Addressing knowledge gaps for transboundary environmental governance

Highlights

• Knowledge gaps in transboundary settings extend beyond missing data.

• Knowledge gaps in transboundary settings are diverse, inter-related and compounding.

• Knowledge gaps may inhibit governance of transboundary resources.

• Distinguishing types of knowledge gaps is needed to develop strategies to fill them.

• Strategies to address knowledge gaps can serve to build trust and commitment.

Abstract

Knowledge is widely considered a key ingredient for the effective and sustainable governance of the environment. In transboundary settings – i.e., where political boundaries cross natural resource system boundaries – there are considerable barriers to knowledge production and use. Resulting knowledge gaps can be barriers to governance. This research examines three case studies in which international river basin organizations, tasked with facilitating cooperation in transboundary river basins, recognized and addressed knowledge gaps to support governance of shared waters. We synthesize across the three case studies to develop a typology of knowledge gaps and the strategies used to address those gaps. In identifying common types of knowledge gaps and the on-the-ground strategies used to fill them, this research provides an important framework for assessing and theorizing knowledge at the transboundary scale, as well as useful recommendations and examples for practitioners seeking to develop that knowledge.

Introduction

Knowledge is widely considered a key ingredient for the effective and sustainable governance of natural resources and ecosystems (Blackmore, 2007, Cash et al., 2003, van der Molen, 2018). Knowledge, in this context, includes awareness of the current state of the natural resource system and scientific understandings of the geophysical, environmental, and social processes that determine how that natural system functions and respond to stresses (Burton and Molden, 2005, Timmerman and Langaas, 2005). Such knowledge is useful for articulating the visions and normative goals that steer collective action (van der Molen, 2018). It can also help identify and evaluate policy options to achieve those visions and goals (Pfeiffer and Leentvaar, 2013, Sendzimir et al., 2008), and to help actors adapt to and respond to change (Raadgever et al., 2008, van der Molen, 2018).

While knowledge is a critical enabling factor for governance, knowledge of natural resource and ecosystems can be incomplete. Knowledge gaps are particularly prevalent in transboundary settings, including where political boundaries pass through a resource system such as water resources, wildlife and fisheries or where resource management has cross-border effects such as in the control and mitigation of pollution, flooding, or wildfire (see e.g., Brummel et al., 2012, Dieperink et al., 2016, Gollata and Newig, 2017, Koontz and Newig, 2014, Lim, 2015). The ubiquity of such knowledge gaps occurs because the production of knowledge in transboundary settings is typically highly decentralized, produced by a variety of entities from national and sub-national governments to NGOs, universities, and businesses. Sovereignty, and perceptions of sovereignty, in the transboundary context may also result in fragmentation (Alam et al., 2010, Karkkainen, 2005, Zeitoun et al., 2013). As knowledge production in transboundary settings tends to be dispersed, eclectic, and geographically specialized, gaps in knowledge are more likely to exist.

Knowledge gaps can be a barrier to transboundary governance. Knowledge gaps can inhibit agreement between decision makers both at the political level, where the policy agenda is deliberated and set, and at the operational level, where policies are finalized and implemented. Where knowledge gaps lead to a lack of common frames, there may be disagreement regarding the problems to be addressed and the need for solutions (Dewulf et al., 2005, Iida, 1993, Milman and Ray, 2011), inhibiting development of a policy agenda. Knowledge gaps can also add to mistrust or otherwise become politicized (Baycheva-Merger, 2019, Conca and Beevers, 2018), which in turn, may make it untenable for policy-makers to move to the operational stage of governance. Further, knowledge gaps may inhibit political support of domestic (national and sub-national) stakeholders who influence national decision-makers (Pfeiffer and Leentvaar, 2013, Sendzimir et al., 2008). Even where there is consensus as to the transboundary policy agenda and the situation is relatively removed from the political arena, decision-making may be stymied directly by a lack of clarity regarding the range of policy options available and the expected outcomes of each option (Fischhendler and Katz, 2013, Kettle and Dow, 2016, Nair and Howlett, 2017, Tribbia and Moser, 2008).

The implications of knowledge gaps for the governance of transboundary resources – both in terms of cooperative policy-agendas and policy formulation and implementation – compel the need to identify what knowledge gaps commonly occur in transboundary settings and to determine how those gaps can be filled. Our research makes strides in this arena by developing an empirically derived typology of knowledge gaps in transboundary governance and identifying examples of strategies used to fill those gaps. To do so, we examine three case studies in which International River Basin Organizations (IRBOs) – institutions established by countries sharing a transboundary river to formalize cooperation and facilitate coordinated governance – encountered and filled knowledge gaps in order to facilitate transboundary governance.

IRBOs are a useful point of entry for examining knowledge gaps in transboundary governance for several reasons. First, IRBOs serve as forums for dialogue, negotiation, and dispute resolution and, in this role, are deeply involved in knowledge production and exchange (Milman and Gerlak, 2020, Schmeier, 2014). In this context, IRBOs are similar to other bi- and multi-lateral organizations, including environmental cooperation commissions, health commissions, treaty secretariats, and hazards management institutions. Second, the IRBO is a well-established form of institution for transboundary governance, with currently over 81 IRBOs in existence, some of which have been functioning for more than 100 years (Schmeier et al., 2015). IRBOs thus serve as templates for establishment of other transboundary institutions. Lastly, the principal challenges associated with the governance of transboundary water – i.e., externalities, resource allocation, and concerns about the health of the resource itself – are common concerns of transboundary environmental governance.

Our research asks what knowledge gaps present operational challenges to transboundary governance and how are they addressed. The cases in our study were thus selected to reflect instances in which agreement existed on a transboundary policy agenda, yet knowledge gaps impeded policy formulation and implementation. By developing our typology based on cases in which politicking was more stable and less directly intrusive, we are able to highlight the role of underlying knowledge gaps that impede governance, and to examine cases in which closing those gaps was a priority of political actors. Our typology thus forms a starting point for differentiating knowledge gaps and addressing them in transboundary settings.