Methodological Framework for the Assessment of Governance Institutions

1. Methodological Framework for the Assessment of Governance Institutions P. Diaz and A. Rojas PFRA Workshop, March 17, 2006

2. Purpose The document suggests a conceptual and methodological framework for assessing water governance institutions: a. The concept of institution, b. The nature of the formal institutions to be assessed, and c. The main dimensions of the assessment.

3. What are institutions Institutions are rules -- which define roles and procedures for people– and their resulting organizational forms. They determine what is appropriate, legitimate and proper by establishing cognitive and normative structures which define perceptions and interpretations.

4. Our project is • a study of “formal and informal institutions, ranging from social mores and cultural patterns of behavior, to organizations and rules as set out in law” (Voisey and O’Riordan, 2001). In this context, we seek to understand the adaptive capacities of rural communities and rural households and the roles played by formal institutional actors in the development of those capacities to adapt to climate change-induced water scarcities

5. Which Institutions Should Be Assessed? • Rural communities function within larger institutional systems (markets, political, religious) that link those communities with the larger society. • Given the centrality of political institutions (those involved in governance) in the management of water resources (affecting the adaptive capacities of rural communities and households) it is imperative to focus our attention on these institutions.

6. Which Institutions Should Be Assessed? • Our focus should be on the political and administrative systems (in governments and civil society) by which water resources areallocated, developed and managed. • The assessment should evaluate the rules that define the use and distribution of water resources, the organizations that define and apply these rules, and their cognitive and normative structures.

7. The methodological dimensions for the assessment A. Identification and description of organizations and their links B. Identification and assessment of instruments C. Assessment of management and decision-making effectiveness D. Identification and assessment of values regarding climate change and sustainability issues

8. A. Identification and description of organizations and their links • To identify and describe all decision-making authorities and organizations (including civil society organizations) involved in the management of water resources in both basins, as well as their main roles and responsibilities and formal linkages with other organizations. • This will allow us to develop a picture of the basic architecture of water governance and the distribution of institutional power –the problems of autonomy and dependence-- among the organizations.

9. B. Identification and assessment of instruments • An identification of the most relevant instruments (sets of formal rules) that govern or affect the management of water resources (those that relate in whole, or in part, to areas such as climate change, water resources, consumptive water, disasters, health, etc). • To gather information about the assessment that the main actors have of these instruments in terms of dealing with actual and potential water management problems.

10. C. Assessment of management and decision-making effectiveness The assessment should be directed to identify and evaluate those organizational arrangements that impact upon the governance capacity in the two basins. Governance capacity is related to: C.1. The openness of political institutions and their capacity to identify problems and issues in the civil society C.2 The ability of political institutions to seek solutions to those problems and dealing with issues, C.3 The capacity of political institutions to implement solutions

11. C.1 Identifying problems and issues in the civil society • The gathering of information: An evaluation of the information that is gathered, including type, level, and how it is collected. • The purpose(s) of collecting the information: An assessment of the ways in which this information is used (monitoring, decision making, etc). • The return of the information: An assessment of the effectiveness to make the information available to stakeholders and other organizations to facilitate the governance process. • The openness of governance organizations: to evaluate the transparency, performance reporting, and accountability of their decisions

12. C.2 The ability of political institutions to seek solutions to problems a. Integration of stakeholders to the decision making process b. The availability of human capital, material and fiscal resources c. Integration d. Subsidiarity and scope e. Relevance of climate change and sustainability f. The capacity to revise their own performance g. Effectiveness h. Legitimacy

13. C.3 The capacity of political institutions to implement solutions • The information of decisions: the capacity of organizations to inform about their decisions in areas relevant to the use and distribution of water resources. • Capacity building: The capacities of organizations to promote capacity building and problem solving within the civil society (i.e. expansion of social capital, protection of natural capital, strengthening NGOs and grass-roots organizations) • Monitoring and evaluation: the capacity of the public institutions to monitor the application of the solutions and to evaluate their degree of success.

14. D. Identification and assessment of values regarding climate change and sustainability issues • The discourses (value-frameworks, paradigms and models) articulated by governance organizations affect the ways they operate. • The assessment, accordingly, should be oriented to identify and evaluate the main values that characterize the worldviews of the governance institutions to understand the potential for consensus and dissent as keys to harmonize conflicts

16. Mapping water governance organizations and their value discourse • List the most relevant organizations currently involved in water governance in the SSRB • Are potentially important stakeholders missing? • What are in your view the most important values in the public discourse of those organizations? • Whose interests/value are better represented in each organizations? • Can you map those values in the “Flower of Values”? (Use handout) • Can you identify areas of consensus? • Can you identify areas of dissent and conflict? • Is value consideration important to assess institutional adaptations to climate change-induced water scarcities?