Water wisdoms: a critical look at knowledge production in water and development

“The current neoliberal mode of resource-use is only one of many possible ways of using and distributing water and other resources. So many of us have accepted this mode as the only possible and best one,” Zwarteveen said, emphasising that there are other knowledges and wisdoms on water worth exploring and learning from. All are shaped by the different circumstances, environments and lived experiences of communities.

In addition to holding technical knowledge on how to deal with water, communities also often develop their own rules to prevent overuse or pollution of water. But tapping into this knowledge requires a sensitive approach, said symposium speaker Malica Maïga, an Environmental and Social Governance expert from the Action-Formation-Recherche en Eau in Mali: “You have to be very humble, because the knowledge that the communities have will humble you. Approach them as someone who is learning from them—we must respect the ancestral knowledge,” she said.  

Reimagining water means examining how knowledge on water is produced—by whom, through which practices and with which priorities? Which types of knowledge influence broader academic, policy or global discussions? Which forms of knowledge remain “localised” or overlooked?

The paradigms that underpin knowledge must be questioned, said keynote speaker K. J. Joy, an Activist-researcher from India and Founding Member of the Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management. Our worldviews and normative concerns shape the outcome of scientific research, he said: “Whether equity, social or environmental justice is a concern for us or not can determine the type of outcome of our research. We might use the same data and broadly the same methodologies, but two different actors may come up with different policy prescriptions.”

Zwarteveen noted that conventional scientific knowledge, too, is underpinned by beliefs: “Everyone carries their own myths and worldviews—even scientists who often favour technological solutions to water problems, or hold, despite very little empirical evidence, a belief in the myth of the market—that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources, including water,” she said. For meaningful co-creation of knowledge, researchers and practitioners must be transparent about the beliefs and assumptions driving their perspectives and practices, Joy added.

Merely acknowledging that there are other water knowledge and belief systems is not enough, symposium speakers argued. They must inform policies and practices so that knowledge becomes an instrument for transformation.

“We need to search for ways in which these other, less promoted forms of knowing water can inform or complement the more conventional, mainstream knowledge on water,” said Jeltsje Kemerink–Seyoum, the Programme Coordinator and Associate Professor of Water Governance & Justice at IHE Delft. “These wisdoms may hold seeds from which decolonial knowledge of water can emerge.”

While indigenous and other knowledge systems can offer useful, alternative perspectives, it is important to avoid romanticising them, Joy said. They can reflect and reproduce social hierarchies based on gender, ethnicity or class just as much as the mainstream approach. Critical engagement that avoids idealising them is needed, and challenges that arise when these alternative perspectives oppose established norms must be addressed.

The symposium concluded with a call for water researchers, policy advisors and practitioners to celebrate the diverse ways of knowing and dealing with water. By redressing the persistent hierarchies in knowledge production and creating space for horizontal learning, more inclusive and just solutions to today’s complex water challenges can be found.