)orstorageofgas (EvansandChadwick, 2009) are now expanding the ‘managed’ underground space beyond the standard set of urban utilities andbasement/bunker construction (Thematic Paper 10). At the same time, the use of groundwater circulation for geothermalenergy and aquifers for carbon sequestration all involve decisions aboutwho has the right to inject,withdraw and circulategroundwater.EvolutionofenvironmentalinstrumentsandaquiferprotectionInadditionto interventionofsovereignwealthfunds inagricultural landacquisitions,thesignificanceofglobalenvironmentalagreementsandtreatiescannotbeignored.The1992UNConventiononWatercoursesandtheDraftArticlesonTransboundaryGroundwatermay be explicit about groundwater as part of transboundary flow systems, the impact of other environmentaltreatiesbearsconsideration. For instancethe impactofCarbonTrading schemesundertheKyotoProtocol encouragingthesequestrationofcarboninaquifers.


35

13. ConclusionsandRecommendationsOverall,thisSynthesisReporthashighlightedtheneedtomakeacaseforaglobalcommitmentto introducingandimprovinggroundwatergovernanceonthebasisofafewprinciplesorguidelinesforimplementation–butaboveallmakingtheinvisiblevisible.Theregionalcontrastsandpolicyprioritieswillbesignificant,butoverallthissynthesisofgroundwaterperspectivesongovernancearguesforasmarter,implementableapproachtogroundwateruseandaquiferprotectiontosustainasetofcriticalaquiferservices.Ageneralnotionof‘sustainability’intermsofsimplerechargeandwithdrawalbudgetsisnotsufficient.Ratheramoreinformedappreciation of how governance arrangements can be used to manage or relax aquifers under pressure is called for.Manysolutions to conserve aquifer services in the long term may have sound technical and economic rationale but may not bepoliticallyviable.Thedistinctionbetweenthegovernanceofdirectgroundwateruseandthegovernanceofpollutingbehaviourthatimpactsthequalityofgroundwaterinaquifersisimportant.Two,sometimesmutuallyexclusive,setsofactorsareimplicatedandinmanyways improving the governance of behaviour to maintain or improve groundwater quality may be more problematic thanimprovingthegovernanceofdirectgroundwateruse.Positivesolutions–wheretheycanbeidentified–havederivedfromdirectengagementwithgroundwaterusers.Thistendstoconfirmtheoverallobservationthat‘good’groundwatergovernanceislikelytocommencewith‘socialisation’ofusersinwaysthatrevealtheircommoninterestinaparticularaquifer.Theseinterestsmayhavenothingtodowithlong‐termsustainabilityassuch,butaremorelikelytobelinkedwithhealthandlivelihoodconcerns.Willourchildrenbelessill inthefuture,willwebeabletorelyonthisaquifernextyear?Thosewhoselivelihoodsdirectlydependuponaccesstogroundwateraremakingmanycomplexbutprivatedecisionsovertheiruseoftheresourceandthetechnologytoabstractit.Hydrogeologyisalsocomplex.Forthesereasons,thepracticeofmanagementhastobestraightforwardifitistochangehumanbehaviour.There are more examples of experimentation with governance of groundwater in rural settings where agricultural usedominatesandincentivestogetaquifermanagement‘right’arehigh.Evidencefromperi‐urbanandurbangroundwaterusersineffectingcollectiveapproachestoaquiferareveryfew,eveniftheintensityofgroundwaterabstractionanddependencyismoreconcentrated.The set of Thematic Papers can sets the basis for investment in institutional arrangements thatmodify human behaviour inrelationtoaquiferuse.ThesetofThematicPapersthattheprojectwillcontinuetodevelopwillserveasa basisforaGlobalDiagnosticandFrameworkforActiontoinfluencehumanbehaviourinrelationtogroundwateruseandaquiferprotectionTheneed for improvedgroundwatergovernance tomeetexpandinghumandemands isemphasized.But it is alsoaccepted thatgroundwateropportunitieshavealreadybeenforeclosedthroughneglect.Othergroundwaterdevelopmentmayexpandifwecanlearnto‘play’withgroundwaterresponsibly‐inconjunctionwithsurfacewatermanagementandintunewiththepoliticalrealitiesthatoverlieaquifers.Governancearrangementsarefundamentalinbuildingthisflexibility.RecommendationsTherearenoharddosordon’tinpromotinggroundwatergovernance.Theapplicationoftheenhancedgovernanceprinciplesoutlinedabovewillhelp.ThephysicalandinstitutionaldiversityoftheLatinAmericanandCaribbeanregionalonewillpresentspecificchallengesandopportunities.Inorderpromptdiscussionatregionallevel,fourkeyrecommendationsemergefromthecurrent‘stocktaking’preparedbytheproject.

• Be imaginative in the presentation of groundwatermessages.Groundwater theorymay be complex, but effectivepracticehastobesimpleandstraightforwardifitistobeadoptedatscalesthatwillmakeadifference.Canmorebedone to first arrive at scientifically robust groundwater assessments and then get the essential technicalmessagesacrossbeforeitistoolate?

• Determinewhoisreallyimplicatedinapplyingprinciplesof‘good’groundwatergovernance.Theoverallinstitutional

environment, includingnational legal frameworks forwatermanagementmayormaynotbesufficient,butthe localinstitutional arrangements tend to determine governance outcomes. Before adjusting the former, has enough beenunderstoodaboutthelatter?


36

• Account for the benefits and costs of groundwater development. If groundwater itself is ‘invisible’, then thegroundwatereconomyis likelytobeevenmoreso.Aclearaccountofhowgroundwaterquantityandqualityallowanational economy to function is a fundamental requirement inmaking a case for groundwater governance. Equallyimportant is anaccountof the social andenvironmental impactsofdevelopment– theexternalitiesassociatedwithgroundwaterdrawdownandpollution.

• Innovate in the application of technical groundwater management and the inclusion of the real groundwater

players. Themanagers of groundwater could domore to innovate in the use of groundwater storage and aquiferservices–fromconjunctiveusetomaintainmunicipalwatersuppliestothesafeuseofnaturalremediationpropertiesin aquifers.However, theyalsoneed tobeequally innovative in collaboratingwithpublic andprivate institutions toobtain more leverage for groundwater governance. Industry, agriculture, municipalities and major manufacturingsectorscanbeguiltyofaquiferdepletionanddegradation–buttheycanbekeyinreducingstresses.Thisshouldbeastrongincentiveforgroundwatermanagersandpolicymakerstobemorepro‐activeintheirengagementwithnationalintegrated water resource management and with the preparation of forward looking investments related tostrengthenedgroundwatergovernance.


37

REFERENCESThematicPapersIAHlead:1.Trendsingroundwaterpollution;trendsinlossofgroundwaterqualityandrelatedaquiferservices(inc.ecosystems);2.Conjunctiveuseandmanagementofgroundwaterandsurfacewater.3.Urban‐ruraltensions;opportunitiesforco‐management.4.Managementofrecharge/dischargeprocessesandaquiferequilibriumstates.UNESCOlead:5.GroundwaterPolicyandGovernance6.Thelegalframeworksforsustainablegroundwatergovernance:atlocal,national,regionalandinternationallevelsFAO:7.Localgroundwatermanagementinstitutions/userpartnerships.8.Socialadoptionofgroundwaterpumpingtechnologyandthedevelopmentofgroundwatercultures.9.Macro‐economictrendsthatinfluencedemandforgroundwaterandrelatedaquiferservices.10.GovernanceoftheundergroundspaceandgroundwaterfrontiersWorldBank11.Politicaleconomyofgroundwatergovernance12.WaterandClimateChange:Impactsongroundwaterresourcesandadaptationoptions(http://water.worldbank.org/water/publications/water‐and‐climate‐change‐impacts‐groundwater‐resources‐and‐adaptation‐options)AdditionalReferencesBlomquist,W.1992.Dividingthewaters:governinggroundwaterinsouthernCalifornia.SanFrancisco,USA,InstituteforContemporaryStudies.415pp.Bredehoeft,J.D.2002.TheWaterBudgetMythRevisited;WhyHydrogeologistsModel.Groundwater40(4)340‐345.ChiewF.H.S.,D.G.C.Kirono,D.M.Kent,A.J.Frost,S.P.Charles,B.Timbal,K.C.Nguyen,G.Fu.2010.Comparisonofrunoffmodelledusingrainfallfromdifferentdownscalingmethodsforhistoricalandfutureclimates.JournalofHydrology,387:10–23.Custodio,E.2002.Aquiferoverexploitation:whatdoesitmean? HydrogeologyJournal.10:254–277Döll,P.Hoffmann‐Dobrev,H.Portmann,F.T.,Siebert,S.,Eicker,A.,Rodell,M.,Strassberg,G.,Scanlon,B.R.(inpress).Impactofwaterwithdrawalsfromgroundwaterandsurfacewateroncontinentalwaterstoragevariations.JournalofGeodynamics.

Gleeson,T.etal..2012.TowardsSustainableGroundwaterUse:SettingLong‐TermGoals,Backcasting,andManagingAdaptivelyGroundWater50,no.1:19–26.FAO.2004.Economicvaluationofwaterresourcesinagriculture:fromasectoraltoafunctionalperspectiveofnaturalresourcemanagement.FAOWaterReport27.186pp.FAO.2011a.Climatechange,waterandfoodsecurity.FAOWaterReports36.FAO,Rome.174pp.http://www.fao.org/nr/water/jsp/publications/search.htmFAO.2011b.Thestateoftheworld'slandandwaterresourcesforfoodandagriculture(SOLAW)‐Managingsystemsatrisk.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,RomeandEarthscan,London.http://www.fao.org/nr/solaw/en/


38

Foster,S.BreachB.&Mulenga,M.FAO2012.Urbangroundwateruseanddependencybaselinereviewofstateofknowledgeandpossibleapproachestoinventory.FAOcommissionedreportDecember201134pp.Konikow.L&Kendy,E.(2005)Groundwaterdepletion:aglobalproblem.HydrogeologyJournal.13(1)317‐320.Konikow(2011)Contributionofglobalgroundwaterdepletionsince1900tosea‐levelrise.GeophysicalResearchLetters(38)17401,doi:10.1029/2011GL048604,Morris,BL,Lawrence,ARL,Chilton,PJC,Adams,B,CalowRCandKlinck,BA.2003.GroundwateranditsSusceptibilitytoDegradation:AGlobalAssessmentoftheProblemandOptionsforManagement.EarlyWarningandAssessmentReportSeries,RS.03‐3.UnitedNationsEnvironment.Programme,Nairobi,Kenya.Mukherji,A,&Shah,T,2005.Groundwatersocio‐ecologyandgovernance:areviewofinstitutionsandpoliciesinselectedcountries.HydrogeolJ13:328–345DOI10.1007/s10040‐005‐0434‐9NationalResearchCouncil(1997)Valuinggroundwater.Economicconceptsandapproaches.Washington,DC,NationalAcademyPress.189pp.OECD.2011.WaterGovernanceinOECDCountries:AMulti‐levelApproach.236ppParis.http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,3746,en_2649_37465_48896205_1_1_1_37465,00.htmlOstrom,E.2002.Reformulatingthecommons.Ambiente&Sociedade5,no.10:22.Scanlon,B.R.,Keese,K.E.,Flint,A.L.,Flint,L.E.,Gaye,C.B.,Edmunds,W.M.,andSimmers,I.(2006):Globalsynthesisof

groundwaterrechargeinsemiaridandaridregions,Hydrol.Processes,20,3335–3370,2006.

Shah,T.1993.Groundwatermarketsandirrigationdevelopment:politicaleconomyandpracticalpolicy.Bombay,India,OxfordUniversityPress.241pp.Shah.T2005.TheNewInstitutionalEconomicsofIndia’sWaterPolicy.Internationalworkshopon‘AfricanWaterralLegislativeFrameworksforRuralWaterManagementinAfrica’,26‐28January2005,Johannesburg,SouthAfricaShah,T.,Singh,O.P.&Mukherji,A.2006.SomeaspectsofSouthAsia’sgroundwaterirrigationeconomy:analysisfromasurveyinIndia,Pakistan,NepalTeraiandBangladesh.Hydrogeol.J.,14:286–309.ShahT.,GiordanoM.&MukherjA.inpress.Politicaleconomyoftheenergy‐groundwaternexusinIndia:exploringissuesandassessingpolicyoptions.HydrogeologyJournal.DOI10.1007/s10040‐011‐0816‐0SiebertS.,BurkeJ.,FauresJ.M.,FrenkenK.,HoogeveenJ.,DollP.,andPortmannF.T.2010.Groundwateruseforirrigation–a

globalinventory.Hydrol.EarthSyst.Sci.,14,1863–1880,2010www.hydrol‐earth‐syst‐sci.net/14/1863/2010/doi:10.5194/hess‐14‐1863‐2010.

Sophocleous,M.2000.Fromsafeyieldtosustainabledevelopmentofwaterresources‐theKansasexperience.JournalofHydrology235,no.1–2:27–43.Sophocleous,M.‐.Interactionsbetweengroundwaterandsurfacewater:thestateofthescience.Hydrogeol.J.,10:52–67.Sophocleous,M.2002b.Environmentalimplicationsofintensivegroundwaterusewithspecialregardtostreamsandwetlands.InR.Llamas&E.Custodio,eds.Intensiveuseofgroundwater:challengesandopportunities,pp.93–112.Lisse,TheNetherlands,A.A.Balkema.UnitedNations.1960.LargeScaleGroundwaterDevelopment.WaterResourcesDevelopmentCentre.NewYorkUNICEF/WHO,2011.DrinkingWaterEquity,SafetyandSustainability:Thematicreportondrinkingwater2011. WHO/UNICEFJointMonitoringProgrammeforWaterSupplyandSanitation(JMP).NewYork.64pp.


39

vandeSchans.J.W.2003.Theconceptofresourcesusers’self‐governance.inF.M.Brouwer,I.Heinz,T.Zabel(eds.),GovernanceofWater‐RelatedConflictsinAgricultureNewDirectionsinAgri‐EnvironmentalandWaterPoliciesintheEU.Kluwer.London.pp7‐22.Ward,F.A&Pulido‐Velazquez,M.2008.Waterconservationinirrigationcanincreasewateruse.PNAS(105)4718215‐18220.WesterP.,Minero,R.S.&HoogestegerJ.2011.Assessmentofthedevelopmentofaquifermanagementcouncils(COTAS)forsustainablegroundwatermanagementinGuanajuato,Mexico.HydrogeologyJournal(2011)19:889–899.

GWG Synthesis report update 30 april 2012 · realities – quantity ‐ Hydrogeological realities...

Documents

Transcript of GWG Synthesis report update 30 april 2012 · realities – quantity ‐ Hydrogeological realities...