Assessing the institutional foundations of adaptive water governance in South India

Abstract

Institutional structures can fundamentally shape opportunities for adaptive governance of water resources at multiple ecological and societal scales. The properties of adaptive governance have been widely examined in the literature. However, there has been limited focus on how institutions can promote or hinder the emergence of adaptive governance. Elinor Ostrom's institutional theory stresses the importance of formal and informal norms and rules in effective governance of natural resources. Specifically, Ostrom's "design principles" (DPs) are considered important because they increase the capacity for adaptive decision making and facilitate the emergence of self-organization at smaller scales. Self-organizing agents can frequently modify rules-in-use, procedures, and technical methods to tackle changing ecological conditions and address significant management issues left by more traditional governments. In this study, we examine institutional arrangements for successful water governance by analyzing (1) the co-occurrence of DPs in irrigation systems, and (2) the combination(s) of DPs leading to social and ecological success. We collaborated with a local non-profit organization to review institutional records and conduct interviews in 50 irrigation communities in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in South India. Using qualitative comparative analysis, we found that the effectiveness of design principles is contingent on biophysical properties, such as the size of the watershed being governed, and attributes of the community, such as population size. We also discuss the methodological and data-related challenges involved in collecting primary data for conducting a context-specific institutional analysis. Our study offers a much-needed example of empirical research that investigates the role of operational level rules in adaptive water governance.

Emerging attributes of adaptive governance in the global south

“…In addition, the authors (Djalante et al, 2011;Knüppe, 2011) argued that the participation of relevant actors at different levels and scales encouraged the coproduction of new knowledge which enabled to develop and increase adaptation strategies in natural hazards in Nepal and groundwater management in South Africa. Both formal and informal collaboration proved Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org beneficial to the AG in water governance in India (Vallury et al, 2022). Formal collaboration facilitates regulatory capacity and access to financial and institutional resources, and informal collaboration fosters flexibility and trust in water governance processes in these regions (Evans et al, 2011;Tuda et al, 2021;Yasmin et al, 2022).…”

“…Following previous research in this field, Yasmin et al (2020), identified that community participation indicated that local actors' experience and expertise led to better opportunities in decisionmaking processes in water governance in Bangladesh. Tuda et al (2021) also identified how effective collaboration of diverse actors and multiple interactions foster AG of the Kenya-Tanzania transboundary marine socio-ecological systems that enhance cross-sectoral integration and create opportunities for multistakeholder bridging which is also found in water governance in South India (Vallury et al, 2022). Effective collaboration across sectors and scales initiatives had proven successful in enabling building leadership and trust among different stakeholders to minimize conflict and improve power sharing in a collaborative manner in cyclone management in India and Bangladesh (Walch, 2019;Choudhury et al, 2021).…”

“…Djalante et al (2011) and Walch, (2019) recognized AG as a useful strategy for dealing with uncertainty associated with climate-induced disasters in South (Pereira and Ruysenaar, 2012) and water resource management in East Africa (Tuda et al, 2019;Tuda et al, 2021). Further, the authors argue that AG seeks to integrate coordination across different institutional arrangements, political processes, and policy aspects of governance for accountability and legitimacy (Tuda et al, 2019;Tuda et al, 2021;Vallury et al, 2022). In the real world, active participation and collaboration are needed among various organizations, formal and informal institutions, actors, and stakeholders at every stage of environmental governance (Shinn, 2016).…”

“…Djalante et al (2011), Walch, (2019, and Choudhury et al (2021) identified that building and strengthening community resilience/capacity to extreme climatic events requires an adaptive, innovative, and forwardlooking approach to disaster management in Bangladesh, Nepal, and India. Mirza and others (Mirza, 2014;Bedi, 2019;Nixon et al, 2022;Vallury et al, 2022) discussed how active community participation, adequate financial support, and political will are essential for sustainable water management in India. In addition, stakeholder involvement is crucial to sustainable water and groundwater management in South Africa but is generally weak and barely acknowledged by government agents (Knüppe, 2011;Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2013).…”

“…AG approaches with inclusive community support, capable participation, and bridging structures are unlikely to succeed without considering planning and implementing capacities of governance, such as adequate human and financial resources, and management and Source: (Olsson et al, 2007;Sanginga et al, 2010;Djalante et al, 2011;Evans et al, 2011;Knüppe, 2011;Pereira and Ruysenaar, 2012;Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2013;Mian, 2014;Mirza, 2014;Niekerk, 2014;Varma et al, 2014;Cooper and Wheeler, 2015;Novellie et al, 2016;Shinn, 2016;Blekking et al, 2017;Novellie et al, 2017;Pelletier et al, 2017;Munene et al, 2018;Bedi, 2019;Chomba et al, 2019;Mumtaz and Ali, 2019;Tuda et al, 2019;Walch, 2019;Khan et al, 2020;Rao et al, 2020;Yasmin et al, 2020;Carrai, 2021;Choudhury et al, 2021;Tuda et al, 2021;Nixon et al, 2022;Vallury et al, 2022;Yasmin et al, 2022)*See (Folke, 2006;Pahl-Wostl, 2009;Rijke et al, 2012) for further explanation.…”