Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Certain water institutions are seen as adequate means to ensure good water governance. For
example, inter sectoral coordination of the concerned agencies and non state actors is regarded
essential to ensuring equitable use between sectors. In the economic dimension, the introduc
tion of pricing is seen as a tool to achieve more efficient use. This is often also considered to
be adequate for reaching more sustainable usage. In the political dimension, but also to reach
equity between all users, democratic processes involving participation mechanisms and decen
tralization are highlighted. From literature review as well as from field research in both coun
tries, four main issues in institutional water reform have evolved which will be covered by this
study:
-
Enhancement of inter sectoral coordination;
-
Transition to management along hydrographic boundaries;
-
Introduction of water pricing mechanisms;
Enhancement of stakeholder participation by transfer of local irrigation management
to independent user groups.
These different processes are closely interconnected. Some aspects of WIR have already been
introduced for decades: Reforms of participatory irrigation management (PIM) and the
introduction of water charges or irrigation service fees (ISF) are to mention here. Participatory
Irrigation Management means the transfer of operation and maintenance (O&M)
responsibilities at local level to the users. These reforms mostly include the establishment of
self managed user organizations, WUAs (water user association). While their success is often
questionable (Rap 2006; Mott MacDonald, DFID 2005: S 1; Narain 2004; Meinzen Dick et al
1997), they are implemented in many countries world wide. Also the introduction of water fees
is not a success story. Hardly anywhere have ISF reforms been successfully implemented
(Azevedo, Baltar 2005; Meinzen Dick et al. 1997: 13; Hellegers, Perry 2006). The scrutinization
of how and why these reform processes succeed or fail to reach their objectives, and whether
and how they have an impact on each other, therefore still presents a challenge for research.
The aim of water institutional reform is institutional change. It is about a re organization
of modes of usage, rules for access, and stakes to influence decision and control. Such a
change can always be expected to be met by resistance as there are people who benefit from
the status quo. As Lowndes (2005: 294) has explained,
“institutions are inherently political, because rules create patterns of distributional advantage. (...) Institutional
change can be traumatic for individuals because values and identities are at stake - not just incentives and
interests. Institutional change is never a purely technical matter, because any challenge to existing institutional
settlements is likely to be met by resistance.”
When institutional change is a political process, politics has to be included into the analysis.
However, the role of the politics for water institutions and water reforms has long been
neglected by practitioners as well as by academics. It was an “anathema in most water policy
circles” (Mollinga 2008: 8). In their seminal topic on the politics of irrigation reform Mollinga
and Bolding state that “the word 'politics' is virtually absent in formal policy discourse on
irrigation reform” (Mollinga, Bolding 2004: 4). The political importance of water is obvious,
though: Water is essential for the well being of the population. Water is a resource affecting
sectors such as agriculture, energy, health, ecology, industry, tourism, etc. According to region
and sector, it might be even a key resource. Lack of access to water can result in societal
conflict and economic crisis. The position to make decisions about water management is hence
a position to allocate and distribute access to resources. Water reform is thus a policy field that
is as contested as any other field where new rules and roles of distribution have to be
formulated and put into practice.
-
Search WWH ::
Custom Search