V5: Coordination and Change Project Framing institutions and policies as processesCPWF Volta Science WeekOuagadougou Jean‐Philippe Venot, IWMI3‐5 July 2012
Objective and ApproachThe focus is on HOW and WHY research and policies are framed rather than on WHAT they entail 3 main research questions: • Why do particular policy and intervention models related to agricultural water management emerge, persist and change? • Whose knowledge is included in the policy process and how? • What are the politics of research and policy making in the agricultural water management sector in the Volta Basin? Is CPWF doing something different and how?
Different steps Diagnosis Characterization AnalysisDefining “boundaries”Ideology and DiscourseNational priorities/strategies Actor’s identification Roles/responsibilities Actors’ network Characterize relationships Explicit Worldviews Legitimacy/accountability Research Trajectory
Where are we: topic of study DiagnosisDefining “boundaries”• SWC (V2)• Small reservoirs (V3)• IWRM (V4)
Where are we: Discourses Diagnosis Discourses are important because they contribute to establishing what is ‘true’ and what ‘should’ happen. Defining “boundaries” Little change since the 1970s Ideology and Discourse CPWF appropriate the sameDemography High population growth High poverty rate, especially in rural areas Growing demand for foodClimate/Water Rainfall unreliability + extreme events (droughts/floods) Available but little developed water resourcesAgricultural system Importance and low productivity of rainfed agricultural systems Vulnerability to limited water stress Low yield and technical potential for improvementEnvironment Soil erosion and degradation/low soil fertility Resilience and adaptationSocio‐economic context Economic importance of agricultural sector Securing land tenure Efficiency
Where are we: priorities/strategies DiagnosisDefining “boundaries”Ideology and DiscourseNational priorities/strategies Early wins/best bets versus diffuse results • Infrastructure investment in drinking water and sanitation • Productive agricultural investments • “Growth pole” (i.e. Bagre in Burkina Faso) • Large public irrigation systems • Modernization/export‐crops (pineapple, cocoa, etc.) • Inter‐sectoral linkages in Burkina Faso (with the PNSR) • Small scale agricultural water management • BF: On the public agenda but ‘constraints’ on individuals • GH: Not really on the agenda but less constraint on the individuals
Different steps: IWRM Actors (BF) BURKINA FASO Characterization Consultative role NationalActor’s identification Central role of the DGRE in facilitating the group Roles/responsibilities Administration River basin Regional representative Planning role Central role of the NT in ‘District’ representative facilitating the group ‘Users’ representative Civil society CLE Not active Traditional authorities Research and education • What roles for these actors in SWC/Small reservoirs? • Which other actors in SWC/Small reservoirs?
Different steps: IWRM Actors (GH) GHANA Characterization Planning role NationalActor’s identification Central role of administrationRoles/responsibilities Absence of MoFA Woman representative Administration River basin Planning role Regional representative Central role of the basin officer ‘District’ representative ‘Users’ representative Civil society Traditional authorities Research and education • What roles for these actors in SWC/Small reservoirs? • Which other actors in SWC/Small reservoirs?
Different steps: IWRM Actors (BF) CharacterizationActor’s identificationRoles/responsibilitiesLegitimacy/accountability How do people come into assuming responsabilities? • In Burkina Faso, strong involvement of private consultants (former civil servants) in policy framing (consultance) • Multi‐level interactions follow sectoral hierarchical lines • Lack of linkage between ‘water‐institutions’ and agricultural socio‐ professional groups • Challenges faced in terms of participation and representativity of users
Why small reservoirs continue to existDiscourse coalitionInterpretative community