Research on institutions for agricultural water management under the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 141

Merrey and Sibanda (2008) attribute the project's success to the experience
and reputations of the project partners. The International Water and Sanitation
Centre had long-standing engagements in South Africa and contacts with
DWAF and the Water Research Commission. The non-governmental
organization, Association for Water and Rural Development, which did much
of the practical on-the-ground research and advocacy for multiple-use water
services, had been a pioneer in MUS before the CPWF Project began. Perhaps
the most important factor, however, was “the personal relationships and
reputation of the MUS Project Leader (IWMI's Barbara van Koppen); that is,
if she were not located in South Africa or did not have these assets, it is
unlikely that multiple uses would have progressed to the current level in policy
discussions” (Merrey and Sibanda, 2008, p. 20). The support of CPWF and
exposure of MUS concepts at the World Water Forum in Mexico added
legitimacy, and the close personal and professional relationships with senior
DWAF officials—which led to involvement of DWAF in the project from the
beginning, was critical to the achievement of the outcomes.
While the South Africa case was unique, the quality and reputation of the
project in countries such as Thailand and Colombia was also due in part to
the influence of local partners and partner organizations. In terms of process,
“[It] is notable also that the project was able to integrate and add value to local
approaches to learning, such as the Farmer Wisdom Networks in Thailand and
the South African . . . approach [of securing water to enhance local
livelihoods]” (Merrey and Sibanda, 2008, p. viii). One way that this was done
was through MUS Project impact theory, which proved to be a salient guide
to using action research as a tool for achieving impacts. The learning alliance
concept (Penning de Vries, 2007) was an effective way for different stake-
holders to interact and engage in social learning.
Merrey and Sibanda (2008) question whether the project's decisions to focus
on advocacy rather than on in-depth action research (because of budget cuts)
could undermine impact in the longer run. Advocacy made the case for “why”
water policy should incorporate MUS principles, but without better
knowledge on “how,” it will be difficult to adopt new standards and practices
in a timely manner. In Colombia, for example, less impact was achieved on
policy at the national level. In addition to case studies, however, there was
curriculum development and a diploma course to inform the future profes-
sionals who would be charged with implementing MUS.
Despite the diversity of contexts and approaches, several lessons emerge from
looking at the factors that enabled these projects to achieve outcomes. We
synthesize these around Clark et al.'s (2011) proposed criteria for boundary
work, namely that it achieves participation and accountability, and that it
produced boundary objects.