From an IDRC publication on Outcome Mapping
"As Peter Senge points out,
Seeing interrelationships, not things, and processes, not snapshots. Most of us have been conditioned throughout our lives to focus on things and to see the world in static images. This leads us to linear explanations of systemic phenomenon. (Senge 1990: 15)
International development programs are particularly prone to excluding themselves from the system in which development change occurs. By separating themselves from development processes (i.e., something “we” help “them” accomplish) and explaining change using linear reasoning, programs lose the opportunity to explore their full potential as change agents."
In other words, change processes in basins are implemented by people. The trick is to ask "what people?" and "how can research outputs improve the process?". The simple response to this might be to consider where processes can be improved by reducing uncertainties. Such uncertainties might include:
- lack of data on water balances within a particular sub-basin
- ignorance about impacts of change on specific aquatic environments
- unequal representation of specific groups of people
- ignorance about the dependence of specific groups on water
Wednesday 12 August 2009
Friday 31 July 2009
By a strange coincidence with my previous post on the comparison between agricultural development in Africa and China: The WB posted a report on Learning from China's Experience to Help Africa's Development.
Delegates seem quite optimistic about the potential for learning. Yaouba Abdoulaye, Vice-Minister of Planning and Territorial Management in Cameroun is quoted as saying "when China started its reform, agriculture was as important as it is in many African countries now". Perhaps some attention is needed to the trajectory to see if this statement explains where the situation is, or where it is going.
Delegates seem quite optimistic about the potential for learning. Yaouba Abdoulaye, Vice-Minister of Planning and Territorial Management in Cameroun is quoted as saying "when China started its reform, agriculture was as important as it is in many African countries now". Perhaps some attention is needed to the trajectory to see if this statement explains where the situation is, or where it is going.
Thursday 30 July 2009
Do institutional factors explain the gap between China and Africa?
An interesting report by Ron Sandrey and Hannah Edinger at the Centre for Chinese Studies (Univ. Stellenbosh) includes the following conclusion:
The challenge for Africa is to operationalise technologies in the absence of much of the necessary flanking support (policies, prices, infrastructure, agricultural credit etc).
This report is full of fascinating insights: Page 17 notes an extension service with 830,000 staff - about 760,000 at the grass roots level - though their effectiveness and resources is highly variable.
The Ministry of Agriculture reports that the application of crop production 'packages' in Northern China have improved grain water productivity from 0.3 to between 0.6-1.2 kg/m. [actually quoted as kg per mm but this seems too small]
The challenge for Africa is to operationalise technologies in the absence of much of the necessary flanking support (policies, prices, infrastructure, agricultural credit etc).
This report is full of fascinating insights: Page 17 notes an extension service with 830,000 staff - about 760,000 at the grass roots level - though their effectiveness and resources is highly variable.
The Ministry of Agriculture reports that the application of crop production 'packages' in Northern China have improved grain water productivity from 0.3 to between 0.6-1.2 kg/m. [actually quoted as kg per mm but this seems too small]
Tuesday 28 July 2009
Learning for sustainability site
Learning for sustainability is an internet resource offered by Will Allen to support and explain dialogue processes, inter-disciplinarity and institutional change. A wealth of quality information. Highly recommended.
Tuesday 30 June 2009
Focus on institutional pathways and impediments to change
The 5 water-related factors underlying poverty (where water is part of ther cause) seems a reasonable approach. I am sure in all cases, there is a combination of factors operating; including interactions with other factors such as land access, market access, etc.
But my interest includes the institutional imediments and pathways for promoting changes that lead to improved conditions for people [and minimize changes that have the opposite impacts]: better access, more productivity, reduced vulnerability, etc. Do people have views on this issue?
Jinxia Wang is having trouble getting into the blog, but she directed me to a web site with some very intersting work on institutional innovations in China. Her website is: www.ccapwater.com . In the up corner of this web on the left, you can find the links to the English version. This web is both Chinese and English. I recommend this highly.
But my interest includes the institutional imediments and pathways for promoting changes that lead to improved conditions for people [and minimize changes that have the opposite impacts]: better access, more productivity, reduced vulnerability, etc. Do people have views on this issue?
Jinxia Wang is having trouble getting into the blog, but she directed me to a web site with some very intersting work on institutional innovations in China. Her website is: www.ccapwater.com . In the up corner of this web on the left, you can find the links to the English version. This web is both Chinese and English. I recommend this highly.
Better governance helps in the fight against poverty and improves living standards.
"Research by many scholars, including the WGI authors, shows that improved governance strengthens development, and not the other way around. When governance is improved by one standard deviation, infant mortality declines by two-thirds and incomes rise about three-fold in the long run".
The WB report on governance that provides the above quote uses the following classification variables:
The WB report on governance that provides the above quote uses the following classification variables:
- Voice and Accountability
- Political Stability and Absence of Violence
- Government Effectiveness
- Regulatory Quality
- Rule of Law
- Control of Corruption
Wednesday 24 June 2009
How do institutions determine water-related poverty?
I am a relative newcomer to the topic of institutions. But I now appreciate, from seeing analysis in the BFPs, how institutions are key to explain how - or why- people manage collectively land and water resources in the way they do, and what can be done to improve the benefit from these resources.
I really want help to understand concepts, processes and instruments that link people together in non-random instruments. I hope that people in this blog can help provide specific examples of these. But people seem reluctant to ‘jump in’.
So let me try to break the logjam by offering the following:
In a sister BLOG, we are discussing the analysis of water, food and poverty. To help this, we have five-class simplification of the apparent water-related causes of poverty (to be honest, I synthesized these in my head from what I knew of analyses in a few basins)…they are:
1 Water scarcity [oddly, a rare cause]
2 Lack of access
3 Vulnerability to water-related hazard such as flood, drought or disease.
4 Loss of water productivity, that is loss of potential gain from water consumed due to other factors
5 Loss of resource [e.g. poverty that is induced by adverse change]
In order of magnitude, a rough guess suggests that 4 > 2 > 3> 1 (5 is possibly a special case; as Eric Kemp Benedict observes, a framework in which others operate), and that this fits the sequence of importance of institutions. For example, for (4) institutions govern the assemblage and deployment of factors such as inputs, credit, markets within the water and food system to enable people to maximize water productivity. Institutions are clearly a major determinant of access, or lack of (2) to water. Vulnerability and resilience (3) are socio-ecological entities in which institutional factors control sensitivity to hazard. I guess not much can be done about absolute water scarcity, although even there, institutions can determine to overcome physical adversity (e.g. desalination supports a highly active urban population in Dubai).
I really want help to understand concepts, processes and instruments that link people together in non-random instruments. I hope that people in this blog can help provide specific examples of these. But people seem reluctant to ‘jump in’.
So let me try to break the logjam by offering the following:
In a sister BLOG, we are discussing the analysis of water, food and poverty. To help this, we have five-class simplification of the apparent water-related causes of poverty (to be honest, I synthesized these in my head from what I knew of analyses in a few basins)…they are:
1 Water scarcity [oddly, a rare cause]
2 Lack of access
3 Vulnerability to water-related hazard such as flood, drought or disease.
4 Loss of water productivity, that is loss of potential gain from water consumed due to other factors
5 Loss of resource [e.g. poverty that is induced by adverse change]
In order of magnitude, a rough guess suggests that 4 > 2 > 3> 1 (5 is possibly a special case; as Eric Kemp Benedict observes, a framework in which others operate), and that this fits the sequence of importance of institutions. For example, for (4) institutions govern the assemblage and deployment of factors such as inputs, credit, markets within the water and food system to enable people to maximize water productivity. Institutions are clearly a major determinant of access, or lack of (2) to water. Vulnerability and resilience (3) are socio-ecological entities in which institutional factors control sensitivity to hazard. I guess not much can be done about absolute water scarcity, although even there, institutions can determine to overcome physical adversity (e.g. desalination supports a highly active urban population in Dubai).
Saturday 20 June 2009
Research for Impact in CPWF River Basins
This blog is off to a slow start, in part because I am trying to learn new skills, I am in Nairobi with very limited connectivity, and I am managing a project to advise Kenya's government on irrigation institutional reform. But this experience has again brought home to how difficult it is to achieve institutional reform, but how critical achieving this will be to bring about the vision Kenya has for a productive prosperous irrigated agricultural sector. Comatose institutions underly the lack of public investment and indeed deterioration of performance in some schemes. But there are more vested interests in retaining the status quo than risking change in what is a complex institutional matrix. Similiarly, getting the institutional matrix in place to promote better water access, higher productivity, while avoiding or reversing resource degradation in river basins is complex--more so on basins shared by more than one political entity (states in federal systems, countries). Several comments have been posted already, and I would like to invite you to check out the following on an alternative to the standard international law approach in Simon's comment: http://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=1.
I look forward to participants' views and comments--and we would welcome suggestions for more people to add to this blog.
I look forward to participants' views and comments--and we would welcome suggestions for more people to add to this blog.
Thursday 18 June 2009
International Law
There seems a huge amount of interest in international (transboundary) law. Law seems to provide clarity, even where it seems unenforced. But what about more local behaviours, guided by laws, regulations, customs or practices? Is this still so uncertain that we haven't moved beyond Elinor Orstom's basics?
Turkey’s GAP project and International Water Law
Turkey’s GAP project and International Water Law
Sunday 14 June 2009
Response to Doug’s Comments:
(Like me, Doug started off by writing a new post [new ideas] as a comment [a response to someone else’s ides]. The Blog buried it beneath my earlier post ‘Welcome’ so to see originals, please click on ‘3 comments’ next to 15:24.
Here you will see that Doug raises three points:
1 Re-orientating the book around the analyses of opportunities and constraints for change: This would be difficult, but not entirely out of the question, or even unwelcome from my part. Having said that, the obvious questions that comes up is ‘from what, to what?’ Many of the earlier chapters are intended to provide quantitative pictures of conditions under themes in basins. The basin chapters should include at least SOME institutional analysis, explaining what guides, controls or impedes specific changes. All basins vary in their emphases, and some won’t have done such a bad job as Doug fears [or at least I hope not].
I do like the idea of thinking about change from the beginning. A solution would be to ensure that the conceptual model of change that this chapter develops is present from the outset. That is, that all descriptions are read in the context of status and change. Let’s keep talking.
2 Will the book reveal intervention strategies? Poverty analysis reveals multiple causes for loss of livelihood, simplified into 5 broad classes, each of which with their own type of intervention. Institutional analysis will be key to understand (specifically) what constrains or mobilizes those interventions in the 10 basins [hence other basins, I hope]. This point relates to (1): I think we need to start by describing ‘what is’? Then ‘what happens next?’
3 Impact pathways: I like Impact pathways, and think they have helped projects enormously to identify the realities of change. But have also been observing when these seem to work and when they do not. In some cases, they are project focused, not programmatic. Also they assume a level of prior knowledge about ‘what is’ [there it is again!] that is not always justified. The BFPs have thrown out some surprises that caution against the presumption that we DO know where the water is going, who actually uses, how much gain they derive from it, etc., etc. This emphasizes why this chapter, on institutions and change processes is needed.
Doug’s closing statement that the most productive use of water may be the poor woman growing tomatoes/veggies using tiny amounts of grey water, rain etc.. may be true in the Limpopo. How likely is this to be true in other basins (e.g. the Mekong, Sao Francisco, Nile...etc) . Just how many people, how much gain, through what system, using how much water and directed by what institutions are you thinking of?
Here you will see that Doug raises three points:
1 Re-orientating the book around the analyses of opportunities and constraints for change: This would be difficult, but not entirely out of the question, or even unwelcome from my part. Having said that, the obvious questions that comes up is ‘from what, to what?’ Many of the earlier chapters are intended to provide quantitative pictures of conditions under themes in basins. The basin chapters should include at least SOME institutional analysis, explaining what guides, controls or impedes specific changes. All basins vary in their emphases, and some won’t have done such a bad job as Doug fears [or at least I hope not].
I do like the idea of thinking about change from the beginning. A solution would be to ensure that the conceptual model of change that this chapter develops is present from the outset. That is, that all descriptions are read in the context of status and change. Let’s keep talking.
2 Will the book reveal intervention strategies? Poverty analysis reveals multiple causes for loss of livelihood, simplified into 5 broad classes, each of which with their own type of intervention. Institutional analysis will be key to understand (specifically) what constrains or mobilizes those interventions in the 10 basins [hence other basins, I hope]. This point relates to (1): I think we need to start by describing ‘what is’? Then ‘what happens next?’
3 Impact pathways: I like Impact pathways, and think they have helped projects enormously to identify the realities of change. But have also been observing when these seem to work and when they do not. In some cases, they are project focused, not programmatic. Also they assume a level of prior knowledge about ‘what is’ [there it is again!] that is not always justified. The BFPs have thrown out some surprises that caution against the presumption that we DO know where the water is going, who actually uses, how much gain they derive from it, etc., etc. This emphasizes why this chapter, on institutions and change processes is needed.
Doug’s closing statement that the most productive use of water may be the poor woman growing tomatoes/veggies using tiny amounts of grey water, rain etc.. may be true in the Limpopo. How likely is this to be true in other basins (e.g. the Mekong, Sao Francisco, Nile...etc) . Just how many people, how much gain, through what system, using how much water and directed by what institutions are you thinking of?
Friday 5 June 2009
Institutions are key to change processes at all scales in river basins. Variations in institutional design and effectiveness explain why, for a given set of biophysical and economic constraints, rural people either succeed or fail to derive livelihoods from agricultural water use.
Or are they? What evidence can we find to support this hypothesis? How can we read organization and change in river basins
Or are they? What evidence can we find to support this hypothesis? How can we read organization and change in river basins
Thursday 4 June 2009
Welcome
Please contribute ideas, experience and analysis to this discussion on institutions and change processes in river basins.
Some BFPs have found that institutions hold the key to development that can either improve the benefit people derive from water, or inhibit equitable or rapid change. About the only thing we can be sure of is that change is required to help address increasing pressures on food and water systems from a growing population.
Your ideas, please...
Some BFPs have found that institutions hold the key to development that can either improve the benefit people derive from water, or inhibit equitable or rapid change. About the only thing we can be sure of is that change is required to help address increasing pressures on food and water systems from a growing population.
Your ideas, please...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)