Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

En(gender)ing the debate about water’s managementand care – views from the Antipodes

Julie Davidson ¤, Elaine Stratford

Sustainable Communities Research Group, School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania,Private Bag 78, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia

Received 10 August 2004; received in revised form 13 September 2005

Abstract

In this paper, we map the gendered contours of contemporary water management in order to demonstrate that regimes for individualownership of water rights, markets, and the productive use of water simply reinscribe and simultaneously submerge in their apparent gen-der-neutrality a normative masculinity that underpins economic globalization and fortiWes existing power relations. Not only do sucharrangements disadvantage reproductive values and non-consumptive users; more generally, they also lack the capacity to ensure water’ssustainable development. Consequently, new management institutions for sustainability are demanded and, in making a case for equity-enhancing and adaptive institutions that better reXect water’s materiality, its multiple values and emerging water scarcity, we argue theneed to invoke the conserving and ecologically protective feminine principle. To support our reasoning, we analyse water reform pro-cesses instituted in Australia and speciWcally by the State of Tasmania, referring to the latter jurisdiction to illustrate the gendered natureof resource management and to underscore tensions between economic globalization and sustainability, concluding that the tensionsbetween the two agendas are probably irresolvable. We position our work in the borderlands among gender studies, feminist geographyand philosophy, and political ecology, drawing together insights about the construction of resource management, the possibilities of thefeminine care ethic, and ideas about the characteristics of institutional systems that could ensure equitable allocation and sustainable useof the planet’s resources.© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Water management; Gender; Institutional change; Policy; Tasmania; Ethic of care

1. Introduction

In this paper our Wrst aim is to map the gendered andgendering contours of water’s management and care, and inthis task we position our work in the borderlands amonggender studies, feminist geography and philosophy, andpolitical ecology. Our reference point is Australia – a mid-dle power and member of the “in-between ƒ go-betweenƒ semi-satellite ƒ intermediate-development ƒ resource-exporting ƒ fringe” (Laxer, 2004, xii). In adopting neolib-eral policies, both the Australian Government and its sixStates and two Territories are aVected by the diVerentialsuccesses of engaging in international capital enterprises

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: Julie.Davidson@utas.edu.au (J. Davidson).

0016-7185/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.10.007

and new forms of governing (Broomhill, 2004). Latterly,our gaze falls on the eVects of water reforms in the periphe-ral state of Tasmania, noteworthy because much of theliterature on water management in Australia refers to themainland and especially the Murray-Darling river basin.Being an island, Tasmania is especially exposed to the eco-logical, economic and social risks that may attend such sta-tus (Anckar, 2002; Armstrong and Read, 2003; Crowards,2004; Moderators, 2004; Stratford, 2006; Streeten, 1998).Water’s care – and not simply its management – is a prior-ity for such geographic entities.

While at least some of our work is Antipodean in focus,a second and larger aim is to draw links between Tasma-nia’s peripheral status and those circumstances whichtypify many ‘developing regions’ where privatization andmarketization are among the few alternatives for water’s

816 J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827

management because of multilateral pressures for eco-nomic restructuring. Thus,

What is called for ƒ is a feminist reconceptualizationof globalization whereby local forms of globalizationare understood not merely as eVects but also as con-stitutive ingredients in the changing shape of thesemovements. A feminist reconceptualization of thissort requires a stance towards globalization in whichthe arrows of change are imagined in more than onedirection, and where gender is interrogated not onlyin the practices of men and women in local sites butalso in the ways in which both abstract as well as tan-gible global movements and processes are ascribedmasculine or feminine values (Freeman, 2001, 1013).

In light of this prescription, we need to be clear about howideas of feminine and masculine values inform our method-ology. Le DoeuV (1991) describes the ‘masculinist’ as thatwhich claims to be exhaustive and yet elides women’s exis-tence. Indebted to that insight, Rose (1993) suggests thatthe masculine subjectivity of white heterosexual bourgeoisidentity positions informs powerful and universalisingclaims to know that expunge those speciWcities of being inthe world held among those who are ‘other’ than the ‘mas-ter subject’. She notes, “I am not suggesting that no mancan escape the masculinities that I identify ƒ [as central tothese knowledge claims]; nor that women cannot occupy amasculine position; nor that women are incapable of pro-ducing geographical knowledge. Rather I argue that bothmen and women are caught in a complex series of (histori-cally and geographically speciWc) discursive positions,relations and practices” (Rose, 1993, 10). In short, contest-ability, intricacy and plurality characterize how genderroles and relations are conceived and (re)produced.

We also wish to be clear about how we circumscribe therelationship between ideas of gender (and thus of masculineand feminine values) and ideas about the protection of theenvironment and ecosystem processes, and the care ofnature. Cautious of the essentialising tendencies apparentin certain strands of ecofeminism (Jackson, 1998), we alsosupport the programmatic declarations of Shiva (1990, 200)for whom the

recovery of the feminine [conserving, ecological] prin-ciple is thus simultaneously an ecological and a femi-nist political project that legitimizes the ways ofknowing and being that create wealth by enhancinglife and diversity and that delegitimizes the knowl-edge and practice of resource destruction as a basisfor capital accumulation.

Cognisant of the diVerential material challenges that menand women face because of institutional norms and prac-tices, in the passage above Shiva deploys the feminine andmasculine as metaphors that describe particular ontologiesand epistemologies. In using these constructs “to describeaspects of the relationship that humans have with water”(Pavia and Mason, 2001, 1), we are taking our cue from

Shiva with the intention of showing that, despite the rheto-ric, contemporary water management regimes relying onindividual water rights, marketization, and productive useare unlikely, on their own, to meet recently recognizedneeds to protect and conserve water’s multiple reproduc-tive1 and life-sustaining values without serious attention tothe feminine principle.

As a Wnal pillar of conceptual support, we draw on politi-cal ecology, concerned as it is with the materiality of politicaleconomic systems (Bakker, 2003a) and, in particular, the useand distribution of power in the allocation of resources. Inthis respect, then, the challenges of sustainability are about“the institutional systems that regulate the property, distribu-tion and use of the planet’s resources” (Guimarães, 2004,203). Moreover, our discussion is informed by (Bakker’s,2003a, 51) insights on the current transition in water’s regula-tion from a “state hydraulic” to a “market conservation”paradigm, described as a “contested process of reregulation”in which emergent forms for the governance of naturalresource allocation appear to give unjustiWable preference tothe interests of private capital to the detriment of social andenvironmental justice. In our view, this process of reregula-tion is contested and unstable, a view endorsed by regulationtheorists such as Tickell and Peck (1995) who contend thatneoliberal regulation embodies numerous contradictorytendencies that make it incapable of securing medium tolong-term growth. These inconsistencies (that is, intra andinternational social polarization, intensiWcation of boom/bust business cycles, and the multi-scalar instabilities arisingfrom intensiWed global competition, resource scarcity andaccelerating decline in the global environmental condition)are generated by precisely those policy tools being advocatedfor pro-poor development. Moreover, critics of the ecologicalmodernization discourse – and here we refer to normativelyweak versions that support continued economic growthwith environmental limits and of which market conserva-tion is a central component – insist that eYciency-orientedapproaches to the environment avoid addressing the con-tradictions between growth and sustainability (ChristoV,1996; Hajer, 1995).

It is our contention that narrowly economistic approachesto water’s management such as those favoured by the neolib-eral agenda are inherently gendered, and that new structuresof governing and novel institutions attentive to the feminineprinciple are imperative for water’s care as well as its man-agement. To this end, our analysis is informed by the litera-ture on governance, a structure of governing thatsupplements traditional forms of steering and coordination– markets and bureaucracies (Rhodes, 1997). This termrefers to self-organizing, inter-organizational networks,

1 In using the terms productive and reproductive labour we refer in theWrst instance to all those activities involved in producing goods and ser-vices and which attract remuneration. On the second count, we refer tobiological (pregnancy and birth) and social (nurturing and caring) repro-ductive labour, with which mostly women are associated and which is notremunerated.

J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827 817

such as partnerships, whose currency is “trust and mutualadjustment” (Rhodes, 1997, 47), qualities aligned with thefeminine care principle.

Relatedly, we suggest that the success of water-baseddevelopment requires more than the ability of institutions toadequately incorporate concepts of sustainability, to adaptto changing environments, or their ability to optimize coop-eration with other institutions, as suggested by Unver (2001),though these are necessary preconditions. Gendered analysesof resource management suggest that these conditions areinsuYcient and that, in reality, gender-based power diVer-ences are a crucial dimension of eVective and equitable natu-ral resource management particularly in governance settingsreliant on devolving resource management to communities(Zwarteveen and Meinzen-Dick, 2001). In fact, Thrupp et al.(1994) make the case that addressing all inequities detrimen-tal to women is essential to the goal of sustainable develop-ment largely because of the profound eVect that they have onthe well-being of their families, communities and ecosystems.They argue that any inequities that are detrimental towomen are detrimental to society as a whole.

In what follows, we trace the contours of water’s manage-ment and care in terms of its gendered and gendering eVects,focusing initially on the international arena. In that work,references to gender in the literature that we cite tend to bebased on the articulation of diVerences between men andwomen, and gender equity is constituted as equity for women.We then elaborate on key current issues in water reform inAustralia, before turning to a discussion of water manage-ment in Tasmania and an examination of two centrallegislative mechanisms by which water reform is beingimplemented there. In these latter sections, references to gen-der in the literature tend to signify diVerences in the constitu-tion of policy according to whether it is ‘inside’ the priorities ofthe ‘master subject’ or constituted by a feminized ethic of care;equity is not constituted as ‘women’s business’ per se, andthat understanding – in itself – is revealing. Certainly, thecurrent political economy means that women in Australiaexperience relatively high levels of well-being compared withwomen in many developing regions, and such is the casedespite the diverse manifestations of the patriarchy in theAntipodes. Nevertheless, our analysis of the literature and ofinterviews with key informants leads us to suggest that strat-egies of water reform consistently reinscribe the priorities ofthe ‘master subject’. Such Wndings prompt us, Wnally, to spec-ulate about what it might mean to embrace a feminized ethicof care such as that sketched out, in various ways, by Free-man, Shiva and other feminist scholars.

2. Mapping the gendered and gendering contours of water’s management

Water has incalculable intrinsic and instrumental worth.Not surprisingly, it has been readily absorbed into the glo-bal capitalist economy. Certainly, its privatization andtradeability have had signiWcant and deleterious eVects onsocial and environmental systems; clearly these eVects are

pronounced among the most vulnerable members of anysociety, and especially in developing regions (Bakker,2003b; Dankelman and Davidson, 1988; Deere and Leon,1998; Easter and Feder, 1996).

Coeval with water’s commodiWcation have been interna-tional strategies to create robust mechanisms for its sus-tainable development – including both conservation anduse. These strategies are supposed to provide for the mostmarginalized peoples, not least among them women. Vari-ous United Nations documents testify to such eVorts. TheMillennium Declaration inscribes as among the most fun-damental values of twenty-Wrst century international rela-tions the need to assure the equal rights and opportunitiesof men and women; show prudence in “the management ofall living species and natural resources ƒ [and] stop theunsustainable exploitation of water resources by develop-ing water management strategies at the regional, nationaland local levels, which promote both equitable access andadequate supplies” (United Nations General Assembly,2000, para. 6). Correspondingly, the Johannesburg Plan ofImplementation (para. 25a) requires that governmentsshould ensure that capacities to provide water and sanita-tion infrastructure and services are raised and made gender-sensitive – Wrst and foremost, but not exclusively, to meetMillennium targets for safe drinking water (UnitedNations, 2003). Similarly, the United Nations GeneralAssembly’s Resolution 58/217 of 2003 on the InternationalDecade for Action for Water for Life 2005–2015 stressesthe need to “ensure women’s participation and involvementin the water-related development eVorts” (United NationsInteragency Task Force on Gender and Water, 2004, 4).

Nevertheless – and probably inevitably – these instru-ments of international governing fall short of delivering thetransformative mechanisms necessary for equitable andsustainable access to vital resources such as water (Jameset al., 2002). Part of this failure may stem from the reluc-tance and recalcitrance of national governments to imple-ment many strategies to which they are signatories, ashortcoming obliquely referred to in the Secretary-Gen-eral’s 2004 report on the goals of the Millennium Declara-tion (United Nations General Assembly, 2004). Limitedsuccess may also be partly attributable to the complex con-nections among gender roles and relations, sustainabledevelopment imperatives, and water management (Greenand Baden, 1995; Sneddon et al., 2002). Equally, it may beascribed to the inXuences of economic globalization. Cer-tainly, after the United Nations Conference on Environ-ment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, seriouscriticisms were levelled at members of the internationalcommunity for supporting ‘free market environmentalism’,which assumes that the challenges of sustainable develop-ment can be addressed via the creation and enforcement oftradeable rights in environmental ‘goods’ and ‘bads’(Doyle, 1998; Eckersley, 1993). Yet this form of environ-mentalism prevails.

That same international community has recently consti-tuted a new rhetoric about the purposes and eVects of

818 J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827

globalization, at least partly in response to the activities ofthe anti-globalization and localization movements (Bosman,1999; Conley, 2002; Hans, 2001; O’Connell, 1999; Starr andAdams, 2003). For example, in the Doha Ministerial Decla-ration, statements about the need to respond sensitively tothe most vulnerable nations are interwoven among those(re)aYrming the global multilateral trading system or notingthe signiWcance of (inter)national trade in the promotion ofeconomic development and poverty alleviation (WorldTrade Organization, 2001). Likewise, the Monterrey Consen-sus of the International Conference on Financing for Devel-opment (2003) notes that in “the increasingly globalizinginterdependent world economy, a holistic approach to theinterconnected national, international and systemic chal-lenges of Wnancing for development – sustainable, gender-sensitive, people-centred development – in all parts of theglobe is essential” (United Nations Department of Economicand Social AVairs. Division for Sustainable Development,2004, s.9). Witness, too, the work of the World Commissionon the Social Dimensions of Globalization (2004, vii, ix–x):

Currently, globalization is a divisive subject. It vergeson a dialogue of the deaf ƒ [yet] the debate is chang-ing ƒ We believe the dominant perspective on global-ization must shift more from a narrow preoccupationwith markets to a broader preoccupation with people ƒto meet the needs of people in the communities in whichthey live ƒ [in] the totality of their aspirations fordemocratic participation and material prosperity ƒ

It remains to be seen how these rhetorical devices give eVectto substantive change in the quality of life of the poor, andhow they engender environmental protection, the equitabledistribution of economic goods and services, and all sortsof assurances against uncertainty and risk (Warner, 2000).What is more assured is that the issue of water security willremain central to the debate.

One description of the dynamics underlying water secu-rity advances a political economy of water which assumesthat initial surplus is transformed by an engineering focuson the supply-side of water provision, and followed bytransition to water scarcity (Morgan and Falkenmark,2001; Turton et al., 2001). The water deWcit initiated bythese measures invokes a second transition emphasising afocus on demand management and strategies such as pric-ing, allocation, rights, tradeability and quality. Key compo-nents of this second shift are environmental sustainability,social justice and equity. The Wrst transition is linked withthe ‘defeminization’ of water: it implies that the moderniza-tion of water provision also masculinises the sector. Thesecond transition is associated with the ‘refeminization’ ofwater management, as equity (including gender equity)becomes a key issue (Turton and Meissner, 2000). Evidencesuggests that the early stages of the transition are markedby numeric parity between the sexes as more womenbecome involved in water management. However, theirinvolvement is often limited to specialist technical positionsand, in itself, may not guarantee the refeminization of

water’s management, if such is taken to mean the reinscrip-tion of the ‘feminine principle’ as understood by Shivaand qualiWed by Rose (see also Cleaver, 2000; El Guindy,2000; van Wijk et al., 1996). Sudman (1998) suggests thatwomen’s greatest inXuence on water management is likelyto be through their roles as caregivers and household man-agers. But this position leaves existing power relationslargely unchallenged. For such reasons, the feminization ofwater management is not simply about numerical equiva-lences or about empowering women in the domestic sphere;it is about creating novel institutional norms and practicesat a range of scales and in relation to various subject posi-tions and values (Chauhan and Desai, 1998; Cleaver, 1998).

In this respect, the deployment of gender as metaphor isimportant because it is a potent mechanism by which totransform meaning (Leonard, 2002) and, as Pavia and Mason(2001, 5) propose, gender has a deWning impact on how peo-ple relate to natural resources so that the values, norms andlaws around a resource such as water will “forecast how theresource will be used, how the resource is thought about andthe types of experiences individuals can have with theresource”. In water’s case, under the inXuence of dominantmarket ideologies, the norms of the ‘master subject’ prioritizeindividual ownership, the primacy of production, and thecontrol of chaotic and uncertain nature. Currently subordi-nate are feminine values, supportive of equity and the com-mon wealth, and favouring rules of allocation and access tonatural resources that produce communally beneWcial out-comes, such as water conservation and protection of ecologi-cal values. Non-consumptive purposes struggle to beregarded as legitimate (Pavia and Mason, 2001).

However, increasing water scarcity, unpredictability ofsupply and changing community values prompt the conclu-sion that water management arrangements based on careand social stability are necessary to ensure general well-being. In this context, the feminine principle, so conceived,appears to foster capacities, values and attitudes that pro-mote integrative, cooperative and adaptive institutionalarrangements (Agarwal, 2000). Such institutional charac-teristics are appropriate under conditions of rapid socialand environmental change with their associated complexityand uncertainty (Stakhiv, 1998). Concerns with propertyrights and eYcient allocation systems are necessary butinsuYcient in addressing the reform of water managementunder these conditions (Meinzen-Dick et al., 1997; Mein-zen-Dick and Zwarteveen, 1998). Rather, and especiallywhere crucial resources are concerned, to aid all those whoare other to the ‘master subject’, new alliances and novelinstitutions are needed to protect water’s role as a socialgood (van Koppen, 2001). As Stakhiv (1998, 166) contends,as “water becomes relatively scarce, it will become increas-ingly important to reallocate available supplies to its mostvaluable uses, so as to maximise net social beneWts”. Gen-der-sensitive allocation methods will be crucial, since mar-ket instruments do not ensure the full range of goods andfail to deal with uncertainties such as those generated byclimate variability or those typiWed by “more rapidly shift-

J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827 819

ing changes in the socio-economic structure, demographics,technology and public preferences regarding strategies forsustainable development” (Stakhiv, 1998, 167).

Consequently, institutional reform and the building ofnew institutions beyond contemporary neoliberal eYciency-based reform for water’s allocation and care are imperative.For these purposes, in developed and developing regionsalike institutions will need to accommodate change and newinformation, and increasing scarcity as well as water’s multi-ple values. Then, Tronto (1987) argues, feminized trust-build-ing activities will have much to oVer strategies to reduceconXict and free-riding, and others to enhance security, reci-procity and care. Similarly, given the limits of technocraticand managerialist responses to the challenge, Xexibility andresilience are highly appropriate institutional characteristicsfor water’s sustained care, because they privilege adaptivemanagement strategies (Olsson and Folke, 2001). Indeed, inresponse to conditions of complexity and uncertainty, certaininstitutional arrangements of governance – partnershipsamong them – are now preferred in some jurisdictions for“authoritatively allocating resources and increasing controland coordination” (Rhodes, 1997, 47).

3. The Australian case

Australia is reputed to be the driest continent on Earthwith further drying predicted over the coming century:water’s use and conservation are therefore highly signiWcantconcerns there. Inland waters are under considerable pres-sure from agriculture, industrial activities, settlement devel-opment, and other human needs and wants. River Xows andgroundwater levels are reduced; aquatic ecosystems altered;water quality negatively aVected; bio- and geodiversitythreatened; and quality of life diminished. Although it isamong the most urbanized nations, water’s managementand care do not solely centre on Australia’s cities andregional centres with signiWcant demands on water beingmade by agriculture. There are also very real diYculties inreversing the over-allocation of river and ground waters toirrigation, or the eVects of land clearance on water quality.Additionally, “the trend towards a widening social divide isalso reXected in a signiWcant increase in the geographicpolarisation of households” (Australia. Department of theEnvironment and Heritage, 2004, no page). Yet, given thenation’s status as a developed economy, there is little evi-dence of the pro-poor debate in the rhetoric of water man-agement in Australia except by reference to the mechanicsof diplomacy, and the national approach to sustainabledevelopment and international aid which is embedded in thelarger discourse of economic restructuring. That discourse isalso reXected in national and sub-national legislative mecha-nisms that encourage the privatization of natural resourcesin Australia, water among them.

The move to constitute water as a tradeable commodityis principally driven by National Competition Policy(OECD Global Forum on Competition, 2003). The Policy,usually referred to as the NCP, was established in 1995 as a

multilateral inter-governmental agreement to reduce anti-competitive activities; change laws that restrict competition;encourage and enable eYciency; and improve economicperformance and international trade outcomes. SpeciWcreforms pertain to the gas, electricity, road transport andwater industries (National Competition Council, nd) but,while eYciency improvements and cost reductions drovereforms in the Wrst three industries, the potential of mount-ing environmental degradation to adversely aVectAustralia’s international competitiveness was the main con-sideration in irrigation water reform (Hollander and Cur-ran, 2001). The National Competition Council (NCC) wasmotivated by the view that competition could be harnessedfor environmental beneWt with the aim of the water reformmeasures being to “safeguard the sustainability of waterresources and ensure that water infrastructure will be prop-erly maintained” (National Competition Council, 1999, 91).

Sustainability is a normative discourse that has implica-tions for how we conduct ourselves as well as how we value,distribute, use or conserve non-human and inhuman enti-ties (Mearns, 1995; Stratford and Davidson, 2002; Wells,1998). Its formal adoption in Australia has required a col-lective rethink to policy, the law and the economy as theserelate to resource management in general and water’s man-agement and care in particular.2 DiYculties in resolving

2 Australia is party to international policy instruments for sustainabledevelopment. As well as those already mentioned, three others are notewor-thy: the 1990 New Delhi Statement (United Nations Development Program,1990), Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 (United Nations, 1992), and the Interna-tional Conference on Water and the Environment (International Conferenceon Water and the Environment, 1992) or Dublin Statement on Water andSustainable Development. In these documents, women’s contributions towater’s protection and management are seen as vital, and recommendationsare advanced to strengthen their capacities to manage and protect watersupplies as “guardians of the living environment” (Dublin Statement, Princi-ple 3). This explicit rendering of a feminized value is now largely absent fromAustralia’s internal policy setting, despite the fact that in 1989 then PrimeMinister Robert Hawke supported preparations for the UN Conference onEnvironment and Development in 1992 via the formation of the AustralianEcologically Sustainable Development Process. Because women’s situatedengagement with ESD was then seen as important, the National Women’sConsultative Committee developed a women’s agenda for environmental ac-tion (Brown et al., 1991). ReXection suggests that this process was importantin mobilizing women to act more visibly in natural resource management;and that it did little to explicitly inXuence national policies such as the Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment or the National Strategy forEcologically Sustainable Development (Australian Government. Depart-ment of the Environment, 1992a,b). Other mechanisms that aVect water’smanagement and care across all three tiers of government include the Com-monwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP),launched in 2000 by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). TheNAP targets 21 priority regions to mitigate salinity and water quality prob-lems, and uses bilateral agreements to achieve such ends (Australian Gov-ernment, 2000). Using Commonwealth support derived from the part sale ofthe national telecommunications carrier, Telstra, State and Territory gov-ernments have also been party to the maintenance of numerous ‘environ-mental’ programs – such as Landcare, Coastcare or Riverwatch (Curtis,1998; Elix and Lambert, 2000; Higgins and Lockie, 2002; Lockie, 1999).More generally, local or municipal governments and non-government orga-nizations and community groups have supported such policy initiatives.

820 J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827

water’s over-allocation, the persistence of river basin degra-dation, and debate over appropriate forms of governinghave elevated the management of the resource to a high pri-ority on Australia’s political agenda. This situation exists inpart because of a water development culture that has beendescribed elsewhere as based on a “mobilization andappropriation of water, with an inherent resource capturedimension to it” (Turton et al., 2001, 157). Indeed, it hasbeen argued that zealous adherence to the market and toneoliberal ideology typiWes economic (and thus social andenvironmental) reform processes in Australia (Dovers,1999). In this regard, the emergence of NCP has profoundlyaVected water management, perpetuating value systemsthat underscore instrumental values.

Water reforms grew out of concerns among the federal,state/territory, and local government members of the Coun-cil of Australian Governments (COAG) about severaldeWciencies in water management. In addition to beingtroubled about adverse impacts on the resource base fromincreasing environmental degradation, COAG was con-cerned about charging practices, infrastructure shortcom-ings, ineYcient use of scarce water resources, servicedelivery ineYciencies and institutional inadequacies (Harr-adine, 2003; National Competition Council, 1998). TheCOAG agreement on water developed by the NCC thusembodies a strategic framework encompassing naturalresource management, pricing, investment procedures,trading in water rights, institutional reform and improvedpublic consultation.

In August 2003, COAG announced the creation of aNational Water Initiative in recognition of “a pressing needto refresh its water reform agenda to increase the produc-tivity and eYciency of water use, sustain rural and urbancommunities, and to ensure the health of river and ground-water systems” (Council of Australian Governments, 2003,no page). Importantly, NCP remains central to thatapproach, with emphasis on nationally compatible wateraccess entitlements; nationally functioning water markets;best practice water pricing; integrated management of so-called environmental water; measuring, monitoring andinformation; and urban water reform (Council of Austra-lian Governments, 2003).

Nevertheless, “the reform process is yet to deliver on itsenvironmental promise” (Hollander and Curran, 2001, 53).ReXecting characteristics of weak ecological modernizationas described earlier, NCP is the dominant player with sus-tainable development the junior partner. Various factorsmay explain the mismatch, including the diYculties ofaccommodating environmental values into traditional eco-nomic valuation, the existence of a political context wherepowerful interest groups and electoral pressures can skewpolicy formulation, and lack of understanding of riparianecosystems (Hollander and Curran, 2001).

In fact, NCP reforms have generated at least two conse-quences that run counter to the requirement for allocationsto environmental Xows. First, they have increased demandfor irrigation water because licensing ‘water-take’ increases

its value, giving irrigators greater economic incentive to usetheir allocations. Second, allocation of permanent waterrights distorts the market so that water consumption isfavoured over non-consumptive purposes such as tourismand aquaculture, the operation of which can be harmed byreduced Xows and declines in water quality from increasedchemical runoV (Hollander and Curran, 2001).

Given the foregoing, it is perhaps not surprising thatequitable water reform processes are unlikely withoutimproved policy and institutional parity between NCP andsustainability (Dovers, 1999; Hollander and Curran, 2001).Nevertheless, in the Commonwealth Water Reform Policy(National Competition Council, 1998), there are at leastthree provisions for the sustainability agenda that mayadvance this agenda in practice, given appropriate politicaland institutional settings. Two involve (a) institutionalreforms to devolve responsibility for irrigation manage-ment to local bodies, and (b) public consultation and edu-cation to foster signiWcant change processes and initiativesin water resource management. Given that the membershipproWles of local community groups are more likely toinclude women, participation in decisions about water’scare and management may be increased. It is the case thatwomen are “the nation’s major educators and day-to-dayresource managers” (Brown et al., 1991) and in reality theycomprise much of the membership of environmental ‘care’groups (Curtis, 1998). The third provision involves the allo-cation of water to maintain environmental Xow and qual-ity, which – although slow to be advanced and fraught withdiYculties because of vested interests – may better reXecton-ground some of Shiva’s (1990) ideas about the feminineprinciple noted above. These observations in place, weacknowledge that neither women’s participation in watermanagement nor a general mindfulness of ecosystem pro-cesses inevitably challenges the sway of the master subject.

4. Water management in Tasmania

Like other sub-national jurisdictions, the TasmanianGovernment has been required to institute various reformsunder NCP in order to gain signiWcant compliance pay-ments from the Australian Government. Since Tasmaniahas been typiWed as the nation’s economic ‘basket case’,dependent on Commonwealth Government handouts to anextent that has given it mendicant status among the otherStates, these payments are especially important. Not sur-prisingly, then, successive Tasmanian governments haveinvested signiWcant eVorts in legislative reforms to producethe on-ground changes that NCP demands.

Pre-dating the advent of NCP, Tasmania’s ResourceManagement and Planning System (RMPS) was intro-duced over the period 1993–1994 during a Labor-GreenAccord in State Parliament (Haward and Larmour, 1993;Stratford, in review), and has become a principle means bywhich to undertake reforms to water’s management. TheRMPS aims to integrate long-term strategic decision-mak-ing about the use and management of land and other

J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827 821

resources, and its chief architects were inXuenced by inter-national debates on sustainable development circulating atthe time (Stratford, in review). A central piece of legislationunderpinning the RMPS is the State Policies and ProjectsAct 1993 (SPPA) (Parliament of Tasmania, 1993). Amongother things, the SPPA permits State sustainable develop-ment policies that have the force of law: three currentlyexist in relation to coastal management, the management ofagricultural lands, and water quality. The Tasmanian StatePolicy on Water Quality Management 1997 and the WaterManagement Act 1999 are now the chief instruments bywhich water management is realized in the State.

The Tasmanian State Policy on Water Quality Manage-ment (SPWQM) was enacted in 1997 and is informedby the Australian Water Quality Guidelines 1992. TheSPWQM binds the Crown and local governments unlessotherwise speciWed; it also applies to all surface water,including coastal and ground water other than certain pri-vately-owned waters. Its aims include improving waterquality, making use of integrated approaches to catchmentmanagement, and applying the precautionary principle.

It is, however, the Water Management Act 1999 thatprincipally drives NCP agenda for water reform in Tasma-nia. Introducing the Bill to the Tasmanian House ofAssembly in June 1999, the Minister declared:

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot stress enough theimportance of sustainable, equitable and integratedmanagement of our freshwater resource to the State’seconomic, social and environmental well-being. Interms of Tasmania’s clean green image, its high qual-ity food production, its tourism and recreational val-ues and the future of major projects ƒ that dependon renewable energy, our water is our future (Llewel-lyn, 1999, no page).

In this passage, water is categorically declared the future ofAustralia’s most peripheral and only island state: an objectwhose management is understood as striking a balanceamong competing environmental, economic and socialdemands. Yet despite the apparent equivalence among thethree parts of the ‘triple bottom line’, and despite the Minis-ter’s rhetorical symmetries in this respect, we think it possi-ble to demonstrate that neoliberal economic considerationsand weak ecological modernization programs prevail inTasmanian water management regimes. In short, the State’sapproach appears to privilege resource capture, with thesorts of values which that orientation entails and elides(Shiva, 1990; Tronto, 1987; Turton et al., 2001).

The Minister also acknowledged the pressure that multi-ple use demands place on the resource, observing that

It is now widely recognized that if we expect ourwater to continue to support us, then the way we lookafter it needs a major change ƒ The bill will allow usto continue to derive important beneWts from the useand development of our valuable water resourceswhile ensuring that those resources are protected and

nurtured so that those beneWts will endure ƒ I amparticularly pleased that the Water Management Billcan adequately address both these COAG commit-ments and our own requirements for the ongoing sus-tainable development and use of our valuable waterresources (Llewellyn, 1999).

The Minister stressed the need to avoid scarcity problemsand “water wars”. Laying the groundwork for trading inwater allocations and licenses, he suggested that in thefuture “as the world cries out for more sustainable energyproduction, the value of our hydro-electricity will increasedramatically in both economic and environmental terms, aswill the value of the clean water that drives it” (Llewellyn,1999, np).

The Water Management Act 1999 replaced 13 otherpieces of legislation. Under s.6, it is required to

further the objectives of the resource managementand planning system of Tasmania ƒ and in particularto provide for the use and management of the fresh-water resources of Tasmania having regard to theneed to –

(a) promote sustainable use and facilitate economicdevelopment of water resources; and

(b) recognize and foster the signiWcant social and eco-nomic beneWts resulting from the sustainable useand development of water resources for the gener-ation of hydro-electricity and for the supply ofwater for human consumption and commercialactivities dependent on water; and

(c) maintain ecological processes and genetic diversityfor aquatic ecosystems; and

(d) provide for the fair, orderly and eYcient allocationof water resources to meet the community’s needs;and

(e) increase the community’s understanding of aquaticecosystems and the need to use and manage waterin a sustainable and cost-eYcient manner; and

(f) encourage community involvement in waterresource management.

Of equal importance, the NCP dictates that the AustralianGovernment must deliver to the States and Territories vari-ous competition payments for compliance with industryreform. Hence, in passing the Bill, the Tasmanian Parlia-ment anticipated the receipt of federal funds “amounting to$30.3 million and $36 million for 1999/2000 and 2000/01respectively and rising to $70.1 million per annum by 2005/6 in Competition Policy Payments” (Tasmania. Depart-ment of Primary Industries Water and Environment, 1999,2). In return, Tasmania is required to ensure the implemen-tation of the water reform strategies noted above – in par-ticular, processes for water allocation and trading, and theseparation of service provision from natural resource man-agement functions (Harradine, 2003). Yet when the Bill wasdrafted, water management in Tasmania met none of the

822 J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827

requirements of the national reform agenda. Therefore, sig-niWcant levels of public consultation were undertaken priorto the Bill’s passage through parliament. The consultationprocess identiWed numerous concerns among stakeholders,chief among them water pricing, water rights, trading inwater rights, and the eVects of environmental Xow alloca-tions on other allocation types such as irrigation (Harra-dine, 2003). The Bill’s second reading debate reXects thisdisquiet, with Members focussing on the special licensegranted to the State’s hydro-electricity provider to ensurecertainty of supply by guaranteeing access to 30% of theresource; on free trade of water entitlements; on public con-sultation mechanisms; and on water management plans(WMPs).

WMPs are regulated under Part 4 of the Act. They applyto all surface and groundwaters and are meant to includeassessments of the quantity of water needed for ecosystemprocesses and other evaluations of the eVects of taking orusing the resource on ecosystems and water quality. WMPsmay provide for allocation and use; licensing water take;transfer of allocations; the speciWcation of requirements inthe granting of permits; and the timing and administrationof plans by responsible water entities. Allocations andlicenses are meant to include assessments of the capacity ofthe resource to meet likely demands for water by existingand future users, and their needs into the future; they mustalso account for their eVects on other water resources.There is provision for adjustment to allocations and com-pensation where necessary. Furthermore, allocations maybe transferred, although such reassignment of rights is notintended to cause material or serious environmental harm,or adversely aVect others “taking” water. Note the empha-sis on the taking of water. It is to such matters, and theirgendering eVects, that we now turn.

5. Unsettling the gender-neutrality of Tasmania’s water management regimes

In this section, we draw on key informant interviewswith four men and two women – Tasmanians who have sig-niWcant professional and/or community involvement inwater management and the implementation of the WaterManagement Act and whose understandings of water man-agement in the State thus form what Stake (2000, 437) callsan ‘intrinsic case study’ of the tensions involved in manag-ing and caring for the resource. Respondents wereemployed in State and local government, in non-govern-ment organizations, or were otherwise involved in watermanagement as volunteers in local community groups;their limited number reXects our emphasis on speaking withthe “right people”, a practice common to qualitativeresearch (Bradshaw and Stratford, 2000, 43). After ethicsclearance was obtained from our research institution, eachkey informant was contacted by telephone and invited toparticipate in an interview of approximately sixty minutesduration. Questions explored their understanding of sus-tainability, Tasmanian water management challenges,

water reform issues, and the interrelationships betweenthese matters and imperatives for economic growth. Allinterviews were conducted in mid 2003, were taped, tran-scribed and thematically analyzed. Where reference is madeto the interview transcripts, no attributions are madebecause all participants were provided with assurancesabout conWdentiality and anonymity.

Interviews with key informants in Tasmania’s waterreform processes indicate that the institutionalization ofsustainable water management may be problematic. As oneparticipant in the study informed us

The legislation had proved to be fairly robust andmeeting needs and I think that’s still much the case ƒit has borne up well and that is largely because of thework we did in the consultation ƒ [but] the key areain water at the moment is sort of how we get bettersustainability out of the water.

One key informant also pointed to the deWciencies of mar-ket mechanisms and private property rights in managingresources sustainably, but seemed to rely for solutions onregulatory modes informed by conservative ecologicalmodernization strategies (ChristoV, 1996; Hollander andCurran, 2001):

So over the next year or two we hope to have a majorthrust into ƒ getting more sustainable use of ourwater and setting proper trigger points so that peopleknow as the water level drops they are going to berestricted, and that way the river environment’s betteroV ƒ and hopefully they will go out and shore uptheir water rights by various other ways rather thanjust taking a bit more when they need it ƒ It is just amatter of having a program to actually put into placeƒ It is obvious that from the two extremes of leavingevery bit of water in the stream and not using any andletting everything go naturally and the other pointsucking every bit out and having no natural values,somewhere in there is obviously compromise betweenwhat you do with dams and extractions and what youneed to maintain reasonably healthy rivers and Iguess the idea of WMPs under the Act is to reallyallow the community some input into how you bal-ance the socio-economic needs and impacts on theenvironmental requirements of the river.

Other key informants suggested a number of additionaldeWciencies in the legislation; for example, stewardship islimited to the use of the resource rather than its qualityonce returned to the system. Management controls onwater licences and capacities to adjust allocations based onperformance are unavailable. Regional approaches to dam-building activities that are required to consider the cumula-tive eVects across a catchment are non-existent.

Such criticisms also substantiate gender-related analysesof resource management in that the multiple values ofwater are unrecognized (Pavia and Mason, 2001); and theclass of legitimate users of water is limited only to those

J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827 823

who take and use water from the system. Thus, processesassociated with the development of WMPs were criticizedfor creating rather than resolving conXict, a deWciencyattributed to limited experience in dealing with multipleand conXicting value sets and to a lack of clear processes toresolve such value diVerences. Irrigators were characterizedby those with an interest in non-consumptive values asbeing overly concerned with water quantity. Such criticsalso noted the absence of a participation model that wouldadvance meaningful dialogue and enable social concerns tobe accounted for. Irrigators treated stakeholder participa-tion in an adversarial fashion and were perceived to belargely driven by fear of what they might lose if water’smanagement is opened out to wider public scrutiny. Somestakeholders were thought to want for political capacity inthat they confused ‘sustainable development’ with the‘viability’ of their own farms, and consequently theirbehaviours were perceived to be self-serving.

Overlaying these issues is a perception among some keyinformants that the Tasmanian Government may lackpolitical will to fully implement the legislation, a reluctanceattributed to its publicly declared objective to double by2020 current output in primary industries by developingthe State’s water resources. The Government’s position onthis matter was clear as early as 2001 when Minister Lle-wellyn announced the creation of a new water resourcesagency:

The new water development package is the State’sbiggest water development program in decades ƒWater is the key to signiWcant development opportu-nities for Tasmania – both in terms of jobs and eco-nomic growth ƒ It will provide the foundation stonefor solid economic growth in our primary industries(Llewellyn, 2001, np).

Some key informants think that this stance undermines thesustainability provisions of the legislation. For example, incontrast to Llewellyn’s economically globalistic claims forthe new water development package is the narrative of oneinformant involved in a consultative group to develop aWMP for the Little Swanport catchment on Tasmania’seast coast. To us it represents a local articulation of Shiva’s(1990) ideas about the feminine principle per se, and wetherefore give it particular attention as follows.

Conversations with this informant suggest that the pro-cess of developing the Little Swanport WMP has(re)inscribed masculinized norms of resource management,and has aYrmed the tensions between these structures ofgoverning and the principles of sustainability that are simi-larly produced at other policy levels. Because there is yet noscope for Wne-tuning management practices as a result ofchanges in quality or quantity of the resource, the infor-mant Wrst suggests that there is no opportunity for learningamongst users and that the system lacks adaptive capacity.Second, although economic and environmental needs aresupposedly balanced in water management processes, inpractice, applicants for new water and dam licences are not

required to demonstrate that their proposals conform tothe sustainability principles of the RMPS and therefore donot have to ensure that all relevant needs are taken intoaccount or all relevant values are protected. Third, in prac-tice non-consumptive values (such as in-stream aquatics,riparian vegetation, and the needs of estuarine ecosystems)may go unprotected because management processes lackoversight provisions. Fourth, because over-allocation seemsinherent in dam licensing processes, the implication is thatcoordinating and integrating decision-making over dampermits is crucial for eVective water management. Fifth, asthe development of WMPs progresses, it becomes clear thatthe institutionalization of reform policy is accompanied byradically opposing views about water’s care and manage-ment.

These diVerences can be illustrated by the informant’scomments on the formulation of the Little SwanportWMP:

The men were about the politics of water and alloca-tion, about compromise; they see water as a resource,as tradeable; they were very territorial and concernedwith will I have enough water? The women look at itmore holistically; they are concerned about the pur-pose of water, about nurturing life, about what willhappen if these modiWcations happen? and about whatare the consequences for the river? Men dismiss theseconcerns and they put little weight on life and theconsequences for the future. We are talking aboutdiVerent levels of perception and values. Their hierar-chy of needs seems to be diVerent from that whichwomen would express. Some farmers see what I amsaying but they are scared to put their heads up.

The informant’s narrative suggests the gendered nature ofrelationships to water as a natural resource and the diVer-ent styles of interacting with water that result (Pavia andMason, 2001). Indeed, the narrative points to the need topay attention to the larger problematic of the social andcultural dimensions of resource management; such atten-tion is, perhaps, a precondition for a change in manage-ment perspectives. In this respect, informal rules ofinstitutions – norms and values, relations of power, socialpractices and cooperation – are important to the success ofinstitutionalizing new resource management regimes. Thisintuition leads to the conclusion that alternative structuresof governing beyond bureaucratic administration and mar-ket-based instruments are indicated for water’s manage-ment. If the cultural dimension is accepted, then genderconstructs, in providing a diVerent level of understandingof human relationships to resources, also have somethingto oVer in relation to institutional arrangements for theirmanagement. As well, the narrative substantiates the powerdisparities that exist between consumptive (master subject)and non-consumptive (feminized) users of water in thiscatchment. In lifting the veil on the underlying power rela-tions and the situated value set associated with masculinistapproaches to water, gender analysis releases possibilities

824 J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827

for gender-balanced, equitable and ecologically mindfulinstitutional design. The challenge will be to give due regardto the feminine principle in the generation of such gover-nance arrangements.

It is at this point that we want, brieXy, to speculate aboutwhat it might mean to embrace a feminized ethic of caresketched out, in various ways, by feminist scholars. For thesustainability agenda, a critical need exists to build institu-tions that move beyond what we have typiWed asapproaches of eYciency that reinscribe the priorities of themaster subject to embrace and engender a feminized ethicof care.

Tronto (1993, 103) suggests that the act of caring“includes everything that we do to maintain, continue, and‘repair’ our world so that we can live in it as well as possi-ble”: in short, caring is about sustaining life. For Warren(1999), care is a moral value crucial to the maintenance ofsocial practices as well as ethical reasoning and ethical deci-sion-making. Drawing on such insights in feminist ethics,Wells and Gradwell (2001) explain that caring practicesgive primacy to relationships among all those human andnon-human entities with whom one is in relationship, andabout whom one is motivated to care in practice. Caremotives include the desire to nurture, learn and share learn-ing, and build relationships. Care is not simply about ensur-ing the quantity of a resource to users over X space for Ytime. Care embraces, for example, the use of organicmethods in primary production, the creation of intergener-ational places of civic engagement in cities, or the develop-ment of partnerships for mutual beneWt and comfort. Inwater management, care may mean, inter alia, avoidingwater contamination by reducing pesticide use and nutrientrunoV; using tillage practices that prevent soil loss; main-taining native vegetative cover; refraining from inWlling ordraining wetlands to preserve the ecosystem services theyprovide; or ensuring that river systems have adequate envi-ronmental Xows. In the event of scarcity and to complywith the fairness principle, a feminine perspective wouldmean sharing available supplies and perhaps proportionalcuts for all water users – consumptive and non-consump-tive – rather than those with water rights receiving prefer-ential treatment.

6. Final observations

In this paper, we have been concerned to ask howwater’s management and care are problematized, deliberat-ing on the deployment of gendered and gendering meta-phors and cultural constructs in the production andperpetuation of diVerential values that reXect diVerentialinvestments in discourses of sustainability and globaliza-tion. Focusing for at least part of the paper on Antipodeancase material, we have provided evidence of the genderingeVects of these strategies of governing.

We demonstrated that the consequences of a waterdevelopment culture that has intensiWed in this current eraof global trade competitiveness are a steadfast preoccupa-

tion with water’s management for consumptive uses andonly limited attention to its care in the institutions that arepurportedly designed to ensure ecological sustainability.Furthermore, control of this resource has become morehighly concentrated in the hands of land and resource inter-ests even as ecological indicators continue to decline. Con-sequently, we put the case for the design of institutionalarrangements informed by the feminine principle to betterreXect the ecological and social realities of its multiple val-ues; and hence, to enable the creation of wealth throughenhancing life rather than through environmental degrada-tion or destruction or indeed, managing the environmentalcondition for capital’s purposes. From our Tasmanian casestudy we noted some of the deWciencies in the ‘resource cap-ture’ model, and we gestured to some of the attributes thatmight characterize water management institutions that ade-quately reXect water’s productive and reproductive values.These conclusions provide a measure of support for thosecommentators involved in the pro-poor debate who arguethat equity and enabling institutions are as much a part ofpoverty alleviation as budgetary measures and economicgrowth (Unwin, 2004).

What insights arise from this work and what might theymean for the debate on water’s management and care?

Invoking the feminine principle will mean unsettling – ifnot rejecting – centralized control associated with bipolararrangements of unequal power relationships of the stateand consumers, and with the heroic construction of waterinfrastructure (Zwarteveen, 1997, 1998; Zwarteveen andMeinzen-Dick, 2001), while it will also mean casting doubton the claims made for water’s privatization and market-ization.

Feminization processes will also imply caring for themultiple values of water, and for multipolar arrangementsin which equity of access and decision-making are key com-ponents. Equity is an issue because, although ‘power over’resources such as water is being decentralized in practice, insome regions, deregulation has either shifted much demo-cratic political power oVshore into the hands of unaccount-able transnational actors so that local actors are often leftwith a limited say in local decision-making (Altvater, 1999)or local decision-making has become dominated by landand resource interests (Hollander and Curran, 2001). Moregenerally, the discussion points to possibly irresolvabletensions between a master subject agenda of resource priv-atization and marketization and a conserving, ecologically-mindful sustainability agenda. As critics of ecologicalmodernization suggest, “eYciency, technological innova-tion, techno-scientiWc management, procedural integrationand coordinated management” are unlikely to overcomethe basic social contradictions that environment-economytensions represent (Hajer, 1995, 32).

The debate, then, is far from over, with a new researchagenda for water’s care, as well as its management, onlynow emerging at various scales and in diverse locations.Some issues for further research arising from this discus-sion include the following:

J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827 825

How might the constitution of Xexible and resilient insti-tutions for water’s care and management be stabilized andmade durable? How might spaces be made for multiple val-ues that do not erode the praxis of sustainability? Howmight the feminine principle inform the design of equitableand ecologically mindful resource management arrange-ments?

In the Wnal analysis, if it is agreed that water’s manage-ment is a profoundly social and cultural issue, then its carewill require the mobilization of all social resources andawareness of cultural norms in the design of new institu-tional frameworks advancing a praxis of sustainability.These resources are gendered – materially through the per-formance of diVerent roles and relations, and discursively interms of the meanings and values that are ascribed to theseroles and relations. Therefore, attention to the eVects ofthese material conditions, meanings and values is war-ranted because what appears gender-neutral about watermanagement may equally be read as normatively mascu-line, serving to marginalize feminized approaches – andespecially Xexible and resilient caring institutions, the key-stones of which are already in existence. Such attention willrequire appraising the discursive and cultural practices thatconstitute water management regimes in order to unsettlethe masculinized norms embedded in them and to activelyadvance the possibilities for more equitable and life-sus-taining forms of resource governance.

Acknowledgment

This work has been supported by funds from the Austra-lian Research Council’s Discovery Grants program(DP0342802) for the period 2003–2005. The authors wouldlike to oVer their sincere thanks to the three anonymousreviewers for their thoughtful and constructive commenton an earlier draft.

References

Agarwal, B., 2000. Conceptualising environmental collective action: whygender matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24, 283–310.

Altvater, E., 1999. The democratic order, economic globalization, and eco-logical restrictions: on the relation of material and formal democracy.In: Shapiro, I., Hacker-Cordón, C. (Eds.), Democracy’s Edges. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 41–62.

Anckar, D., 2002. Why are small island states democracies? The RoundTable 365, 375–390.

Armstrong, H.W., Read, R., 2003. The determinants of economic growthof small states. The Round Table 368, 99–124.

Australia. Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2004. State ofthe Environment Report 2001: Human Settlements Theme Report,Australian Government. <http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/settlements/summary.html> (accessed 02.05.05).

Australian Government, 2000. National Plan of Action for Salinity andWater Quality. Available from: <http://www.napswq.gov.au/about-nap.html>.

Australian Government. Department of the Environment and Heritage,1992a. Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. Availablefrom: <http://www.deh.gov.au/esd/national/igae/>.

Australian Government. Department of the Environment and Heritage,1992b. National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development.Available from: <http://www.deh.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/>.

Bakker, K.J., 2003a. A political ecology of water privatization. Studies inPolitical Economy 70 (Spring), 35–58.

Bakker, K.J., 2003b. From public to private to ƒ mutual? Restructuringwater supply governance in England and Wales. Geoforum 34, 359–374.

Bosman, M.M., 1999. The political rhetoric of corporate globalization andthe possibilities for counter-hegemonic projects. Space and Polity 3 (2),125–152.

Bradshaw, M., Stratford, E., 2000. Qualitative research design and rigour.In: Hay, I. (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography.Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 37–49.

Broomhill, R., 2004. Australia: neo-liberal globalism and the local state.In: GriYn Cohen, M., Clarkson, S. (Eds.), Governing Under Stress.Middle Powers and the Challenge of Globalization. Zed Books, Lon-don and New York, pp. 132–152.

Brown, V.A., Andrews, K., Broom, D., Baker, D., Rees, J., Switzer, M.A.,1991. A Question of Balance. Australian Women’s Priorities for Envi-ronmental Action, Report to the Hon. Wendy Fatin MP, MinisterAssisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, Centre forResource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University,Canberra.

Chauhan, G., Desai, C.G., 1998. Role of women in proper water supplyand management. Paper Presented at the Water and Land ResourcesDevelopment and Management for Sustainable Use, The Tenth ICIDAfro-Asian Regional Conference on Irrigation and Drainage, Denpa-sar, Bali, Indonesia.

ChristoV, P., 1996. Ecological modernization, ecological modernities. Envi-ronmental Politics 5 (3), 476–500.

Cleaver, F., 1998. Incentives and informal institutions: gender and themanagement of water. Agriculture and Human Values 15 (4), 347–360.

Cleaver, F., 2000. Analysing gender roles in community natural resourcemanagement: negotiation, lifecourses and social inclusion. IDS Bulle-tin 31 (2), 60–67.

Conley, T., 2002. The state of globalization and the globalization of thestate. Australian Journal of International AVairs 56 (3), 447–471.

Council of Australian Governments, 2003. Communique 29 August 2003.National Water Initiative, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.<www.pmc.gov.au/docs/coag290803.cfm> (accessed 29.08.03).

Crowards, T., 2004. Wise Coastal Practices for Sustainable Human Devel-opment Forum: Identifying Policy Responses to Vulnerability. <http://www.csiwisepractices.org/?read D 491> (accessed August 2004).

Curtis, A., 1998. Agency community partnership in Landcare: lessons forstate sponsored citizen resource management. Environmental Manage-ment 22 (4), 563–574.

Dankelman, I., Davidson, J., 1988. Women and Environment in the ThirdWorld: Alliance for the Future. Earthscan Publications, London.

Deere, C.D., Leon, M., 1998. Gender, land, and water: from reform tocounter-reform in Latin America. Agriculture and Human Values 15(4), 375–386.

Dovers, S., 1999. Institutionalising ecological sustainable development:promises, problems and prospects. In: Walker, K.J., Crowley, K. (Eds.),Australian Environmental Policy: Studies in Decline and Devolution.UNSW Press, Sydney, pp. 204–223.

Doyle, T., 1998. Sustainable development and Agenda 21: the secular bibleof global free markets and pluralist democracy. Third World Quarterly19 (4), 771–786.

Easter, K.W., Feder, G., 1996. Water Institutions and Economic Incentivesto Ameliorate Market and Government Failures. No. P96-14, Depart-ment of Applied Economics, College of Agricultural, Food and Envi-ronmental Sciences, University of Minnesota.

Eckersley, R., 1993. Free market environmentalism: friend or foe? Envi-ronmental Politics 2 (1), 1–19.

El Guindy, S., 2000. Social and gender issues related to water management.Paper Presented at the 6th International Micro-irrigation Congress(Micro 2000), Cape Town, South Africa.

826 J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827

Elix, J., Lambert, J., 2000. Missed opportunities: harnessing the potentialof women in Australian agriculture. Paper Presented at the ChangingLandscapes, Shaping Futures, International Landcare 2000 Confer-ence, Melbourne.

Freeman, C., 2001. Is local:global as feminine:masculine? Rethinking thegender of globalization. Signs 26 (4), 1007–1037.

Green, C., Baden, S., 1995. Integrated water resources management: a gen-der perspective. IDS Bulletin 26 (1), 92–100.

Guimarães, R.P., 2004. Waiting for Godot: sustainable development, inter-national trade and governance in environmental policies. Contempo-rary Politics 10 (3–4), 203–225.

Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: EcologicalModernization and the Policy Process. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Hans, A., 2001. Locating women’s rights in the Blue Revolution. Futures33 (8–9), 753–768.

Harradine, A., 2003. Water Industry Reform as Part of the National Com-petition Policy Agreements. Department of Primary Industries, Waterand Environment, Hobart.

Haward, M., Larmour, P., 1993. The accord and Tasmanian public policy.In: Haward, M., Larmour, P. (Eds.), The Tasmanian ParliamentaryAccord and Public Policy 1989–92. Accommodating the New Politics?Federalism Research Centre, The Australian National University,Canberra, pp. 1–12.

Higgins, V., Lockie, S., 2002. Re-discovering the social: neo-liberalism andhybrid practices of governing in rural natural resource management.Journal of Rural Studies 18 (4), 419–428.

Hollander, R., Curran, G., 2001. The greening of the grey: national compe-tition policy and the environment. Australian Journal of PublicAdministration 60 (3), 42–55.

International Conference on Water and the Environment, 1992. The Dub-lin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development. <http://www.gdrc.org/uem/water/dublin-statement.html> (accessed 20.08.03).

Jackson, C., 1998. Gender, irrigation, and environment: arguing foragency. Agriculture and Human Values 15 (4), 313–324.

James, A.J., Joep, V., van Wijk, C., Reema, N., Mita, P., Mihir, B., 2002.Transforming time into money using water: a participatory study ofeconomics and gender in rural India. Natural Resources Forum 26 (3),205–217.

Laxer, G., 2004. Preface. In: GriYn Cohen, M., Clarkson, S. (Eds.), Gov-erning Under Stress Middle Powers and the Challenge of Globaliza-tion. Zed Books, London and New York, pp. x–xix.

Le DoeuV, M., 1991. Hipparchia’s Choice: An Essay Concerning Women,Philosophy, etc. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Leonard, P., 2002. Organizing gender? Looking at metaphors as frames ofmeaning in gender/organizational texts. Gender, Work and Organiza-tion 9 (1), 60–80.

Llewellyn, D., 1999. Introduction to the Second Reading Debate of theWater Management Bill 1999. Tasmanian Hansard, Parliament ofTasmania, Hobart.

Llewellyn, D., 2001. Moving on Water Plans. Tasmanian GovernmentCommunications OYce, <http://www.media.tas.gov.au> (accessedNovember 2003).

Lockie, S., 1999. The state, rural environments, and globalization: ‘actionat a distance’ via the Australian Landcare program. Environment andPlanning A 31 (4), 597–611.

Mearns, R., 1995. Environmental entitlements: towards empowermentfor sustainable development. In: Singh, N., Titi, V. (Eds.), Empower-ment: Towards Sustainable Development. Zed Books, London, pp.37–53.

Meinzen-Dick, R.S., Zwarteveen, M.Z., 1998. Gendered participation inwater management: issues and illustrations from water users’ associa-tions in South Asia. Agriculture and Human Values 15 (4), 337–345.

Meinzen-Dick, R.S., Brown, L.R., Feldstein, H.S., Quisumbing, A.R., 1997.Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Development 25(8), 1303–1315.

Moderators, 2004. Adapting to change: resilience in small islands. WiseCoastal Practices for Sustainable Human Development Forum. <http://www.csiwisepractices.org/?read D 485> (accessed 10.05.04.).

Morgan, J., Falkenmark, M., 2001. Workshop 5 (synthesis): feminizationof water security. Water Science and Technology 43 (4), 151–153.

National Competition Council, 1998. Compendium of National Competi-tion Policy Agreements, Council of Australian Governments (COAG).Available from: <http://www.ncc.gov.au/pdf/PIAg-001.pdf>.

National Competition Council, 1999. National Competition Policy: SomeImpacts on Society and the Economy. <http://www.ncc.gov.au/publication.asp?publicationIDD129&sectorIDD26> (accessed 13.05.05).

National Competition Council, nd. The Role of the National CompetitionCouncil. <http://www.ncc.gov.au/articleZone.asp?articleZoneIDD136>(accessed 13.05.05).

O’Connell, C., 1999. Globalization – the destruction of sustainability? In:Herrmann, P. (Ed.), Challenges For A Global Welfare System, Euro-pean Social Organisational Science Consultancy.

OECD Global Forum on Competition, 2003. The Objectives of CompetitionLaw and Policy and the Optimal Design of a Competition Agency: Aus-tralia. CCNM/GF/COMP/WD(2003)26, Centre for Co-operation withNon-Members, Directorate for Financial, Fiscal and Enterprise AVairs.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutionaldynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken water-shed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4 (2), 85–104.

Parliament of Tasmania, 1993. Tasmanian State Policies and Projects Act.Pavia, T.M., Mason, M., 2001. Exploring water consumption using a gen-

der continuum: the case of the American West. Academy of MarketingScience Review 2001 (10), 1–14.

Rhodes, R.A.W., 1997. Understanding governance: policy networks,governance, reXexivity and accountability. Open University Press,Buckingham and Philadelphia.

Rose, G., 1993. Feminism and geography. The limits of geographicalknowledge. Polity Press, Oxford.

Shiva, V., 1990. Development as a new project of western patriarchy. In:Diamond, I., Orenstein, G.F. (Eds.), Reweaving the World: The Emer-gence of Ecofeminism. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, pp. 189–200.

Sneddon, C., Harris, L., Dimitrov, R., Ozesmi, U., 2002. Contested waters:conXict, scale, and sustainability in aquatic socioecological systems.Society and Natural Resources 15 (8), 663–675.

Stake, R., 2000. Case studies. In: Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), The Hand-book of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp.435–454.

Stakhiv, E.Z., 1998. Policy implications of climate change impacts onwater resources management. Water Policy 1 (2), 159–175.

Starr, A., Adams, J., 2003. Anti-globalization: the global Wght for localautonomy. New Political Science 25 (1), 19–42.

Stratford, E., Davidson, J., 2002. Capital assets and intercultural border-lands: socio-cultural challenges for natural resource management.Journal of Environmental Management 66, 429–440.

Stratford, E., 2006. Technologies of agency and performance: Tasmaniatogether and the constitution of harmonious island identity. Geoforum37 (2), 273–286.

Stratford, E., in review. Island status and the geopolitics of vulnerabilityand resilience. Political Geography.

Streeten, P., 1998. Islands and sustainable development. In: Baldacchino,G., Greenwood, R. (Ed.), Competing Strategies of Socio-EconomicDevelopment for Small Islands, Institute of Island Studies, Charlotte-town, Prince Edward Island, University of Prince Edward Island, pp.348–374.

Sudman, R.S., 1998. Contributions of women in the Weld of waterresources. International Journal of Water Resources Development 14(4), 473–479.

Tasmania. Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment,1999. Regulatory Impact Statement – Water Management Bill 1998,Government of Tasmania, Hobart.

Thrupp, A., Clift, E., Estes, D., 1994. Women and sustainable development.In: World resources 1994–95: a guide to the global environment.Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, USA, pp. 43–60.

Tickell, A., Peck, J.A., 1995. Social regulation after fordism: regulation the-ory, neo-liberalism and the global-local nexus. Economy and Society24 (3), 357–386.

J. Davidson, E. Stratford / Geoforum 38 (2007) 815–827 827

Tronto, J., 1987. Beyond gender diVerence to a theory of care. Signs: Jour-nal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (4), 644–663.

Tronto, J., 1993. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic ofCare. Routledge, New York.

Turton, A.R., Meissner, R., 2000. Analysis of the InXuence from the Inter-national Hydropolitical Environment Driving the Process of Changein the Water Sector. African Water Issues Research Unit (AWIRU),Pretoria University.

Turton, A.R., Schreiner, B., Leestemaker, J., 2001. Feminization as a criti-cal component of the changing hydrosocial contract. Water Scienceand Technology 43 (4), 155–164.

United Nations, 1992. Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Envi-ronment and Development. <http://www.igc.apc.org/habitat/agenda21/index.html> (accessed various dates).

United Nations, 2003. World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan ofImplementation. United Nations. <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/docu-ments/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm> (accessed 26.01.04).

United Nations Department of Economic and Social AVairs. Division forSustainable Development, 2004. Monterrey Consensus of the Interna-tional Conference on Financing for Development. United Nations.<http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/Monterrey_Consensus.htm>(accessed 02.05.05).

United Nations Development Program, 1990. New Delhi Statement onSafe Water and Sanitation, UNDP and UN Steering Committee forThe International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade andthe Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. <http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/Wles/wsscc/newdelhi.doc> (accessed 22.08.03).

United Nations General Assembly, 2000. Resolution Adopted by the Gen-eral Assembly. 55/2, United Nations Millennium Declaration, UnitedNations General Assembly, Fifty-Fifth Session Agenda Item 60 (b),New York.

United Nations General Assembly, 2004. Implementation of the UnitedNations Millennium Declaration. Report of the Secretary-General,United Nations General Assembly, New York.

United Nations Interagency Task Force on Gender and Water, 2004. AGender Perspective on Water Resources and Sanitation. Background

Paper No.2, United Nations Department of Economic and SocialAVairs, Commission on Sustainable Development, New York.

Unver, I.H.O., 2001. Institutionalizing the sustainable developmentapproach: co-ordination across traditional boundaries. InternationalJournal of Water Resources Development 17 (4), 511–520.

Unwin, T., 2004. Beyond budgetary support: pro-poor development agen-das for Africa. Third World Quarterly 25 (8), 1501–1523.

van Koppen, B., 2001. Gender in integrated water management: an analy-sis of variation. Natural Resources Forum 25 (4), 299–312.

van Wijk, C., de Lange, E., Saunders, D., 1996. Gender aspects in the man-agement of water. Natural Resources Forum 20 (2), 91–103.

Warner, J., 2000. Images of water security: a more integrated perspective.African Water Issues Research Unit (AWIRU). <http://www.up.ac.za/academic/libarts/polsci/awiru/> (accessed 02.07.03).

Warren, K.J., 1999. Care-sensitive ethics and situated universalism. In:Low, N. (Ed.), Global Environmental Ethics. Routledge, London, pp.131–145.

Wells, M.P., 1998. Institutions and incentives for biodiversity conservation.Biodiversity and Conservation 7, 815–835.

Wells, B.L., Gradwell, S., 2001. Gender and resource management: com-munity supported agriculture as caring-practice. Agriculture andHuman Values 18 (1), 107–119.

World Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization, 2004. AFair Globalization: Creating Opportunities for All. InternationalLabour OYce, Geneva.

World Trade Organization, 2001. Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministe-rial Declaration. WTO. <www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01/mindecl_e.htm> (accessed 02.05.05.).

Zwarteveen, M.Z., 1997. Water: from basic need to commodity: a discus-sion on gender and water rights in the context of irrigation. WorldDevelopment 25 (8), 1335–1349.

Zwarteveen, M.Z., 1998. Identifying gender aspects of new irrigation man-agement policies. Agriculture and Human Values 15 (4), 301–312.

Zwarteveen, M.Z., Meinzen-Dick, R., 2001. Gender and property rights inthe commons: examples of water rights in South Asia. Agriculture andHuman Values 18 (1), 11–25.