Abstract
Indigenous peoples’ rights and responsibilities to water are routinely undermined by dominant or colonial water governance systems. Although the importance of engaging Indigenous peoples in water governance is recognized, few studies have assessed the extent or nature of their participation. Here we present a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on Indigenous participation in dominant water governance, analysing 226 journal articles and 183 case studies. Case studies span 15 countries, with the majority (77%) from Western settler-colonial countries. Forms of participation differ across regions, and some decision-making scales are better studied than others. Few participatory processes give consideration to Indigenous values and knowledge, and even fewer evaluate Indigenous participation, making it difficult to determine whether such participation was meaningful. Participation in international water governance processes is evident but remains underexamined in the literature. Crucially, Indigenous peoples are influencing and reshaping dominant water governance at all levels.
Similar content being viewed by others
Main
Participation is widely considered an essential tenet of good water governance1,2, with the potential of facilitating inclusion of diverse knowledge systems and values in decision-making processes1,3,4,5. In particular, there has been increasing interest in engaging Indigenous peoples in water-related decision-making processes6, especially as there may be a legal imperative in certain instances to do so7,8. The growing calls for Indigenous participation have further been driven by the recognition of Indigenous rights, reflected in the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples9, and the acknowledgement of the role that Indigenous knowledge and values can play in water governance6,10.
Efforts are seemingly underway to increase participation of Indigenous peoples in water governance in several countries11,12. This is reflected in the growing body of academic literature that documents engagement in numerous areas, including water rights13,14,15,16, wastewater17, water research18, Indigenous knowledge19, water policy settings20, watershed management21 and river basin management22. In addition, there is burgeoning literature on Indigenous water governance, grounded in concepts of self-determination and sovereignty23,24,25,26, Indigenous water justice27,28 and Indigenous ontologies29,30.
Despite these developments, several barriers to Indigenous participation in dominant water governance frameworks persist12,17,31. Besides procedural barriers related to resourcing and capacity32, dominant processes disregard the inherently political nature of water, framing water governance issues as purely technical issues33,34,35. In addition, dominant processes often relegate Indigenous peoples to the status of ‘stakeholders’, failing to acknowledge their rights and authorities36. While there is ample literature offering ‘recommendations’ on how water and environmental governance processes should involve Indigenous peoples11,17, no systematic review has been undertaken that examines how and to what extent current water governance processes have engaged Indigenous peoples.
Prior studies have conducted systematic reviews concerning Indigenous peoples’ engagement in climate adaptation and governance37,38,39,40,41, in collaborative environmental governance42, in nature conservation43, in marine and coastal management44, and in global environmental forums45. While several of these reviews include a peripheral discussion on water, systematic reviews focused solely on water governance processes are generally limited. The few systematic reviews specifically related to Indigenous involvement in water governance have been limited in scope; for instance, studies have examined Indigenous involvement in source water protection in Canada and the USA46 and the integration of Indigenous and Western knowledge in water research in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA47. More recently, Leonard et al.48 conducted a review of Indigenous-led water research that advocates for the ‘rematriation’ or the return of water back to Indigenous communities, thereby highlighting key themes in Indigenous water governance scholarship48.
While this study affirms the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination and to govern their waters in accordance with their own frameworks, it also recognizes the importance of examining Indigenous participation in dominant systems of water governance, including those that claim to be collaborative36. Dominant water governance processes influence water policy decisions and discourse, often with direct and indirect impacts on Indigenous peoples. In many cases, Indigenous peoples are forced to participate or respond to these processes in order to defend their rights and interests49,50. Participation, understood here as the way in which Indigenous peoples engage with external actors or institutions, is further influenced by issues of scale. For instance, the scale of participation can have implications on how much power and influence actors have51,52,53,54. Indigenous peoples with contextualized knowledge may be well positioned to shape local water governance decisions, but may face challenges in influencing decisions at broader, jurisdictional levels51. Conversely, decision-makers operating at higher jurisdictional scales often possess the authority to shape overarching water agendas, yet they may lack insight into how their decisions impact local communities51,55. Here, we systematically review the literature to understand how Indigenous peoples are participating, interacting and responding to dominant water governance processes across a range of geographies, scales and themes following the process detailed in Tables 1–3 (search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and coding scheme) and summarized in Fig. 1 (flow diagram).
PRISMA-style flow diagram showing the systematic literature review process, across four-phases: identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion.
Results
Geographical distribution
A total of 226 journal articles were reviewed from which 183 unique case studies were extracted, spanning 15 countries (Fig. 2). 85% (n = 193) of the journal articles discussed one or more of the four countries: Australia (n = 78; 35%), Canada (n = 47; 21%), the USA (n = 45; 20%) and New Zealand (n = 31; 14%), including transboundary examples. These countries, often referred to as CANZUS, are settler-colonial states where Western colonization resulted in permanent settlement and displacement of the Indigenous population. Case studies followed a similar distribution, with the highest numbers from Australia (n = 57; 31%), Canada (n = 32; 17%), the USA (n = 27; 15%) and New Zealand (n = 19; 10%).
Transboundary case studies (USA–Canada) are reported as a separate category and are not included in individual country totals.
Fourteen (n = 14; 6%) articles discussed six transboundary case studies, all along the USA–Canada border. These transboundary case studies discussed Indigenous participation within the Great Lakes56,57,58,59, the Columbia River Basin60,61,62,63, the Rainy Lake64, the Yukon River basin, between Yukon and Alaska30,65, the Coast Salish region66 and the International Joint Commission67.
In addition, 19% of journal articles (n = 43) discussed 38 distinct case studies from South America, with Chile having the highest number of both journal articles (n = 15) and case studies (n = 10). Outside of this, there were three isolated examples of Indigenous participation: of the Ainu in Japan68, Indigenous peoples in New Caledonia69 and the Saami in Sweden70.
Bibliometrics
Journal representation
The articles were represented in 106 different journals across various disciplines, from water resources and hydrology to law, social sciences and human rights. The greatest number of articles were published in the International Journal of Water Resources Development (n = 11) and Water (n = 11), followed by the Australasian Journal of Water Resources (n = 10).
Year of publication
The articles ranged from 1980 to 2023. Notably, 80% of the articles (n = 180) reviewed were published in the past 10 years (2013–2023).
Indigenous participation in dominant water governance processes by geography
Most participatory processes were generalized or undefined, with participation types clustered in distinct geographies
While noting the challenges and limitations of coding complex processes of participation (Table 4), case studies did highlight trends in terms of how Indigenous participation is reflected or discussed in the existing literature. In particular, notable variation was observed in both the type and thematic focus of participation across different geographical contexts (Table 5).
In many case studies, the type of participation was either unspecified, generalized or a policy engagement process (n = 43; 23%). These examples were most prevalent in Australia (n = 16) and Canada (n = 12). Another 23% of case studies discussed legal engagement processes (n = 42), such as lawsuits, court proceedings or settlements. Many of these were from the USA (n = 19). An additional 16% of case studies focused on Indigenous partnerships and collaborations (n = 29), predominantly in Australia (n = 14) and Canada (n = 8). In the USA, there were two examples of partnerships: one of the Lummi Nation within the state of Washington71, and one along the Colorado River72.
Several case studies discussed Indigenous participation in the form of resistance and political mobilization, such as protests (n = 30; 16%). Among these, 83% (n = 25/30) were from South America. Case studies of recognition followed (n = 25;14%), and these were predominantly from Australia (n = 15). Several of these discussed how colonial water laws and policies have made provisions for Indigenous peoples and their interests, but in most cases there was little context provided as to how Indigenous peoples’ active involvement led to this recognition, or whether this recognition was beneficial to Indigenous peoples’ self-determination.
Moreover, 13% of case studies were coded as ‘representation’ (n = 24;13%), whereby Indigenous peoples were provided a seat in colonial water governance bodies. Representation was the main form of participation in transboundary case studies, for example in the Great Lakes, where Indigenous peoples were given representative seats on the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission73, the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board57 or the International Joint Commission67.
Eight per cent of the case studies discussed the inclusion and application of Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and values in water policies or laws (n = 15; 8%). These were concentrated in New Zealand (n = 5), Australia (n = 4) and Canada (n = 4). In New Zealand and Australia, case studies discussed initiatives to identify or map cultural values or cultural flows in water bodies, for instance the Cultural Health Index74,75,76, Murihiku Cultural Water Classification System77 and the National Cultural Flows Research Project76,78,79,80. Cultural flows refer to water entitlements owned and managed by First Nations communities in Australia often for their cultural and social use. Meanwhile, in Canada, case studies dealt with the application of Indigenous principles, values or knowledge systems10,35,81,82. The one transboundary case study that dealt with Indigenous knowledge inclusion discussed consideration of Indigenous knowledge in the governance of the Great Lakes within Canada18,83. A small number of case studies discussed negotiation processes (n = 10; 5%), referring to processes that led to some form of agreement or accord. These overlapped with several legal engagement case studies. An even smaller number discussed formal consultation processes (n = 8;4%), which were often legally required as part of environmental impact assessments or permitting for dams or mining projects.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of the participation types across different geographies, with percentages calculated as a fraction of the total of participation type.
Percentages in this figure have been calculated as a fraction of the total of that specific type of participation.
Most of the participation took place around the thematic issues of colonial water rights and laws
The case studies discussed a variety of thematic issues, with the majority focusing on water rights and water laws within colonial processes (n = 40; 22%). These examples were concentrated in the USA (n = 17). Case studies on general water issues or water governance followed (n = 36; 20%), with the majority from Australia (n = 22) discussing how colonial water laws and policies included Indigenous peoples. In addition, 15% of the case studies focused on extractive projects, including dams and mining (n = 28), around half of which were situated in South America (n = 15). This was followed by case studies around specific water bodies, rivers and lakes (n = 22;12%), many of which were concentrated in New Zealand (n = 11). Case studies examining drinking water or source water protection (n = 15;8%), a majority of which were in Canada (n = 10).
Indigenous knowledge and values are considered in very few participatory processes
Out of 183 case studies, 19% (n = 34) indicated that Indigenous values or knowledge were considered in the participation process (Table 5). Most of these examples were from Australia (n = 13) and New Zealand (n = 11). While several of these examples were also coded as ‘inclusion of Indigenous knowledge’ for the type of participation, there were other types of participation, such as partnerships, that considered Indigenous values.
Given that such a small percentage of case studies considered Indigenous values based on the documented literature, it is likely that dominant processes of water governance continue to view water primarily as a resource that can be technically managed and controlled. This is at odds with how many Indigenous peoples may view water29,73,84.
There was limited description of participatory processes, and even fewer studies evaluated them, with most evaluations conducted in Australia
In only 55% of the case studies (n = 101), a description of the process of Indigenous participation was provided. Among these, approximately a quarter (n = 27) included some form of evaluation. Most evaluations were from studies conducted in Australia (n = 13), followed by Canada (n = 5), and were generally limited to a few sentences about the process (Supplementary Section 8). No consistent framework guided these evaluations, making it challenging to assess the evaluation itself. There was only one case study where Indigenous peoples took part in the process of evaluation, namely the evaluation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan31,85.
Indigenous participation in dominant water governance by scale
Indigenous participation is commonly reported at the local scale, particularly in South America, predominantly at the provincial scale in Canada, and rarely documented at the international scale
Several case studies illustrated the involvement of multiple jurisdictional scales. Around 26% of the case studies (n = 48) involved two or more scales (Fig. 4). Overall, about 44% of the case studies discussed Indigenous participation at the local scale (n = 81/183). In South America particularly, 74% of the case studies discussed local-scale participation (n = 28/38). This was followed by case studies that discussed participation at the federal (n = 57; 31%) and regional (n = 47; 26%) scales. In addition, 23% of the total case studies demonstrated Indigenous participation at the provincial scale (n = 42).
Distribution of studies examining Indigenous participation across different jurisdictional scales and regions. The bar chart and table show the number of studies with Indigenous participation described at local, regional, provincial, federal, international and transboundary level for the different countries or regions. The pie chart indicates the number of studies discussing one, two, or three or more jurisdictional scales.
Notably, in Canada, more than half of the case studies demonstrated provincial-scale participation (n = 19/32), while both Australia and the USA each had 11 examples of provincial participation. In addition, six case studies addressed transboundary-scale participation, all of which involved the USA and Canada.
Only seven case studies (n = 7;4%) discussed Indigenous participation at the international scale. These included: (1) Indigenous participation at the 3rd World Water Forum leading to the Kyoto Water Declaration8,65,78; (2) participation at the 4th World Water Forum in Mexico City leading to the Tlatokan Atlahuak Declaration8; (3) The Garma International Indigenous Water Declaration in Australia, convening Indigenous peoples from all over the world78; (4) Indigenous inclusion in the 2018 Brasília Declaration of Judges on Water Justice at the 8th World Water Forum15; (5) the community of Carhuancho, Huancavelica’s efforts to present their case at the Latin American Water Tribunal52; (6) Indigenous resistance around the Chixoy dam in Guatemala, leading to participation at the Inter-American Human Rights court86; and (7) the Wayuu community’s participation at the Inter-American Human Rights Court around the Cercado dam87. None of these examples provided any substantial details around how Indigenous peoples participated in these processes. Nevertheless, some of these articles did imply that international spaces and forums have served as arenas for Indigenous peoples to contest hegemonic water norms and to advocate for a right to water52,86,87.
Resistance occurs primarily at the local scale, legal processes mostly at the federal scale, while Indigenous values and knowledge are important across all scales
The types of participation were distributed generally evenly across the different scales (Table 6). Among the 81 case studies discussing local-scale participation, an equal number focused on general participation or policy engagement (n = 23; 28%) and resistance or political mobilization (n = 23; 28%). Nearly half the examples of representation occurred at the local scale (n = 11/24). Among the 47 regional-scale case studies, participation mainly took the form of legal engagement (n = 15), partnerships or collaborations (n = 12) and resistance (n = 11). Legal engagement was also the most common form of participation at the provincial (n = 14/42) and federal scales (n = 25/57).
As mentioned earlier, only a few case studies stated that they considered Indigenous values or knowledge in the participatory process (n = 34; 19%), but they did so across different jurisdictional scales, including at the international scale. In fact, at the international scale, several studies discussed how Indigenous peoples elicited their values and knowledge in their own declarations8,15,65,78. Within the transboundary examples, the example of the Great Lakes specifically discusses the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and values within Canada18,83.
Besides water rights, several issues are addressed at local and regional scales, although multiple scales are often involved
Most thematic issues involved participation at the local scale (Table 6). Case studies discussing water rights and law were prominent at the federal (n = 24) and provincial scale (n = 14). At the regional scale, case studies discussed multiple thematic issues. At the international scale, the thematic focus was primarily on general water issues (n = 4/7). More technically oriented topics such as conservation, watershed management, and environmental watering and environmental flows were largely addressed at local scales.
Notably, the local scale was more thoroughly described, even in studies that involved multiple scales. Among the case studies that provided descriptions of participation (n = 101; 55%), 45% of these discussed local participation (n = 45) and 30% discussed regional participation (n = 30). There were three case studies that involved the international scale, which also provided description of the participatory process52,86,87. However, these case studies involved multiple jurisdictional scales, with the descriptions primarily focused on the domestic participatory process, and limited detail of participation at the international scale.
Discussion and conclusion
We provide a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles that explore Indigenous participation in dominant systems of water governance. Before discussing results, we acknowledge that even a review of the literature involving Indigenous peoples can be contentious, with the potential for misrepresentation. For instance, readers may not appreciate that this review is focused on Indigenous participation in dominant water governance processes. We understand that these processes often view Indigenous peoples as ‘stakeholders’, depoliticize water issues and often undermine Indigenous peoples’ sovereignties and jurisdictions6,29,35,88. We are mindful of these concerns and undertake this review not to validate dominant or colonial systems, but to critically assess how Indigenous peoples are participating in, or being excluded from, such processes that claim to be just and ‘inclusive’. In doing so, we hope to advance discussions of procedural and recognitional justice as it pertains to Indigenous peoples in water governance27 (see Supplementary Section 4 for positionality and ethical considerations).
The type and theme of Indigenous participation depend on context, with certain contexts being more extensively studied than others
One of the notable findings from this review is that the type of participation and the thematic area of participation vary by geography. This variation likely stems from unique historical, political and environmental contexts that shape Indigenous participation in different regions. In the CANZUS countries, a substantial portion of the reviewed literature highlighted the impact of colonial water laws and policies on Indigenous communities64,89,90. These policies have not only impacted Indigenous peoples’ ability to exercise their rights and responsibilities towards water19 but have also contributed to water insecurity within Indigenous communities91,92. However, the way water insecurity manifests across these different contexts varies, leading Indigenous communities to respond to and engage with each situation in different ways. In Canada, several of the journal articles discussed the challenges of safe drinking water provision and source water protection, especially as Indigenous communities in Canada continue to grapple with drinking water advisories17,93,94. Generally, the literature from Canada described participation as a long-term policy engagement process between First Nations and the respective government. Collaborative participatory processes took place at the local scale, often in British Columbia, such as in the Koksilah watershed82 and the Lower Similkameen32. In Australia, water scarcity has been the main driver for how the government defines its overarching water policies, and the challenge has been around how to allocate scarce water across a range of uses and users, including Aboriginal peoples. As a result, water is a deeply political issue. Despite this, several examples of Indigenous collaborations exist, including those with the Nari Nari Tribal Council95,96,97,98,99,100 and the Ngarrindjeri nation20,24,96,98,101,102. The majority of journal articles that provided description and evaluation came from Australia. This does not necessarily imply that participation was more meaningful but rather reflects the political and social prominence of water issues in Australia.
In the USA, a substantial proportion of the literature discussed legal engagement processes, particularly around tribal water right and settlements. A majority of the case studies were focused on tribes along the Colorado River Basin23,103,104,105,106,107,108,109. Not surprisingly, several of the papers were published in law journals, and the earliest paper in our review from 1980 was also from the USA.
In New Zealand, much of the reviewed literature discussed how the Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840, allowed the Māori to be the guardians of their taonga (treasures)110. Given this context, literature was focused on the governance of specific water bodies, such as the Waikato River111,112,113,114 and the Whanganui River15,81,115,116,117,118.
Case studies within South America generally focused on Indigenous peoples’ political mobilization and activism around water issues. Many journal articles highlighted popular resistance movements that arose in response to neoliberal water policies. For example in Cochabamba, Bolivia, Indigenous groups joined urban water users in protesting the government’s attempt to privatize the drinking water sector119,120,121,122,123. In Ecuador, Indigenous communities mobilized to advocate for Indigenous water rights120,121. In addition, in South America, Indigenous communities also engaged in international forums including the Inter-American Human Rights Commission86,87 and the Latin American Water Tribunal52, for example, in Peru52, Guatemala86 and Colombia87.
Indigenous participation is diverse and dynamic, yet dominant colonial participation processes generally fail to include Indigenous values
In 24% of the case studies, participation was either unspecified or described as a dynamic, evolving process. For instance, First Nations engaged with the Government of Canada in a cyclical process of (in)action and response around the topic of safe drinking water17,124. In other instances, multiple forms of participation could be found in the same example. For instance, the Ngarrindjeri Nation engaged with the state legally, in a policy engagement process, and in a partnership24,101. Where more defined forms of participation were noted in the literature, Indigenous peoples commonly participated through legal engagement (23%), often around the issue of water rights and laws (22%). This was followed by resistance or political mobilization (16%) and collaborative processes and partnerships (16%).
Few studies considered Indigenous values and knowledge in the participatory process (19%), and if they did, it is unclear whether this was done in a manner that was not extractive, and whether Indigenous consent was present19. In addition, even fewer case studies evaluated Indigenous participation (15%). Despite a growing emphasis on recognizing Indigenous values in water governance processes6,10, this review reveals that few processes do so.
Our study also highlighted several examples of ‘created participation’125,126 whereby Indigenous communities created their own spaces to participate and engage with dominant or colonial governance structures. These ‘created’ forms of participation often took place as a response to the actions or decisions of the state or industry that negatively impacted Indigenous peoples, such as Chile’s introduction of the 1981 Water Code which was met with widespread opposition and dissent from Indigenous peoples127,128, as well as the construction of the aqueduct in Sonora, Mexico that negatively impacted Indigenous peoples, leading them to resist129. In other instances, ‘created’ participation was a result of inadequate or ineffective ‘invited participation’. For instance, the introduction of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act in Canada was met with opposition from First Nations, due to lack of adequate consultation and concerns around treaty rights124. This inadequacy of dominant or colonial processes of participation has been frequently mentioned in the literature29,30,130,131,132. These created forms of participation also highlight that, to the extent that Indigenous peoples do participate in dominant or colonial water governance, it is quite often the result of an initial failure to engage them meaningfully.
Participation occurs at all scales, but unevenly studied, with participation at the global scale remaining underexplored
In this review, ‘scale’ refers specifically to jurisdictional or administrative scale. Investigating the scale of participation can provide insight into where power is concentrated and where actors are better positioned to influence decisions and outcomes51,131. However, scale is a particularly complex and contested concept when involving Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples’ territories are not only diverse and variable32, but also may not align with the jurisdictional boundaries imposed by a colonial government. Moreover, while Indigenous peoples are often considered to operate at a ‘local’ level133, Indigenous peoples are not always acting as a local entity. For instance, in Canada, First Nations function as governments that engage directly with the Crown on a nation-to-nation level32. At the same time, they also have a distinct relationship with certain territories, for instance in the Yukon, where they have a self-government agreement130.
The review identified examples of Indigenous participation occurring at different jurisdictional scales, with collaborative processes and partnerships frequently reported at the local level and legal engagement at the federal level. The geographic context also influences the scale of participation. For instance, in South America, examples of Indigenous participation were often at the local scale, whereas, in Canada, examples more commonly highlighted engagement at the provincial level. In the USA, Indigenous participation was most frequently observed at the federal scale. Several case studies also discussed Indigenous participation taking place at multiple scales within the same study. Many of these case studies highlighted efforts of Indigenous peoples ‘scaling up’ from the local scale to elevate their concerns. For example, in Ecuador, Indigenous communities organized into the Federation of Indigenous Nationalities in Ecuador (CONAIE) to advocate for their water rights120,121, while, in Guatemala, they formed a regional alliance called the Consejo Comunitario de Retalhuleu (CCR)134. These trends were also evident in Western settler-colonial contexts, for instance, in Australia, where Indigenous communities formed alliances such as the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations and Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations78.
Despite limited case studies discussing Indigenous participation at the international scale, the literature signals that Indigenous peoples have engaged in global water processes and were keenly aware of the opportunities that participation at higher scales offered them, even if not explicitly mentioned. Case studies, for instance, discussed Indigenous participation at several World Water Forums, leading to their own water declarations8,15,65,78. In addition, studies from South America discussed how Indigenous communities recognized the limitations of local scales and decided to take their issues to international forums52,109,110. While these studies provide evidence of Indigenous participation at the global scale, they lack sufficient descriptions around their participation. In the absence of this information, it is unclear how Indigenous peoples were able to influence decision-making at these global forums.
Although only six case studies discussed Indigenous participation in transboundary water governance, these were more thoroughly described than the examples of participation at the international scale. Most of these studies have highlighted how transboundary institutions have further entrenched settler-colonialism by excluding Indigenous communities from negotiations and decision-making processes57,58,64.
A likely conclusion from the review is that, while Indigenous participation is taking place at the international scale, it is not being adequately studied and discussed. This has implications for our understanding of who has power and whose voice is heard at higher jurisdictional scales51. Global environmental forums have generally privileged states and multilateral organizations131, granting them greater authority and influence over discourse and norms surrounding water governance. Although there have been efforts to broaden participation in global spaces, Indigenous peoples continue to face challenges in influencing decisions at this scale9. In addition, global processes may overlook the localized and place-based knowledge held by Indigenous peoples, while privileging more generalizable and decontextualized knowledge45,131,133. Looking at the example of Indigenous peoples’ participation in global climate governance forums, their participation has largely hinged on their respective national governments, which means meaningful participation can never be guaranteed due to historical marginalization133. While this may also be the case in global water governance spaces, this review shows that Indigenous peoples create their own spaces for participation—even at the global scale, where they have resisted hegemonic water norms and produced their own water declarations.
Summary and research gaps
This systematic review provides an evidence-based review of how Indigenous peoples have participated and engaged in dominant water governance processes, including the jurisdictional scale at which they participate. We reviewed 226 peer-reviewed journal articles and extracted 183 case studies from 15 countries. Our study indicated that most Indigenous participation in dominant water governance systems occurs domestically, primarily at the local scale, with fewer documented instances of participation at the global scale. While the volume of articles on this topic has steadily increased since 2013, the geographic scope of the research remains limited, with over 80% of the literature originating from the CANZUS countries. There was a noticeable lack of literature from Africa and Asia, due in part to the review’s focus on English-language journal articles.
A considerable number of articles included in our review lacked information about the procedural aspects of participation, making it difficult to determine whether participation was meaningful and equitable. Very few studies evaluated the participation. This highlights the need for research that evaluates participatory processes that involve Indigenous peoples, especially given the growing calls for enhanced participation of Indigenous peoples in certain spaces135.
There was also insufficient discussion regarding scale and its implications for Indigenous participation, despite an implicit recognition of its importance. Further research is needed to explore Indigenous participation across different scales within the same contexts.
Finally, we recognize the limitations of this research. Our search was limited to two databases, included only English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles and relied on keywords that may have missed important literature from sources outside of indexed journals and other parts of the world. Future reviews could broaden this search to include books and grey literature, incorporate scholarship from multiple languages and use locally contextualized terms or names of specific Indigenous nations or tribes.
Methods
Systematic search methods minimize bias in the retrieval and review of academic and non-peer-reviewed articles136,137. Such an approach enables critical examination of how Indigenous peoples participate in water governance across different geographies and scales. For this review, we followed well-established guidelines for systematic reviews138 and drew on relevant studies exploring participatory environmental governance approaches139 to investigate how dominant systems of water governance have engaged and included Indigenous peoples. Dominant water governance in this review refers to colonial, post-colonial or neoliberal governance systems that are imposed by the dominant society. Our overarching research question for the review is:
How have Indigenous peoples participated, engaged with or been included in dominant water governance processes?
Thus, we are specifically examining case studies of Indigenous interactions with the state, industry or other actors in dominant water governance processes. In doing so, we analyse the water governance issues in which Indigenous peoples participate and the jurisdictional scales at which this participation occurs, as the scale of participation may determine the influence an actor has on water governance priorities and, ultimately, on outcomes45,51,131.
Positionality
All authors are non-Indigenous allies working on issues of environmental justice and equity. Aware that our positions influence interpretation, we engaged in ongoing critical reflexivity throughout the review process. Our aim is to contribute constructively by examining how participatory approaches in dominant water governance fall short of inclusivity while affirming Indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination and self-governance.
Definitions and key concepts
Several definitions for the term water governance exist140. Building on Emanuel and Wilkins (2020)12, we define water governance as the processes, principles and institutions involved in decision-making about the use, management, conservation and protection of water. The scope of this review is limited to freshwater systems, including surface water and groundwater, but excludes ocean, coastal and marine governance.
For Indigenous peoples, we adopt the definition put forward by José Martinez Cobo, the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur, where an Indigenous person is defined as “one who belongs to these Indigenous populations through self-identification as Indigenous and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members”141. Thus, this review specifically considers examples where communities have been specified as Indigenous, and not where populations are referred to as local communities, tribes or ethnic minorities.
Participation is a broad concept, often understood as “a process where individuals, groups and organizations choose to take an active role in making decisions that affect them”142. For this review, we adopted a narrower and operational definition that would enable consistent screening and coding across a large and heterogeneous body of literature, as well as to allow for replication. Accordingly, we defined participation as a process involving two or more distinct actors interacting together in a water governance process. Thus, our review focuses exclusively on instances of Indigenous participation that entail engagement with external, non-Indigenous actors, such as the state, industry or other third parties, specifically in the context of water-related decision-making. This definition includes Indigenous-led participatory processes that involve interaction with external actors, but it excludes cases of Indigenous self-governance or internally driven decision-making or management that occur independently of external engagement. A broader definition of participation would not only have expanded the scope but made it challenging to systematically analyse articles with consistency. That said, we recognize that Indigenous actors shape water governance in ways that exceed the boundaries of our operational definition of participation.
Scale could refer to a temporal, spatial, hydrological or jurisdictional dimension, or to levels within the dimension54,143,144. The literature around scale is rich with discussions around the multiplicity of definitions and interpretations of scale143,144,145, as well as the appropriate and legitimate scale for governance146. In our review, we define scale as the jurisdictional level used by states and governments for administrative purposes. We focus on six scales: local, regional, provincial, federal, international and transboundary.
Search strategy
The search was conducted on 26 November 2023, using two main research databases: Scopus and Web of Science. Key search terms were employed using a Boolean search string to search English language journal articles that included these terms in their title, keywords or abstracts (Table 1).
The search resulted in a total of 1,229 results from Scopus and 587 results from Web of Science. After removing duplicates, 1,341 unique records remained. These were examined to assess whether well-known and foundational articles had been included, and a small number of relevant articles not captured by the search were subsequently added manually.
Screening and eligibility
The articles were screened at the title and abstract level against specific inclusion criteria (Table 2). Abstracts had to be focused on water governance, and explicitly mention Indigenous peoples or their knowledge. Screening was primarily conducted by one author (L.K.), with a random subset of 10% of the journal articles (n = 134) checked between two secondary reviewers (A.M.C. and S.W.) at the title and abstract levels. After discussion, kappa scores reached higher than 0.7, suggesting substantial agreement147.
A total of 523 journal articles proceeded to full text to be assessed for eligibility. Journal articles that presented a clear example of Indigenous peoples’ participation, engagement or response to dominant water governance processes were included. Articles focused purely on Indigenous water management and self-governance, Indigenous water relations and Indigenous ontologies with no example of interaction with an external actor were excluded. A decision tree was developed to support consistent article selection (Supplementary Section 7).
Coding and data extraction
After reading 523 journal articles, a total of 223 articles were considered eligible. In addition, we manually included three additional articles that met eligibility criteria. In total, 226 articles were considered for coding and data extraction. As several journal articles referred to the same case study, a total of 183 distinct case studies were extracted. The flowchart outlining the method and steps for the systematic review is presented in Fig. 1.
Coding for both papers and case studies was done using a mix of both inductive and deductive approaches depending on the variables148. Double or multiple codes were allowed for several variables. Table 3 presents the coding scheme. The analysis took place at the case study level where participation types, themes and jurisdictional scale of participation were explored.
The participation processes in each case study were coded using an inductive, open coding approach. These codes were then consolidated into a participation type based on adopted definitions (Table 4). This was an iterative process, because many existing typologies for participation did not capture the range of participatory processes encountered in the case studies. Case studies that suggested multiple forms of participation were accordingly double- or multicoded. Notwithstanding the limitations of using categorical codes for complex participation processes, the coded studies did reveal important trends in how Indigenous participation is represented and discussed within the literature.
Case studies were coded by individual country. However, for presenting results, some were grouped into broader regions, for example, several countries were consolidated under ‘South America’. Three standalone studies from Japan, Sweden and New Caledonia were grouped into the ‘Others’ category. Results were presented across the following geographic categories: Australia, Canada, USA, New Zealand, South America, others and transboundary. Although all transboundary cases focused on the USA–Canada border, they were treated as a separate category to avoid diluting the results.
Case studies were also coded for the jurisdictional scale at which participation took place. For instance, if an Indigenous nation engaged with the national government, it would be classified as Federal. Case studies where participation took place in multiple localities or states would be classified as Regional, such as the Standing Rock movement in the Dakotas12,65. In total, there were six codes for scale: local, regional, provincial, federal, international and transboundary. Several case studies had multiple scales.
Additional variables for which case studies were coded included whether the case studies were described in detail, whether they were evaluated and if Indigenous values, norms or methods were considered in the participation process. These variables were coded as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. This last category is separate from the studies where the participation type was coded as ‘Inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and values’, because there were several studies with different types of participation, such as collaboration, that may have considered Indigenous values and norms.
Limitations and scope
Despite using a systematic approach to review literature and extract case studies of participation, we recognize the limitations of our research. The review was limited to English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in major bibliographic databases. This decision may have led to the omission of important case studies, documented in sources outside of indexed journals and studies from non-English contexts.
Conceptually, we adopted a very specific definition of participation, focusing only on studies in which Indigenous peoples were involved in dominant water governance systems and engaged with external actors. This improved conceptual clarity and reproducibility but excluded participation occurring within Indigenous governance systems or forms of self-governance without external engagement.
Our keyword strategy did not include the names of specific Indigenous groups, such as the Saami, as we anticipated that terms such as ‘Indigenous’ and ‘First Nations’ would capture a wide range of populations. We also made a deliberate decision not to conflate the term ‘Indigenous’ with other terms such as ‘local communities’ or ‘ethnic minorities’, but this choice may have inevitably excluded studies from contexts where certain groups are not formally recognized as Indigenous or where there are challenges to identify and define who is Indigenous149.
Future research could consider broadening the review by drawing on books and grey literature, incorporating scholarship in multiple languages and considering studies that adopt more locally contextualized Indigenous identifiers, while attending carefully to how these terms are used politically and culturally.
Data availability
Data used to derive the results are available via figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27889074 (ref. 150). Source data are provided with this paper.
References
Akhmouch, A. & Clavreul, D. Stakeholder engagement for inclusive water governance: “practicing what we preach” with the OECD water governance initiative. Water 8, 204 (2016).
Jager, N. W. et al. Transforming European water governance? Participation and river basin management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 member states. Water 8, 156 (2016).
Margerum, R. D. & Robinson, C. J. Collaborative partnerships and the challenges for sustainable water management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 12, 53–58 (2015).
Wehn, U., Collins, K., Anema, K., Basco-Carrera, L. & Lerebours, A. Stakeholder engagement in water governance as social learning: lessons from practice. Water Int. 43, 34–59 (2018).
Pigmans, K., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V. & Doorn, N. The role of value deliberation to improve stakeholder participation in issues of water governance. Water Resour. Manag. 33, 4067–4085 (2019).
von der Porten, S., de Loë, R. & Mcgregor, D. Incorporating Indigenous knowledge systems into collaborative governance for water: challenges and opportunities. J. Can. Stud. Rev. ETUDES Can. 50, 214–243 (2016).
Boyd, B. & Lorefice, S. Understanding consultation and engagement of Indigenous peoples in resource development: a policy framing approach. Can. Public Adm. 61, 572–595 (2018).
McGregor, D. Traditional knowledge: considerations for protecting water in Ontario. Int. Indig. Policy J. 3, 11 (2012).
Gustafsson, M.-T. & Schilling-Vacaflor, A. Indigenous peoples and multiscalar environmental governance: the opening and closure of participatory spaces. Glob. Environ. Polit. 22, 70–94 (2022).
Linton, J. & Pahl-Wostl, C. Drawing from Indigenous ontologies and practices to rethink European water policy. River Res. Appl. 40, 1671–1686 (2024).
Jackson, S., Tan, P.-L., Mooney, C., Hoverman, S. & White, I. Principles and guidelines for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol. 474, 57–65 (2012).
Emanuel, R. E. & Wilkins, D. E. Breaching barriers: the fight for Indigenous participation in water governance. Water 12, 2113 (2020).
Jackson, S. Water and Indigenous rights: mechanisms and pathways of recognition, representation, and redistribution. WIREs Water 5, e1314 (2018).
Godden, L., Jackson, S. & O’Bryan, K. Indigenous water rights and water law reforms in Australia. Environ. Plan. Law J. 37, 655–678 (2020).
Young, S., Down, S. & Mascher, S. Indigenous rights in freshwater: mapping the contested space in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Environ. Plan. Law J. 39, 276–301 (2023).
Durette, M. A comparative approach to Indigenous legal rights to freshwater: key lessons for Australia from the United States, Canada and New Zealand. Environ. Plan. Law J. 27, 296–315 (2010).
Black, K. & McBean, E. Analysis of challenges and opportunities to meaningful Indigenous engagement in sustainable water and wastewater management. Water Policy 19, 709–723 (2017).
Arsenault, R., Diver, S., McGregor, D., Witham, A. & Bourassa, C. Shifting the framework of Canadian water governance through Indigenous research methods: acknowledging the past with an eye on the future. Water 10, 49 (2018).
McGregor, D. in Ethical Water Stewardship (eds Stefanovic, I. L. & Adeel, Z.) 147–163 (Springer, 2021).
Bark, R. H., Garrick, D. E., Robinson, C. J. & Jackson, S. Adaptive basin governance and the prospects for meeting Indigenous water claims. Environ. Sci. Policy 19, 169–177 (2012).
Wilson, P. First Nations integrated watershed management. In Canadian Perspectives on Integrated Water Resources Management (ed. Shrubsole, D.) 69–83 (Canadian Water Resources Association, 2004).
Diver, S. et al. Indigenous nations at the confluence: water governance networks and system transformation in the Klamath Basin. Ecol. Soc. 27, 4 (2022).
Curley, A. ‘Our Winters’ Rights’: challenging colonial water laws. Glob. Environ. Polit. 19, 57–76 (2019).
Hemming, S., Rigney, D., Bignall, S., Berg, S. & Rigney, G. Indigenous nation building for environmental futures: Murrundi flows through Ngarrindjeri country. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 26, 216–235 (2019).
Sam, M. & Armstrong, J. in The Social Life of Water (ed. Wagner, J. R.) 239–254 (Berghahn Books, 2013).
Yazzie, M. & Baldy, C. R. Introduction: Indigenous peoples and the politics of water. Decolonization Indig. Educ. Soc. 7, 1–18 (2018).
Jackson, S. in Oxford Handbook on Water Politics and Policy (eds Conca, K. & Weinthal, E.) 120–141 (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Hartwig, L. D., Jackson, S., Markham, F. & Osborne, N. Water colonialism and Indigenous water justice in south-eastern Australia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 38, 30–63 (2022).
Wilson, N. J. & Inkster, J. Respecting water: Indigenous water governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship on the ground. Environ. Plan. E 1, 516–538 (2018).
Wilson, N. J. Indigenous water governance: insights from the hydrosocial relations of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Ruby, Alaska. Geoforum 57, 1–11 (2014).
Quitian, A. S. & Rodríguez, G. A. Guidelines for inclusion: ensuring Indigenous peoples’ involvement in water planning processes across South Eastern Australia. J. Hydrol. 542, 828–835 (2016).
Simms, R., Harris, L., Joe, N. & Bakker, K. Navigating the tensions in collaborative watershed governance: water governance and Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum 73, 6–16 (2016).
Joy, K. J., Kulkarni, S., Roth, D. & Zwarteveen, M. Re-politicising water governance: exploring water re-allocations in terms of justice. Local Environ. 19, 954–973 (2014).
Harrington, C. The political ontology of collaborative water governance. Water Int. 42, 254–270 (2017).
Curran, D. Indigenous processes of consent: repoliticizing water governance through legal pluralism. Water 11, 571 (2019).
Von der Porten, S. & de Loë, R. C. Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: a case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum 50, 149–160 (2013).
David-Chavez, D. M. & Gavin, M. C. A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 123005 (2018).
Mohamed Shaffril, H. A., Ahmad, N., Samsuddin, S. F., Samah, A. A. & Hamdan, M. E. Systematic literature review on adaptation towards climate change impacts among indigenous people in the Asia Pacific regions. J. Clean. Prod. 258, 120595 (2020).
Wilson, N. J., Lira, M. G. & O’Hanlon, G. A systematic scoping review of Indigenous governance concepts in the climate governance literature. Clim. Change 171, 32 (2022).
Taylor, J. E., Poleacovschi, C. & Perez, M. A. Climate change adaptation trends among Indigenous peoples: a systematic review of the empirical research focus over the last 2 decades. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 28, 29 (2023).
Mbah, M., Ajaps, S. & Molthan-Hill, P. A systematic review of the deployment of Indigenous knowledge systems towards climate change adaptation in developing world contexts: implications for climate change education. Sustainability 13, 4811 (2021).
Von der Porten, S. & de Loë, R. C. How collaborative approaches to environmental problem solving view Indigenous peoples: a systematic review. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27, 1040–1056 (2014).
Abas, A., Aziz, A. & Awang, A. A systematic review on the local wisdom of Indigenous people in nature conservation. Sustainability 14, 3415 (2022).
Parsons, M., Taylor, L. & Crease, R. Indigenous environmental justice within marine ecosystems: a systematic review of the literature on Indigenous peoples’ involvement in marine governance and management. Sustainability 13, 4217 (2021).
Zurba, M. & Papadopoulos, A. Indigenous participation and the incorporation of indigenous knowledge and perspectives in global environmental governance forums: a systematic review. Environ. Manage. 72, 84–99 (2023).
Marshall, R. E., Levison, J. K., McBean, E. A., Brown, E. & Harper, S. L. Source water protection programs and Indigenous communities in Canada and the United States: a scoping review. J. Hydrol. 562, 358–370 (2018).
Castleden, H. E. et al. Implementing Indigenous and western knowledge systems in water research and management (part 1): a systematic realist review to inform water policy and governance in Canada. Int. Indig. Policy J. 8, 7 (2017).
Leonard, K. et al. Water Back: a review centering rematriation and Indigenous water research sovereignty. Water Altern. 16, 374–428 (2023).
Parsons, M. & Fisher, K. Indigenous peoples and transformations in freshwater governance and management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 44, 124–139 (2020).
Gunn, B. L. Protecting Indigenous peoples' rights through Indigenous peoples' participation in decision-making: a climate change example. McGill J. Sust. Dev. Law 17, 1–26 (2021).
Macpherson, E. et al. Setting a pluralist agenda for water governance: why power and scale matter. WIREs Water 11, e1734 (2024).
Hoogesteger, J. & Verzijl, A. Grassroots scalar politics: insights from peasant water struggles in the Ecuadorian and Peruvian Andes. Geoforum 62, 13–23 (2015).
Boelens, R. Water rights arenas in the Andes: upscaling networks to strengthen local water control. Water Altern. 1, 48–65 (2008).
Moss, T. & Newig, J. Multilevel water governance and problems of scale: setting the stage for a broader debate. Environ. Manage. 46, 1–6 (2010).
Cash, D. W. & Moser, S. C. Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Glob. Environ. Change 10, 109–120 (2000).
Phelan Hand, J. Protecting the world’s largest body of fresh water: the often overlooked role of Indian Tribes’ co-management of the Great Lakes. Nat. Resour. J. 47, 815–847 (2007).
Jetoo, S. & Krantzberg, G. A. SWOT analysis of the Great Lakes Water Quality Protocol 2012: the good, the bad and the opportunity. Electron. Green J. 1, 37 (2014).
Jordan, P. A. Hands across the water: climate change and binational cooperation in the Great Lakes Basin. Clim. Change 161, 479–497 (2020).
Chiblow, S. Reconciling our relationships with the Great Lakes. J. Gt. Lakes Res. 49, S87–S92 (2023).
Baltutis, W., Moore, M. & Tyler, S. Getting to ecosystem-based function: exploring the power to influence Columbia River Treaty modernization towards ecosystem considerations. Int. J. Water Gov. 6, 43–63 (2018).
Cosens, B., McKinney, M., Paisley, R. & Wolf, A. T. Reconciliation of development and ecosystems: the ecology of governance in the International Columbia River Basin. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 1679–1692 (2018).
Baltutis, W. & Moore, M. Whose border? Contested geographies and columbia river treaty modernization. J. Borderl. Stud. 35, 581–601 (2020).
Morton, C. & Rutherford, M. The Columbia River Treaty’s adaptive capacity for fish conservation. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 23, 43–75 (2023).
Strube, J. & Thomas, K. A. Damming rainy lake and the ongoing production of hydrocolonialism in the US–Canada boundary waters. Water Altern. 14, 135–157 (2021).
Berry, K. A., Jackson, S., Saito, L. & Forline, L. Reconceptualising water quality governance to incorporate knowledge and values: case studies from Australian and Brazilian indigenous communities. Water Altern. 11, 40–60 (2018).
Norman, E. S. Cultural politics and transboundary resource governance in the Salish Sea. Water Altern. 5, 138–160 (2012).
Furber, A., Medema, W., Adamowski, J., Clamen, M. & Vijay, M. Conflict management in participatory approaches to water management: a case study of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River regulation. Water 8, 280 (2016).
Nakamura, N. Towards a culturally sustainable environmental impact assessment: the protection of Ainu Cultural Heritage in the Saru River Cultural Impact Assessment, Japan. Geogr. Res. 51, 26–36 (2013).
Trépied, B. Indigenous struggles and water policies in contemporary New Caledonia. Soc. Identities 18, 465–479 (2012).
Aleu, R. B., Larsen, R. K. & Methner, N. Participation and marginalization in water governance: probing the agency of powerholders. Ecol. Soc. 27, 33 (2022).
Norman, E. S. Finding common ground: negotiating downstream rights to harvest with upstream responsibilities to protect—dairies, berries, and shellfish in the salish sea. Glob. Environ. Polit. 19, 77–97 (2019).
Chief, K., Meadow, A. & Whyte, K. Engaging southwestern tribes in sustainable water resources topics and management. Water 8, 350 (2016).
Gagnon, V. S. “Water and All My Relations”: reimagining indigenous water justice for seven generations. Hum. Organ. 82, 274–287 (2023).
Jackson, S. Indigenous values and water resource management: a case study from the Northern Territory. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 12, 136–146 (2005).
Kanwar, P., Kaza, S. & Bowden, W. An evaluation of Maori values in multiscalar environmental policies governing Kaipara Harbour in New Zealand. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 32, 26–42 (2016).
Moggridge, B. J., Thompson, R. M. & Radoll, P. Indigenous research methodologies in water management: learning from Australia and New Zealand for application on Kamilaroi country. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 30, 853–868 (2022).
Kitson, J. C. et al. Murihiku Cultural Water Classification System: enduring partnerships between people, disciplines and knowledge systems. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 52, 511–525 (2018).
Taylor, K. S., Moggridge, B. J. & Poelina, A. Australian Indigenous Water Policy and the impacts of the ever-changing political cycle. Australas. J. Water Resour. 20, 132–147 (2016).
Bischoff-Mattson, Z. & Lynch, A. Integrative governance of environmental water in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin: evolving challenges and emerging pathways. Environ. Manage. 60, 41–56 (2017).
Moggridge, B. J. & Thompson, R. M. Cultural value of water and Western water management: an Australian Indigenous perspective. Aust. J. Water Resour. 25, 4–14 (2021).
Pahl-Wostl, C. Adaptive and sustainable water management: from improved conceptual foundations to transformative change. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 36, 397–415 (2020).
Curran, D., Gleeson, T. & Huggins, X. Applying a science-forward approach to groundwater regulatory design. Hydrogeol. J. 31, 853–871 (2023).
Lukawiecki, J., Gagnon, R., Dokis, C., Walters, D. & Molot, L. Meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples: a case study of Ontario’s Great Lakes Protection Act. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 37, 603–618 (2021).
Yates, J. S., Harris, L. M. & Wilson, N. J. Multiple ontologies of water: politics, conflict and implications for governance. Environ. Plan. Soc. Space 35, 797–815 (2017).
Goff, S. Visionary evaluation: approaching Aboriginal ontological equity in water management evaluation. Eval. Program Plann. 79, 101747 (2020).
Viaene, L. Indigenous water ontologies, hydro-development and the human/more-than-human right to water: a call for critical engagement with plurilegal water realities. Water 13, 1660 (2021).
Vidal Parra, S. The water rights-based legal mobilization of the wayagainst the Cercado dam: an effective avenue for court-centered lawfare from below?. Antipoda 2019, 45–68 (2019).
Nadasdy, P. Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic 56, 367–380 (2003).
Perreault, T. Dispossession by accumulation? Mining, water and the nature of enclosure on the bolivian altiplano. Antipode 45, 1050–1069 (2013).
Claire, T. & Surprise, K. Moving the rain: settler colonialism, the capitalist state, and the hydrologic rift in California’s Central Valley. Antipode 54, 153–173 (2022).
Sarkar, A., Hanrahan, M. & Hudson, A. Water insecurity in Canadian Indigenous communities: some inconvenient truths. Rural Remote Health 15, 3354 (2015).
Underhill, V., Sabati, S. & Beckett, L. Against settler sustainability: California’s groundwater as a vertical frontier. Environ. Plan. E 8, 189–208 (2022).
Black, K. & McBean, E. Community-based operator training and appropriate certification regimes for Indigenous water and wastewater systems. Can. Water Resour. J. 42, 237–247 (2017).
Alcantara, C., Longboat, S. & Vanhooren, S. Improving First Nations water security through governance. Can. Public Adm. 63, 155–176 (2020).
Jackson, S. & Langton, M. Trends in the recognition of indigenous water needs in Australian water reform: the limitations of ‘cultural’ entitlements in achieving water equity. J. Water Law 22, 109–123 (2011).
Jackson, S. & Nias, D. Watering country: Aboriginal partnerships with environmental water managers of the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 26, 287–303 (2019).
Taylor, K. S., Longboat, S. & Grafton, R. Q. Whose rules? A water justice critique of the OECD’s 12 principles on water governance. Water 11, 809 (2019).
Costanza-Van Den Belt, M., Rao, R., Colloff, M. J., Pittock, J. & Moggridge, B. Watering of wetlands on Indigenous Country in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 73, 1413–1425 (2022).
McKibbin, C. (Re-)envisioning natural resource management involving First Nations: toward an effective co-management policy. Water 15, 3144 (2023).
O’Donnell, E., Kennedy, M., Garrick, D., Horne, A. & Woods, R. Cultural water and Indigenous water science. Science 381, 619–621 (2023).
Hemming, S., Rigney, D., Muller, S. L., Rigney, G. & Campbell, I. A new direction for water management? Indigenous nation building as a strategy for river health. Ecol. Soc. 22, (2017).
Hart, B., O’Donnell, E. & Horne, A. Sustainable water resources development in northern Australia: the need for coordination, integration and representation. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 36, 777–799 (2020).
Back, W. D. & Taylor, J. S. Navajo water rights: pulling the plug on the Colorado River. Nat. Resour. J. 20, 71–90 (1980).
Cosens, B. A. The measure of Indian water rights: the Arizona homeland standard, Gila River Adjudication. Nat. Resour. J. 42, 835–872 (2002).
Bark, R. H. The Arizona Water Settlement Act and urban water supplies. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 23, 79–96 (2009).
Curley, A. Unsettling Indian Water settlements: the Little Colorado River, the San Juan River, and colonial enclosures. Antipode 53, 705–723 (2021).
Ellis, R. & Perry, D. A confluence of anticolonial pathways for Indigenous sacred site protection. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 169, 8–26 (2020).
York, A. M. et al. Agricultural water governance in the desert: shifting risks in central Arizona. Water Altern. 13, 418–445 (2020).
Mustafa, D. et al. Scalar politics of Indigenous waterscapes in Navajo Nation and Nepal: conflict, conservation and development. Environ. Plan. E 8, 209–231 (2021).
Armoudian, M. & Pirsoul, N. Troubled waters in New Zealand. Environ. Commun. J. Nat. Cult. 14, 772–785 (2020).
Bryan, M. Valuing sacred tribal waters within prior appropriation. Nat. Resour. J. 57, 139–181 (2017).
Hughey, K. F. D., Jacobson, C. & Smith, E. F. A framework for comparing collaborative management of Australian and New Zealand water resources. Ecol. Soc. 22, 28 (2017).
Pirsoul, N. & Armoudian, M. Deliberative democracy and water management in New Zealand: a critical approach to collaborative governance and co-management initiatives. Water Resour. Manag. 33, 4821–4834 (2019).
Fisher, K. & Parsons, M. River co-governance and co-management in aotearoa New Zealand: enabling indigenous ways of knowing and being. Transnatl. Environ. Law 9, 455–480 (2020).
Frame, B. New Zealand: new futures, new thinking?. Futures 100, 45–55 (2018).
O’Bryan, K. The changing face of river management in Victoria: the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017 (Vic). Water Int. 44, 769–785 (2019).
Poelina, A., Bagnall, D. & Lim, M. Recognizing the Martuwarra’s first law right to life as a living ancestral being. Transnatl Environ. Law 9, 541–568 (2020).
Strang, V. Envisioning a sustainable future for water. Aqua Water Infrastruct. Ecosyst. Soc. 70, 404–419 (2021).
Assies, W. David versus Goliath in Cochabamba: water rights, neoliberalism, and the revival of social protest in Bolivia. Lat. Am. Perspect. 30, 14–36 (2003).
Boelens, R. & Zwarteveen, M. Prices and politics in Andean water reforms. Dev. Change 36, 735–758 (2005).
De Vos, H., Boelens, R. & Bustamante, R. Formal law and local water control in the Andean region: a fiercely contested field. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 22, 37–48 (2006).
Hoogendam, P. & Boelens, R. Dams and Damages. Conflicting epistemological frameworks and interests concerning ‘compensation’ for the Misicuni Project’s socio-environmental impacts in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Water 11, 408 (2019).
Lopez, R., Hoogendam, P., Vos, J. & Boelens, R. Transforming hydrosocial territories and changing languages of water rights legitimation: irrigation development in Bolivia’s Pucara watershed. Geoforum 102, 202–213 (2019).
Wilson, N. J., Montoya, T., Arseneault, R. & Curley, A. Governing water insecurity: navigating indigenous water rights and regulatory politics in settler colonial states. Water Int. 46, 783–801 (2021).
Cornwall, A. in Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development (eds Hickey, S. & Mohan, G.) 75–91 (Zed Books, 2004).
Van Buuren, A., Van Meerkerk, I. & Tortajada, C. Understanding emergent participation practices in water governance. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 35, 367–382 (2019).
Prieto, M. Privatizing water in the Chilean Andes: the case of Las Vegas de Chiu-Chiu. Mt. Res. Dev. 35, 220–229 (2015).
Prieto, M. Indigenous resurgence, identity politics, and the anticommodification of nature: the Chilean water market and the Atacameno People. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 112, 487–504 (2022).
Radonic, L. Through the aqueduct and the courts: an analysis of the human right to water and indigenous water rights in Northwestern Mexico. Geoforum 84, 151–159 (2017).
Wilson, N. J. “Seeing water like a state?”: Indigenous water governance through Yukon First nation self-government agreements. Geoforum 104, 101–113 (2019).
Adeyeye, Y., Hagerman, S. & Pelai, R. Seeking procedural equity in global environmental governance: Indigenous participation and knowledge politics in forest and landscape restoration debates at the 2016 World Conservation Congress. For. Policy Econ. 109, 102006 (2019).
McGregor, D. et al. Towards meaningful research and engagement: Indigenous knowledge systems and Great Lakes governance. J. Gt Lakes Res. 49, S22–S31 (2023).
Brugnach, M., Craps, M. & Dewulf, A. Including indigenous peoples in climate change mitigation: addressing issues of scale, knowledge and power. Clim. Change 140, 19–32 (2017).
Mena-Vásconez, P., Vincent, L., Vos, J. & Boelens, R. Fighting over water values: diverse framings of flower and food production with communal irrigation in the Ecuadorian Andes. Water Int. 42, 443–461 (2017).
Enhancing the Participation of Indigenous Peoples’ Representatives and Institutions in Meetings of Relevant United Nations Bodies on Issues Affecting Them A. RES/71/321 (UN General Assembly, 2017).
Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management Version 4.2 (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2013); http://environmentalevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Review-guidelines-version-4.2-final.pdf
Haddaway, N. R., Woodcock, P., Macura, B. & Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1596–1605 (2015).
Pullin, A. S. & Stewart, G. B. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1647–1656 (2006).
Hinson, C. et al. Using natural capital and ecosystem services to facilitate participatory environmental decision making: results from a systematic map. People Nat. 4, 652–668 (2022).
Tortajada, C. Water governance: some critical issues. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 26, 297–307 (2010).
Cobo, J. R. M. Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.566 (United Nations, 1986); https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.1
Reed, M. S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431 (2008).
Cash, D. W. et al. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 11, 8 (2006).
Gibson, C. C., Ostrom, E. & Ahn, T. K. The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol. Econ. 32, 217–239 (2000).
Newig, J. & Moss, T. Scale in environmental governance: moving from concepts and cases to consolidation. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 19, 473–479 (2017).
Young, O. R. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale (MIT Press, 2002).
Gisev, N., Bell, J. S. & Chen, T. F. Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: key concepts, approaches, and applications. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 9, 330–338 (2013).
Rivas, C. Coding and analysing qualitative data. Res. Soc. Cult. 3, 367–392 (2012).
Sanders, D. Indigenous peoples: issues of definition. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 8, 4–13 (1999).
Kasuri, L., Collins, A. & Watkins, S. Systematic review of Indigenous participation in dominant systems of water governance—complete dataset. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27889074 (2025).
Taylor, C. in Campus Wars 1st edn (ed. Arthur, J.) 249–263 (Routledge, 2021).
Simpson, L. B. Indigenous resurgence and co-resistance. Crit. Ethn. Stud. 2, 19–34 (2016).
Coulthard, G. S. Subjects of empire: Indigenous peoples and the ‘politics of recognition’ in Canada. Contemp. Polit. Theory 6, 437–460 (2007).
McBride, C. Deliberative democracy and the politics of recognition. Polit. Stud. 53, 497–515 (2005).
C169 - Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989, No.169, 27 June 1989 (International Labour Organization, 1989).
Kim, J., Yoon, H. & Oh, S.-H. Social workers’ voluntary political participation: testing a civic engagement model. J. Soc. Work 23, 858–875 (2023).
Gilbert, J. Indigenous peoples and litigation: strategies for legal empowerment. J. Hum. Rights Pract. 12, 301–320 (2020).
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the financial support provided by President’s PhD Scholarship at Imperial College London to L.K. This Analysis has been written within the context of the ongoing research work on participatory environmental governance processes at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.K. and A.M.C. conceived the ideas; L.K. collected the data, conducted the analysis and led the writing of the paper; A.M.C. and S.W. provided support on verifying the screening by screening and comparing a subset of articles. The final paper was prepared by L.K., with ongoing guidance and mentorship from A.M.C.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Water thanks Elizabeth Macpherson and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Discussion (positionality, ethical consideration, background and context, definitions, detailed methods, expanded results and complete reference list), Figs. 1–3 and Tables 1–12.
Supplementary Data 1
Spreadsheet with complete reference list and codes.
Source data
Source Data Figs. 2–4
Source data for Figs. 2–4.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kasuri, L., Watkins, S. & M. Collins, A. A systematic review of Indigenous peoples’ participation in dominant systems of water governance. Nat Water 4, 241–255 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-025-00580-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-025-00580-y
