Institutionalizing the problem.

It is always the same question that reiterates: how should we approach the issue?

In order not be redundant, I will analyze the water crisis from a top-down approach, since I had previously explored it from a bottom-up stance in Blog # 3 (focusing on endogenous community based solutions).

In the presentation on UNU-INWEH, Dr. Zafar Adeel explained that approaches to the water crisis have consisted of institutional (i.e AMCOW), economic (i.e. ODA) and/or public responses.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge has been the institutionalization of the problem- the intense focusing on large institutions to collaborate initiative and agree on common terms to bring forth a practical, result-based solution. Although an institutional, top-down approach is a critical factor to the equation, as it is the largest source of funding, this approach has been constricted with bureaucracy, confined among experts and at a point lost trajectory of focusing on the most in need of assistance.

As discussed by Dr. Adeel in the presentation, many institutional initiatives, which also determine where economic solutions are directed, have lost focus on the pressing targets. ODA(overseas development aid) for instance, has been targetted towards large scale systems rather than small, more manageable and effective projects, and its distribution towards water issues has been decreasing in the first place. UNU-INWEH has been playing a role in trying to redirect focus back to funding numerous dispersed small-scale initiatives, rather than a few larger scale ones that marginalize many communities in need of assistance.

The role of national and international institutions in setting laws and regulation for the water crisis is pivotal, however, self-criticism is of the essence. Unless one recognizes and acknowledges their own problems, how can they effectively solve the world's problems?

In Lederach's "A Framework for Building Peace", he outlines 3 essential pillars for action:

1) education

2) advocacy

3) mediation

Although Laderach uses his theory in the context of peace-building, it continues to be relevant here as it calls for methodological change to achieve social change. My interpretation of these three pillars around the water crisis rests in 1) promoting education on the issue of water to both local communities and international actors while developing short-term and long-term plans* 2) using adequate language to frame the issue within the boundaries of reality and urgency** 3) understanding value paradoxes (opposing ideas) which represent sides to the same problem.

Perhaps institutions involved in the top-down approach to addressing the water crisis need to adopt Laderach's model- a more encompassing framework, that accepts differences and leaves room for ecouraging endogenous bottom-up solutions.

Can this self-reflexive and more encompassing top-down approach effectively resolve the problem of institutionalizing the problem?

* as discussed at the GECHH 2010 symposium by Dr. Karanja- it is important to identify "gaps" in current knowledge on water issues- i.e evidence gathering, role of women etc.

** as discussed at the GECHH 2010 symposium by Dr Mark Rosenberg on "reframing" discourse- i.e shifting the focus from protecting the "quality" of water as if, as humans, we are separate from it. 

Citation: Lederach; John Paul. "A Framework for Building Peace" chapter 2. in Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1995, pp 3-23.