Suchergebnisse

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) still stands today as one of the most influential governance models in the water sector. Whereas previous analyses of IWRM have focused on the effectiveness of the institutional models it embodies and on policy implementation gaps, we examine the meanings that IWRM discourses have given to water management issues and how these meanings have in turn supported certain policy choices, institutions and practices. We use discourse analysis to study IWRM discourses in Nepal, where IWRM was introduced as the guiding policy principle for water management more than a decade ago, but not yet operationalised. We argue that IWRM discourses have operated a discursive closure in policy debates, thereby limiting the range of policy and institutional choices perceived as politically possible. In particular, we found that the promotion of IWRM as an institutional holy grail has obscured critical issues of social (in)justice related to water resources development by promoting an apolitical and techno-managerial vision of water development, largely centralised and relying on expert knowledge. We defend the need to move away from institutional panaceas and towards deliberative processes that allow alternative voices, discourses and knowledge.

Mainstreaming gender in water governance through "how to do gender" toolkits has long been a development focus. It has been widely argued that such toolkits simplify the complex, nuanced realities of inequalities by gender in relation to water and fail to pay attention to the fact that the proposed users of such gender-water toolkits, i.e. mostly male water sector professionals, lack the skills, motivation and/or incentives to apply these toolkits in their everyday work. We adopt a feminist political ecology lens to analyse some of the barriers to reduce social inequalities in the management of global commons such as international rivers. Our findings highlight the leap of faith made in the belief that gender toolkits, as they exist, will filter through layers of a predominantly masculine institutional culture to enable change in ground realities of complex inequalities by gender. Analysing the everyday workings of two hydropower development organisations in India, we show how organisational structures demonstrate a blatant culture of masculinity. These two organisations, like many others, are sites where hierarchies and inequalities based on gender are produced, performed and reproduced. This performance of masculinity promotes and rewards a culture of technical pride in re-shaping nature, abiding by and maintaining hierarchy and demonstrating physical strength and emotional hardiness. In such a setting, paying attention to vulnerabilities, inequalities and disparities are incompatible objectives.

Mainstreaming gender in water governance through "how to do gender" toolkits has long been a development focus. It has been widely argued that such toolkits simplify the complex, nuanced realities of inequalities by gender in relation to water and fail to pay attention to the fact that the proposed users of such gender-water toolkits, i.e. mostly male water sector professionals, lack the skills, motivation and/or incentives to apply these toolkits in their everyday work. We adopt a feminist political ecology lens to analyse some of the barriers to reduce social inequalities in the management of global commons such as international rivers. Our findings highlight the leap of faith made in the belief that gender toolkits, as they exist, will filter through layers of a predominantly masculine institutional culture to enable change in ground realities of complex inequalities by gender. Analysing the everyday workings of two hydropower development organisations in India, we show how organisational structures demonstrate a blatant culture of masculinity. These two organisations, like many others, are sites where hierarchies and inequalities based on gender are produced, performed and reproduced. This performance of masculinity promotes and rewards a culture of technical pride in re-shaping nature, abiding by and maintaining hierarchy and demonstrating physical strength and emotional hardiness. In such a setting, paying attention to vulnerabilities, inequalities and disparities are incompatible objectives.

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) still stands today as one of the most influential governance models in the water sector. Whereas previous analyses of IWRM have focused on the effectiveness of the institutional models it embodies and on policy implementation gaps, we examine the meanings that IWRM discourses have given to water management issues and how these meanings have in turn supported certain policy choices, institutions and practices. We use discourse analysis to study IWRM discourses in Nepal, where IWRM was introduced as the guiding policy principle for water management more than a decade ago, but not yet operationalised. We argue that IWRM discourses have operated a discursive closure in policy debates, thereby limiting the range of policy and institutional choices perceived as politically possible. In particular, we found that the promotion of IWRM as an institutional holy grail has obscured critical issues of social (in)justice related to water resources development by promoting an apolitical and techno-managerial vision of water development, largely centralised and relying on expert knowledge. We defend the need to move away from institutional panaceas and towards deliberative processes that allow alternative voices, discourses and knowledge.

Increasing water productivity appears at the top of most agricultural water policy agendas around the world. It is usually assumed that gains in water productivity will always directly or indirectly improve livelihoods and reduce poverty through increased water availability, higher food security and agricultural incomes. Whereas many economics studies have established a strong correlation between agricultural growth and poverty, numerous activists in India and elsewhere have increasingly questioned the productivity paradigm. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to investigate some of the links between productivity and poverty through an institutional analysis of livestock water productivity interventions across three districts of the Ganga Basin, North India. We do not pretend giving a comprehensive review of the water productivity/poverty nexus but rather discuss a few prominent issues: the differentiated forms of capitals required to access to water, equity and democratic decentralisation.

Increasing water productivity appears at the top of most agricultural water policy agendas around the world. It is usually assumed that gains in water productivity will always directly or indirectly improve livelihoods and reduce poverty through increased water availability, higher food security and agricultural incomes. Whereas many economics studies have established a strong correlation between agricultural growth and poverty, numerous activists in India and elsewhere have increasingly questioned the productivity paradigm. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to investigate some of the links between productivity and poverty through an institutional analysis of livestock water productivity interventions across three districts of the Ganga Basin, North India. We do not pretend giving a comprehensive review of the water productivity/poverty nexus but rather discuss a few prominent issues: the differentiated forms of capitals required to access to water, equity and democratic decentralisation.

Tandis que les zones de montagne moins peuplées apportent les ressources en eau qui permettent aux plaines de prospérer, les habitants des zones montagneuses continuent à souffrir de pauvreté, de faibles productivités agricoles accompagnées de dégradation environnementale. Une solution à ce paradigme semble être la mobilisation mutuelle de toutes parties prenantes via des mécanismes incitatifs de type PES (Payment for Environmental Services). L'idée est de relier politiques agricoles et stratégies individuelles dans une même action répondant aux contraintes physiques, économiques et culturelles des milieux physiques et humains en même temps qu'aux contraintes institutionnelles pour une bonne gouvernance. Un meilleur lien entre terres de pente et plaines devrait garantir un usage durable des terres de pente sans risque pour les plaines.

Tandis que les zones de montagne moins peuplées apportent les ressources en eau qui permettent aux plaines de prospérer, les habitants des zones montagneuses continuent à souffrir de pauvreté, de faibles productivités agricoles accompagnées de dégradation environnementale. Une solution à ce paradigme semble être la mobilisation mutuelle de toutes parties prenantes via des mécanismes incitatifs de type PES (Payment for Environmental Services). L'idée est de relier politiques agricoles et stratégies individuelles dans une même action répondant aux contraintes physiques, économiques et culturelles des milieux physiques et humains en même temps qu'aux contraintes institutionnelles pour une bonne gouvernance. Un meilleur lien entre terres de pente et plaines devrait garantir un usage durable des terres de pente sans risque pour les plaines.

Tandis que les zones de montagne moins peuplées apportent les ressources en eau qui permettent aux plaines de prospérer, les habitants des zones montagneuses continuent à souffrir de pauvreté, de faibles productivités agricoles accompagnées de dégradation environnementale. Une solution à ce paradigme semble être la mobilisation mutuelle de toutes parties prenantes via des mécanismes incitatifs de type PES (Payment for Environmental Services). L'idée est de relier politiques agricoles et stratégies individuelles dans une même action répondant aux contraintes physiques, économiques et culturelles des milieux physiques et humains en même temps qu'aux contraintes institutionnelles pour une bonne gouvernance. Un meilleur lien entre terres de pente et plaines devrait garantir un usage durable des terres de pente sans risque pour les plaines.

Tandis que les zones de montagne moins peuplées apportent les ressources en eau qui permettent aux plaines de prospérer, les habitants des zones montagneuses continuent à souffrir de pauvreté, de faibles productivités agricoles accompagnées de dégradation environnementale. Une solution à ce paradigme semble être la mobilisation mutuelle de toutes parties prenantes via des mécanismes incitatifs de type PES (Payment for Environmental Services). L'idée est de relier politiques agricoles et stratégies individuelles dans une même action répondant aux contraintes physiques, économiques et culturelles des milieux physiques et humains en même temps qu'aux contraintes institutionnelles pour une bonne gouvernance. Un meilleur lien entre terres de pente et plaines devrait garantir un usage durable des terres de pente sans risque pour les plaines.