Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In many countries worldwide, similar state policies on land management have been implemented as a response to deforestation in mountainous areas. So far, few studies have examined to which extent these policies have actually contributed to reforestation. This is the focus of our analysis, based on a case study in Vietnam. Because land access and land use were traditionally governed by common rules, we examine land use changes from an institutional perspective. We use the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, coupled with an historical perspective and the analysis of actors’ perception and dominant narratives on land management and forests. Results show that national policies significantly interfered with local factors, leading to a complex course of decision-making and action. Substantial reforestation in the area was not a response by farmers to policy incentives but rather the unexpected outcome of the disruption of local institutions by these policies. We argue that, because national interventions have relied on false or exaggerated narratives and beliefs, their implementation is in conflict with the local reality in upland areas, leading to unpredictable and locally dependent outcomes. We defend hence the need for local level studies and also recommend considering local institutions for land use change analysis in contexts where land use systems are characterised by a high degree of human interaction. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]