Abstract
International targets such as the Sustainable Development Goals or those that are set as part of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) programmes are, on the whole, universally accepted; however, they are often shaped mainly in the Global North. As a result, when these institutionally set targets conflict with pre-existing rules and norms in implementing states, implementation difficulties may result, as one can currently observe with regard to IWRM and SDG 6.5. Governance challenges that result from implementation gaps are often filled at the local level, where actors arrange for functional management processes despite institutional insecurity. Applying institutional bricolage theory, we investigate such processes for South Africa, Mongolia and Peru, focusing on how horizontal and vertical coordination, as well as participation, are achieved as key aspects of IWRM. By adopting an analytical frame focusing on institutions, discourses and power relations based on Frances Cleaver's bricolage dimensions, we show how their governance and management arrangements have evolved. In the process of comparing the three cases, we consider what conclusions can be drawn from these arrangements with regard to facilitating institutional transfer processes. Our study shows that informal aspects of governance systems powerfully influence the interpretation of newly introduced policies. We find that efforts to implement international blueprints that neglect institutional legacies, sociocultural dynamics, and pre-existing inequalities are unlikely to result in arrangements that are suited to local realities.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 473-500 |
| Number of pages | 28 |
| Journal | Water Alternatives |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:As stipulated in the Water Resources Law, Basin Water Resources Councils (CRHCs) also fall under ANA ?s purview but are headed by regional governments. Their task is to promote horizontal and vertical coordination among representatives of regional and local governments, civil society, water user associations, peasant communities, academia, and the private sector. In conjunction with the AAA, they create the river basin management plan (RBMP), which then undergoes consultation with stakeholders and is finally approved by the ANA. CRHCs are also in charge of facilitating the implementation of the RBMPs by collecting funds from, for example, the private sector, international development agencies, and local and regional governments. The legal status of RBMPs is weak, however, and they cannot exert pressure on business entities to comply with them; the extent to which projects are implemented thus depends largely on voluntary compliance. The establishment of CRHCs was supported by the World Bank and the International Development Bank, with the explicit aim of fostering IWRM implementation. In 2010, the government of the Lima Metropolitan Area initiated the creation of CRHC CHIRILU which spans three different river basins. Addressing their cultural, socio-economic, and geographic diversity in the organisational set-up caused a delay of several years in the establishing the CRHC.
Funding Information:
As CMFs were acting locally and still no CMA was in place, in 2013 a range of stakeholders supported by the Department for Environmental Affairs (DEA) formed the uMngeni Ecological Infrastructure Partnership (UEIP). This MSP deals with catchment management and aims to restore the environment to improve the provision of water services, as water resources and related ecosystems kept deteriorating. Legal unclarity regarding organisational responsibility for catchment management exists and responsibilities are allocated to both DWS and the DEA. For KwaZulu-Natal, the departments have made use of interpersonal ties to divide water and land-related tasks between the DWS and the DEA respectively to organise themselves, which is why the support of the UEIP by the DEA did not cause conflict between the departments. The DWS, however, does not acknowledge the UEIP as an equal partner, but rather as a regular informal partner that is invited to stakeholder participation activities; this is the case even though the UEIP ?s specific aim is to support government organisations and provide policy advice (Gola, 2016).
Funding Information:
Horizontal coordination is the key objective of RB-MSPs. According to the Water Law, they are to bring together representatives of civil society, the private sector, academia, and lower-level administrations, providing a forum for exchanging views and opinions on water management. A ministerial guideline (No. A/57) of 2018 outlines the rights and responsibilities of RB-MSPs, specifying that, "operations shall be aimed at providing recommendations for the development of an integrated water resource management plan; providing support for carrying out public monitoring of its implementation; cooperating; distributing information and ensuring multi-party participation" (Art. 1.2). The Water Law also assigns monitoring and enforcement responsibilities to RB-MSPs. The platform, however, receives no fixed funds from public coffers and therefore relies entirely on financing from development agencies or on contributions from provincial and local governments. The establishment of RB-MSPs throughout Mongolia has thus occurred in a patchy and time-consuming manner and their continued existence is subject to constant negotiation. A joint RB-MSP was established in the Kharaa-Yeroo River basin in October 2017, with financial support from a German research project.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Keywords
- Central Asia
- horizontal coordination
- informal institutions
- Institutional bricolage
- Integrated Water Resources Management
- Latin America
- participation
- sub-Saharan Africa
- vertical coordination
