Table 1. Key multilevel governance challenges in OECD countries’ water policy making. Source: OECD Water Governance Survey (2010)

Description of the “gap” Examples of countries or regions
Funding Gap : Unstable or insufficient revenues undermining effective implementation of water responsibilities at sub-national level or for crossing policies Australia, Belgium (Flanders), Chile, France, Greece, Israel, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, United States (Colorado)
Capacity Gap: Insufficient scientific, technical, infrastructural capacity of local actors to design and implement water policies (size and quality of infrastructure) Australia, Belgium (Flanders), Chile, Greece, Italy, Korea, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, United States (Colorado)
Policy Gap : Sectoral fragmentation of water-related tasks across ministries and agencies Belgium (Flanders), Canada, France (subnational actor), Greece, Israel, Italy, Korea, Spain (subnational actor), United States (Colorado)
Administrative Gap : Geographical “Mismatch” between hydrological and administrative boundaries Australia, Greece, Italy, Korea, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, United States (Colorado)
Information Gap: Asymmetries of information (quantity, quality, type) between different stakeholders involved in water policy, either voluntary or not Australia, Chile, Italy, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand (subnational actor), United Kingdom, United States (Colorado)
Accountability Gap : Difficulty to ensure the transparency of practices across the different constituencies Belgium (Flanders), Chile, Greece, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, United States (Colorado)
Objective Gap: Different rationalities creating obstacles for adopting convergent targets Belgium (Flanders), Israel, Korea, Portugal