ABSTRACT
This chapter examines how water diplomacy can address complex challenges that arise in everyday water governance and management. In these circumstances, it is critical not to allow the urgency of the situation to justify action without adequate understanding, nor to allow uncertainty or ambiguity to justify indefinite delay. Both sides of this urgency-certainty trap pose a risk to the achievement of desirable water outcomes. To avoid the trap, we need to seek a principled and pragmatic middle path that clarifies and formally structures an adaptive approach to governance and management. This pathway is exemplified by a decade-long regulatory effort to address nitrogen pollution in the Great Bay Estuary. While initially stuck, the parties escaped the urgency-certainty trap through a principled and pragmatic commitment to adaptive governance and management. Regulators demonstrated adaptive governance by moderating their regulatory authority in exchange for voluntary commitments from municipalities targeting non-point-source reductions with potentially greater ecological benefits. Meanwhile, regulated communities formed a coalition to pool resources and implement experimental strategies to address non-point nitrogen pollution. This collaborative framework allowed progress despite scientific uncertainties by creating space for pragmatic management experiments with measurable outcomes within governance boundaries. The case illustrates how water diplomacy concepts—including relationship building, negotiated problem-solving, joint fact-finding, collaborative modeling, and third-party engagement—can be effectively applied in ordinary water governance and management and not just formal diplomatic settings. The Great Bay Estuary (GBE) experience provides a model for other communities navigating complex water challenges through principled pragmatism that balances urgency with careful deliberation for desirable outcomes.
