Research on institutions for agricultural water management under the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 127

and sell water to neighbors. Even if a tubewell can be operated independently
by one farm household, others might be affected by aquifer depletion; some
form of institution is therefore needed to control these externalities.
The horizontal axis indicates the permanence of a technology or approach,
or the time frame to cover the investment. The longer the temporal scale, the
greater the need for property rights to provide authorization and incentive to
make the investment. Even a tenant farmer or a wife without independent
rights to her husband's land can install a drip kit, but may not be allowed to
install a tubewell, and may not have the incentive to install and maintain
terracing or drainage systems for salinity control. Technologies that are not as
tied to the land may be more viable for those with insecure land rights. For
example, a treadle pump or small motorized pump that can be moved can be
used by a tenant. Even if farmers have secure rights to the land, they may not
be willing to invest in irrigation systems if they do not also have secure rights
to the water (which is often separate from the land). Property rights over water,
land and infrastructure may also derive from and be backed by a range of
institutions. In many cases, water rights become operationalized through
organizations such as water user associations or producer groups. Ensuring that
women, smallholders, livestock keepers or other poor and marginalized water
users are represented in those organizations is an important step to strength-
ening their water rights.
Which institution is most appropriate depends on the particular conditions.
In general, the advantages of the state are greatest at the largest scale; collective
action works at more localized levels. Markets are highly variable in whether
they provide effective coordination among smallholders.
As part of CPWF research, Swallow et al., 2006, articulated a conceptual
framework for analyzing the performance of institutions in watershed
management based on the institutional analysis and development (IAD)
framework (Ostrom, 2005; Di Gregorio et al., 2008). The IAD framework
begins with the characteristics of the resource, of the user group, and the rules
in use. In the watershed context, these include water and financial resources,
risk, local and customary institutions, and the high-level institutions that link
different parts (upper, middle and lower) of watersheds or provide governance
to whole basins (Figure 6.2). These contextual features influence the “action
arena” in which various groups of people draw upon their action resources
according to the various rules in use. Action resources are tangible and
intangible assets and personal characteristics that enable people to take action
or influence others' decisions. The interplay of the people, rules and action
resources results in individual and collective action that shapes patterns of
interaction, especially land use and water resource investments. These patterns
lead to outcomes and effects on welfare and water resource conditions, which
in turn feed back to the context and action arenas in the future.