Research on institutions for agricultural water management under the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 131

development of the Red River Basin Organization in Vietnam as a vehicle for
IWRM, Molle and Hoanh (2009, p. 14) note, “Management regimes require
bureaucratic configurations, legal frameworks and governance patterns that are
consistent with these regimes. Pushing for a particular regime when these
conditions are not met may just be wishful thinking with little chance of
success.”
International transboundary water governance was the highest-level action
arena examined by the CPWF. Lautze and Giordano (2005, 2007a and b)
reviewed transboundary water laws and agreements in Africa. They found that
they tended to follow western models in prioritizing environmental protection
over economic development of water resources. This was despite the low
overall level of water resource development in Africa, and the pressing need
for increased food security and economic development. They attributed this
bias to imported models of transboundary water law to developing country
contexts rather than developing institutional arrangements designed to fit
specific local situations.
Merrey (2009) argued that the various commissions and authorities that
were set up to promote integrated water resource management were not
operationalized and so were ineffective. This is because they were models,
rather than being based on indigenous institutional principles that were more
suited to African conditions.
Manzungu et al. (2009) linked the ineffectiveness of Botswana's policies for
water management for livestock to imported models of modernization. This
was instead of having the state work with local communities to develop a
policy that is adapted to conditions in Botswana.
Lebel et al. (2005) pointed out that the scale of action arenas at which
policies and water management decisions are made affects the power and action
resources available to different people.
Scale choices can be a means of inclusion or exclusion . . . People, insti-
tutions, and landscapes are made to fit levels and scales in the states' systems
of accounting and monitoring. Local-level knowledge and institutions are
seen as local in scope, relevance, and power, whereas the rules and
knowledge of the state have much bigger scope and significance.
(Lebel et al., 2005)
Building on local knowledge and institutions, instead of importing external
ones was likely to lead to patterns of interaction that were more suited to local
conditions, but putting this principle into practice remained a challenge.
Role of institutions in water allocation
Most of the papers in this category focused on policies. They either assessed
the impacts of specific policies on water allocation or developed methods to
assess impacts and trade-offs associated with alternative policy scenarios.