Bakker, K. and R. Hendriks. 2019. “Contested knowledges in hydroelectric project assessment: The case of Canada’s Site C Dam.” Special issue on “Contested Knowledges: Water Conflicts on Large Dams and Mega-Hydraulic Development.” Water. 11(3), 406 – 424.
Behn, C., and K. Bakker. 2019. “Rendering Technical, Rendering Sacred: The politics of hydroelectric development on British Columbia’s Saaghii Naachii/Peace River.” Global Environmental Politics. 19(3), 98 – 119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00518.
Diver, S., Ahrens, D., Arbit, T., and K. Bakker. 2019. Entangling Colonial Entanglements: “Treatment as a State” Policy for Indigenous water co-governance. Global Environmental Politics. DOI: 10.1162/glep_a_00517
1.) Kurajata, A. (2017, January 15). Site C ruling shows Canadian courts don’t take reconciliation seriously, says law professor. CBC. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/site-c-ruling-shows-canadian-courts-don-t-take-reconciliation-seriously-says-law-professor-1.3952267
2.) Roundhouse Radio 98.3 Vancouver. (2018, April 17). Middays with Jody Vance – Karen Bakker and Gordon Christie. Retrieved from https://cirh2.streamon.fm/listen-pl-13421
3.) Gray, C. (2018, June 21). Decolonizing Water: A Conversation with Aimée Craft. Retrieved from Centre for International Governance Innovation website: https://www.cigionline.org/articles/decolonizing-water-conversation-aimee-craft
4.) CBC Radio. (2018, April 19). Indigenous environmental justice works to turn long-standing stewardship into recognized governance. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/radio/unreserved/earth-day-indigenous-scientists-academics-and-community-members-take-the-lead-in-environmental-causes-1.4605336/indigenous-environmental-justice-works-to-turn-long-standing-stewardship-into-recognized-governance-1.4605340
5.) (2018, April). Site C and High Modernity. Retrieved from https://soundcloud.com/citedpodcast/site-c-and-high-modernity
Torio C, P.(2018). Leveling the playing field for metro Manila’s impoverished households. Water Policy 20(3)
Metro Manila’s water privatization is one of the world’s largest and longest-running privatization programs for a water utility. While traditional efficiency metrics show significantly improved service levels under this schema, local anti-privatization activists maintain that the program does not benefit the urban poor. Assessments from an equity lens offer a fresh perspective, using information from a consumer survey of 53,733 residential households, privatization reports, and field interviews. Results show that access and affordability remain critical concerns for impoverished urban households despite major service improvements. Philippine policy makers must address these twin concerns in order to ensure a level playing field for these vulnerable households.
Norman, E. and Bakker, K. 2005. “Drivers and Barriers of Cooperation in Transboundary Water Governance: A Case Study of Western Canada and the United States.” Report to The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation.
This new article examines the role and outcomes of public consultation in policy making through the case study of British Columbia’s Water Act Modernization. The study analyses both the WAM consultation process and outcomes, highlighting patterns in alignment between the policy preferences of various submitter groups and the policies incorporated into the Water Sustainability Act.
Jollymore, A., McFarlane, K., Harris, L. (2017) Whose input counts? Evaluating the process and outcomes of public consultation through the BC Water Act Modernization. Critical Policy Studies, in press. DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2017.1282377
A new project report has been released for the PoWG project on First Nations and the shifting water governance landscape of British Columbia, part of the SSHRC-funded WEPGN: Water Economics Policy and Governance Network.
The project report by PoWG co-director Dr. Leila Harris and PoWG alumna Rosie Simms summarizes the findings of Rosie’s masters research into the shifting roles and experiences of First Nations in water governance in British Columbia. In particular, it identifies key concerns about water licensing; barriers and challenges in colonial and water governance; and opportunities and tensions surrounding collaborative watershed governance.
Harris, L. & Simms, R. (2016). “All of the water that is in our reserves and that is in our territories is ours”: Colonial and indigenous water governance in unceded indigenous territories in British Columbia. Project Report. Canadian Water Network & Water, Economics, Policy and Governance Network. French version available here.
Watersheds 2016 registration is now open! This forum offers panel sessions, field trips, breakout workshops, structured peer-to-peer learning and networking to help strengthen capacity for watershed governance in BC. Registration is now open but space is limited. We encourage you to register early, and take advantage of the reduced early-bird rate!
Watersheds 2016 is a 1.5 day forum designed to build on learnings from Watersheds 2014. It will bridge and complement with the Living Waters Rally, an event to be hosted by the Canadian Freshwater Alliance from September 27th – 30th, 2016 in Vancouver. The combination of events creates a fantastic opportunity for 5 days of learning to improve the health of Canadian waters!
Through panel sessions, field trips, breakout workshops, structured peer-to-peer learning and networking, participants will build skills and enhance capacity for watershed governance in British Columbia. Core themes in the preliminary program include: Indigenous-led governance initiatives, collaborative watershed governance, and sustainable funding.
WHEN: September 30th – October 1st
WHERE: SFU Wosk Centre for Dialogue, Vancouver, B.C.
Watersheds 2016 is co-organized by four core partners: The POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, The Canadian Freshwater Alliance, The Fraser Basin Council, and The First Nations Fisheries Council. A number of additional partners have also confirmed their support to-date including: Simon Fraser University’s Pacific Water Research Centre, the University of Victoria’s Centre for Global Studies, WWF-Canada, the Forum for Leadership on Water, Evergreen, and Water Canada.
Dr. Leila Harris and colleagues recently published an article on gender and water in the Journal of Gender Studies, based on household surveys conducted in underserved areas of Accra, Ghana and Cape Town, South Africa in 2012. The full text can be accessed via http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09589236.2016.1150819
Harris, L., Kleiber, D., Goldin, J., Darkwah, A. & Morinville, C. (2016) Intersections of gender and water: comparative approaches to everyday gendered negotiations of water access in underserved areas of Accra, Ghana and Cape Town, South Africa. Journal of Gender Studies: 1-22.
A large and growing body of literature suggests that women and men often have differentiated relationships to water access, uses, knowledges, governance, and experiences. From a feminist political ecology perspective, these relationships can be mediated by gendered labour practices (within the household, at the community level, or within the workplace), socio-cultural expectations (e.g. related to notions of masculinity and femininity), as well as intersectional differences (e.g. race, income, and so forth). While these relationships are complex, multiple, and vary by context, it is frequently argued that due to responsibility for domestic provision or other pathways, women may be particularly affected if water quality or access is compromised. This paper reports on a statistical evaluation of a 478 household survey conducted in underserved areas of Accra, Ghana and Cape Town, South Africa in early 2012. Interrogating our survey results in the light of the ideas of gender differentiated access, uses, knowledges, governance, and experiences of water, we open up considerations related to the context of each of our study sites, and also invite possible revisions and new directions for these debates. In particular, we are interested in the instances where differences among male and female respondents were less pronounced than expected. Highlighting these unexpected results we find it helpful to draw attention to methods – in particular we argue that a binary male–female approach is not that meaningful for the analysis, and instead, gender analysis requires some attention to intersectional differences (e.g. homeownership, employment, or age). We also make the case for the importance of combining qualitative and quantitative work to understand these relationships, as well as opening up what might be learned by more adequately exploring the resonances and tensions between these approaches.