In South Asia and many other parts of the world, emerging water problems threaten the viability of entire ecosystems and the sustainability of water supplies for fundamental human needs. The nature of these water problems, however, varies greatly between locations and scales of analysis. Pollution, groundwater level declines, flooding and water logging can all represent significant water management problems even within local administrative areas. High geographic variability is compounded by great seasonal variability. An area may experience severe seasonal water scarcity during the hot season and also have major flooding problems. Many such problems are inherently local in nature; others cannot be addressed without coordinated action at a regional or basin scale.
Social responses to water management needs throughout South Asia have tended to fall into three broad categories:
1. Highly centralized projects undertaken by national and state government.
2. High-level attempts to influence the legal and economic environment in which water use occurs.
3. Village or community level initiatives.
These approaches reflect three underlying models of social change. The first emphasizes the dominant role of formal ‘decision-makers’ within governments and development organizations as the agents through which policies and programs are first formulated and then translated into governmental action. The second downplays the role of national or local organizations and focuses instead on the role of economic incentives, rights, markets and the private sector as the primary mechanisms for allocating water and limiting extraction to sustainable levels. Finally, the third emphasizes the role of individuals and communities as the dominant factor determining water use and management at the local level. These models are, of course, not isolated and the broad stream of literature, research and implementation projects focused on ‘participatory’ approaches and the links between economics and institutions reflects common attempts to integrate them. Our main concern with the models, however, is that none has proved effective in initiating widespread development of effective management systems.
We believe the above failure stems from fundamental misconceptions regarding the manner in which social change occurs. From our perspective – one which is admittedly difficult to prove – social and institutional change emerges from a contested terrain in which many actors (individuals, communities, businesses, NGOs, local government organizations and the State) compete to protect their economic, political, cultural, social and other interests. This competition occurs at multiple levels within the frameworks created by markets, laws and social norms. It often results in deadlock. In some cases, this deadlock is related to inherent conflicts of interest and can only be resolved through the victory of one or another set of stakeholders. In other cases, however, conflicts of interest are not inherent but deadlock occurs because there is no common framework for identifying, understanding or negotiating potential solutions. Innovators and social auditors capable of identifying potential solutions and creating common frameworks for understanding, dialogue and negotiation among stakeholders can play major catalytic roles in this latter type of situation.
Social responses to water management needs throughout South Asia have tended to fall into three broad categories:
1. Highly centralized projects undertaken by national and state government.
2. High-level attempts to influence the legal and economic environment in which water use occurs.
3. Village or community level initiatives.
These approaches reflect three underlying models of social change. The first emphasizes the dominant role of formal ‘decision-makers’ within governments and development organizations as the agents through which policies and programs are first formulated and then translated into governmental action. The second downplays the role of national or local organizations and focuses instead on the role of economic incentives, rights, markets and the private sector as the primary mechanisms for allocating water and limiting extraction to sustainable levels. Finally, the third emphasizes the role of individuals and communities as the dominant factor determining water use and management at the local level. These models are, of course, not isolated and the broad stream of literature, research and implementation projects focused on ‘participatory’ approaches and the links between economics and institutions reflects common attempts to integrate them. Our main concern with the models, however, is that none has proved effective in initiating widespread development of effective management systems.
We believe the above failure stems from fundamental misconceptions regarding the manner in which social change occurs. From our perspective – one which is admittedly difficult to prove – social and institutional change emerges from a contested terrain in which many actors (individuals, communities, businesses, NGOs, local government organizations and the State) compete to protect their economic, political, cultural, social and other interests. This competition occurs at multiple levels within the frameworks created by markets, laws and social norms. It often results in deadlock. In some cases, this deadlock is related to inherent conflicts of interest and can only be resolved through the victory of one or another set of stakeholders. In other cases, however, conflicts of interest are not inherent but deadlock occurs because there is no common framework for identifying, understanding or negotiating potential solutions. Innovators and social auditors capable of identifying potential solutions and creating common frameworks for understanding, dialogue and negotiation among stakeholders can play major catalytic roles in this latter type of situation.
Post a Comment