478
L. Ferrini et al.
to influence processes. They learn the “rules of the game” and build historical knowledge of the institutions with which they negotiate. On the downside, formalization
of NUCs may result in introducing some rigidity to the system, in turn leading to
a loss of depth of the stakeholder base. This is because representatives of the users
in some cases lose a direct link to their base (farmers, fishermen, energy users and
producers, cattle breeders), preferring to turn to other entities, particularly for financial support, which naturally influences their priorities. The establishment of official
relationships between the users and public institutions, while legitimizing the NUCs
and facilitating access to information and contact with project designers, owners,
and implementers, also makes users more dependent on the state and other official
bodies, such as the NBA.
With regard to involvement of local knowledge in water management at different
levels, we note significant shortcomings in involving local communities meaningfully across the project spectrum. There are also barriers to an effective partnership
among government/public institutions and users: inequality in financial capacities
and leverage, different professional networks and legitimacy, and issues of perception and semantics (e.g., “civil society” and its connotations). The lack of extensive information exchange to reach a shared understanding of the boundaries of the
system excludes or undervalues some stakeholders, and by extension the management
outcomes for those stakeholder groups.
We also find some evidence of the value of increasing the stakeholder base in
governance processes. While complexity can be daunting, our analysis confirms
that polycentrism in governance reduces vulnerability and improves outcomes. The
obstacles to maximizing the potential of polycentrism lie in the lack of established
mechanisms and fora for an effective information exchange, in the overlapping and
conflicting interests of different information brokers which can contradict each other,
and in a loss of clarity and trust, particularly by those stakeholders which are less
equipped in terms of capacities and analytical tools (often the users themselves).
Effective information exchange is crucial to overcome different understandings of
the system and ensure a more holistic view of project impacts.
Observations from the three case studies confirm that institutions with different
mandates tend to frame the system differently, leading to a divergence of understandings (Boelens et al. 2016). The NBA predominantly looks at the basin in its
entirety, while users (such as women, young people, pastoralists, fishermen, farmers)
have the tendency to understand the system around boundaries and cleavages that
bear on their interests. In general, stakeholder groups present a better understanding
of aspects of the system that are closest to them (Van Cauwenbergh et al. 2018).
This is illustrated by the deep awareness of the displaced populations of Kandadji
of the rights they have lost, and the introduction of irrigated perimeters. Similarly,
inhabitants of the Inner Niger Delta may well not yet grasp the potential impact
of the distant upstream Fomi Dam on their livelihoods. Governance and system
dynamics are directly influenced by who is interpreting the system, even within the
same stakeholder group (Reed 2008). This has an impact on individual capacity to
L. Ferrini et al.
to influence processes. They learn the “rules of the game” and build historical knowledge of the institutions with which they negotiate. On the downside, formalization
of NUCs may result in introducing some rigidity to the system, in turn leading to
a loss of depth of the stakeholder base. This is because representatives of the users
in some cases lose a direct link to their base (farmers, fishermen, energy users and
producers, cattle breeders), preferring to turn to other entities, particularly for financial support, which naturally influences their priorities. The establishment of official
relationships between the users and public institutions, while legitimizing the NUCs
and facilitating access to information and contact with project designers, owners,
and implementers, also makes users more dependent on the state and other official
bodies, such as the NBA.
With regard to involvement of local knowledge in water management at different
levels, we note significant shortcomings in involving local communities meaningfully across the project spectrum. There are also barriers to an effective partnership
among government/public institutions and users: inequality in financial capacities
and leverage, different professional networks and legitimacy, and issues of perception and semantics (e.g., “civil society” and its connotations). The lack of extensive information exchange to reach a shared understanding of the boundaries of the
system excludes or undervalues some stakeholders, and by extension the management
outcomes for those stakeholder groups.
We also find some evidence of the value of increasing the stakeholder base in
governance processes. While complexity can be daunting, our analysis confirms
that polycentrism in governance reduces vulnerability and improves outcomes. The
obstacles to maximizing the potential of polycentrism lie in the lack of established
mechanisms and fora for an effective information exchange, in the overlapping and
conflicting interests of different information brokers which can contradict each other,
and in a loss of clarity and trust, particularly by those stakeholders which are less
equipped in terms of capacities and analytical tools (often the users themselves).
Effective information exchange is crucial to overcome different understandings of
the system and ensure a more holistic view of project impacts.
Observations from the three case studies confirm that institutions with different
mandates tend to frame the system differently, leading to a divergence of understandings (Boelens et al. 2016). The NBA predominantly looks at the basin in its
entirety, while users (such as women, young people, pastoralists, fishermen, farmers)
have the tendency to understand the system around boundaries and cleavages that
bear on their interests. In general, stakeholder groups present a better understanding
of aspects of the system that are closest to them (Van Cauwenbergh et al. 2018).
This is illustrated by the deep awareness of the displaced populations of Kandadji
of the rights they have lost, and the introduction of irrigated perimeters. Similarly,
inhabitants of the Inner Niger Delta may well not yet grasp the potential impact
of the distant upstream Fomi Dam on their livelihoods. Governance and system
dynamics are directly influenced by who is interpreting the system, even within the
same stakeholder group (Reed 2008). This has an impact on individual capacity to