111

Universities Council on Water Resources Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Issue 171, Pages 111-126, December 2020

Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods *Ruxandra Popovici1, Katy E. Mazer2, Anna E. Erwin1, Zhao Ma1, José P. Pinto Cáceres3, Laura C. Bowling2, Edwin F. Bocardo-Delgado4, and Linda S. Prokopy1

1Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; 2Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; 3Department of Agronomy, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Arequipa, ; 4Department of Biological Sciences, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru; *Corresponding Author

Abstract: Coproduction is a process that involves scientists and citizens engaging throughout the production of knowledge, decisions, and/or policies. This approach has been widely applied in an international context for addressing global environmental issues. It is customary for scientists to travel to rural communities, where both scientists and local knowledge holders work together and jointly design solutions to pressing problems. Such collaboration, however, often involves high costs for both residents and scientists, which can reduce project effectiveness. This study examines the challenges associated with coproduction in the context of changing rural livelihoods in beneficiary communities. We specifically conduct a self-analysis of the coproduction process led by our own university team, where scientists designed tools for water and crop management together with community members in Peru’s . We collected qualitative data on the coproduction challenges in five local districts in Caylloma, using focus groups and semi- structured interviews. Our results indicate that changing socioeconomic conditions in rural communities undermined the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of the coproduction efforts and deliverables. These included increased migration, market integration, and reliance on regional institutions for water and crop management. Keywords: agriculture, Peru, Latin America, participation, governance, community-based natural resource management

oproduction is an approach that has been coproduction, multiple stakeholder groups can increasingly used to address natural resource discuss, negotiate, and co-create practical solutions Cmanagement challenges. Coproduction to their identified problems (Pohl et al. 2010). Such involves collaboration between differenta process is believed to be more effective than top- stakeholders, such as external experts and local down or bottom-up decision making alone (Beier resource users, to jointly determine the problems et al. 2017). to be addressed, as well as their solutions (Beier Coproduction was originally designed as a et al. 2017). This approach is often suitable for mechanism to include citizens in the design and addressing complex issues, such as climate change delivery of public services that were traditionally adaptation and watershed management, requiring created and provided by government alone (Ostrom complementary knowledge types (Leimona et 1996; Bovaird 2007). However, the concept al. 2015; Wall, Meadow, and Horganic 2017). and related practices have evolved into a highly Individual stakeholder groups rarely have the full participatory and collaborative process that can range of knowledge, experience, and expertise involve multiple stakeholders (government, civil required to tackle complex social, economic, and society, private sector) and have been expanded environmental problems (Berkes 2010). Through to areas such as watershed management (Leimona

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods 112 et al. 2015) and climate policy (Lövbrand 2011). et al. 2015). Using the modes of engagement Currently, coproduction is seen as a process that presented in Table 1 as a reference, the coproduction promotes intensive and repeated collaboration process represents a move away from top-down, between external experts and local experts, as contractual, or consultative relationships and well as other stakeholders such as governments, toward more collaborative, collegial, equitable, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and inclusive forms of interaction (Ahmad, Kyratsis, businesses, with the specific goal of informingand Holmes 2012; Akpo et al. 2015; Higginbottom better decisions, management practices, and and Liamputtong 2015; Meadow et al. 2015). policies (Prokopy et al. 2017; Djenontin andWhen it comes to the actual interaction between Meadow 2018; Vincent et al. 2018). Figure 1 different stakeholders, Pohl et al. (2010) outline describes the coproduction cycle in more detail. two spaces for coproduction: the agora and the In the university research context, coproduction boundary organization. In the agora, researchers, is closely related to Participatory Action Research community members, and other stakeholders (PAR), an approach where the research objectives, gather and interact in a common space where methods, and outcomes are co-developed by they deliberate and negotiate various aspects of researchers and study participants (Baum et al. the proposed project. In such spaces, the “quality 2006). PAR involves the acknowledgement of of dialogue” is particularly important, especially different values and different forms of knowledge when stakeholders hold different views (King as valid and important and seeks to empower and Gillard 2019, 702). It is thus necessary for study participants to design projects that are most researchers to take on the role of facilitators and beneficial to them (Dudgeon et al. 2017). Inan mediate between the different stakeholder interests international development context, coproduction in a way that promotes fairness, sharing, learning, is also used in more applied projects and for and joint problem-solving (Akpo et al. 2015). the generation of specific deliverables, such Coproduction as efforts can also be led by boundary educational programs for farmers and technologies organizations, whose members are professionals for soil and plant management (Almekinders that engage with the different stakeholders and 2011; Dalton et al. 2011; Davis et al. 2012; Akpo facilitate cross-group discussions and negotiation et al. 2015). Scholars have indicated that there are (Pohl et al. 2010). Boundary organizations can different types and levels of engagement between include NGOs, university extension offices, and researchers, community members, and other some local or regional government branches. It stakeholders, as shown in Table 1 (Biggs 1989; is important to note that, while the agora and the Higginbottom and Liamputtong 2015; Meadow boundary organizations are presented as separate

Figure 1. The cycle of coproduction. Source: Adapted from Vincent et al. 2018, 49.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR 113 Popovici et al.

Table 1. Modes of interaction between researchers and other stakeholders. Mode Objective Type of Relationship Stakeholder Involvement Contractual Test applicability of new Unidirectional flow of Primarily as passive recipient technology or knowledge information from researchers of new knowledge or to stakeholders technology Consultative Use research to solve real- Researchers consult with At specific stages of research world problems stakeholders, diagnose the such as problem definition, problem, and try to find a research design, diffusion of solution findings Collaborative Learn from stakeholders to Stakeholders and researchers Continuous with emphasis on guide applied research are partners specific activities, depending on joint diagnosis of the problem Collegial Understand and strengthen Researchers actively Variable, but ongoing local research and encourage local research and development capacity development capacity Source: Adapted from Biggs 1989, 3-4 and Meadow et al. 2015, 183. elements, they are located on a continuum and undermined by several obstacles. These include can also happen simultaneously. For example, a uneven power relations (Bowen et al. 2015; boundary organization can hold an open discussion Wyborn 2015; Farr 2018), failure to build trusting in a public space with a wide range of stakeholders relationships (Bowen et al. 2015; Schuttenberg (Lemos et al. 2014). and Guth 2015), lack of support by the larger-scale Coproduction, however, is not easy. It is a political or institutional climate (Lebel, Wattana, complex, iterative process that requires time and and Talerngsri 2015), as well as differences in effort from scientists, local residents, and other cultural and organizational norms (Castellanos et stakeholders involved (Lemos and Morehouse al. 2013; Campbell, Svendsen, and Roman 2016; 2005). It often requires capacity-building at Cvitanovic, McDonald, and Hobday 2016). multiple scales to enable collaboration and In this paper, we assess the coproduction knowledge sharing between different actors challenges with that arise in the context of changing different experiences and areas of expertiserural livelihoods (van due to shifting socioeconomic Kerkhoff and Lebel 2015). Stakeholders conditions, need to a topic that has been less explored in the build trusting relationships in order to coproduce, literature. Many coproduction initiatives seeking to which takes time and effort (Lemos and Agrawal address issues related to climate change or natural 2006; Bowen et al. 2015; Prokopy et al. 2017), and resource management are conducted with local often includes travel to the sites where coproduction resource users in rural communities (Homsy and deliverables are implemented (Schuttenberg and Warner 2013; Shaffer 2014; Bremer and Meisch Guth 2015). Scholars also advocate for the creation 2017; Laursen et al. 2018). Rural communities of a coproduction “culture” where collaborative are also targeted by coproduction efforts aiming to decision making becomes a common approach to provide services such as drinking water, electricity, solving environmental problems (Lebel, Wattana, and healthcare to marginalized and underserved and Talerngsri 2015). The literature shows that, populations (Sternberg 2011; Munoz 2013; when done right, coproduction can be a highly Brandsen, Steen, and Verschuere 2018; Hutchings effective and rewarding process, producing 2018). However, rural communities around the benefits that are both tangible (i.e., specific tools orworld are undergoing rapid transformations deliverables) and intangible (i.e., new relationships caused by globalization, market integration, and values) (Alford 2002; Poocharoen and Ting and migration, among other factors (Aggarwal 2015). At the same time, coproduction can be 2006; Chimhowu 2019). It is unclear how these

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods 114 socioeconomic stressors affect the coproduction questions about the formal and informal rules process. We specifically analyze these issues in a of the local irrigation commission, government coproduction project conducted by our own team regulations for irrigation water, and other laws or in the Caylloma province of Peru. The project is organizations that regulated water use for farmers. part of a partnership between two universities in As outlined in Table 2, interviewees in the five which scientists attempted to coproduce tools communities included both leaders (irrigation for water and crop management together with commission leaders, mayors) and individuals local water users. This paper is a self-analysis of not holding leadership positions. The majority the coproduction process, reflecting on how the of our interviewees sustained their livelihoods process was implemented by our research team and through agriculture and/or pastoralism. As this the extent to which coproduction was beneficial for study specifically targeted farmers, our research community members in the five districts. participants were relatively homogenous, from a livelihood perspective. All irrigation commission Study Context and Methods members were farmers, as were irrigation commission leaders who performed their duties This study examines the difficulties encountered without remuneration. Some community members in a coproduction effort led by our own Sustainable had different professions such as healthcare Water Management (SWM) team, composed of workers, veterinarians, and tour guides; however, faculty, staff, and students from Purdue University they also practiced some crop farming or in Indiana, USA and the Universidad Nacional de pastoralism. The communities were all similar, as San Agustín (UNSA) in Arequipa, Peru. The SWM most of their residents engaged in crop farming team is one of several research groups that are part or pastoralism. Because this study specifically of the Arequipa Nexus Institute for Food, Energy, targeted farmers, our research participants were Water, and the Environment, which is a partnership relatively homogenous. As will become apparent between the two universities. Over 2018 and 2019, in the results section, all community members who SWM members conducted 144 semi-structured earned their livelihood through farming activity interviews, primarily with community members faced similar socioeconomic pressures. who earn their livelihood through farming and Based on the information obtained from the pastoralism in the districts of Caylloma, Lari, interviews, SWM members then conducted focus Yanque, Cabanaconde, and Majes in the province groups with community members in the five of Caylloma, , Peru (see Caylloma districts in 2019. These focus groups Figure 2 for their geographical location and the gathered feedback on proposed tools for addressing Appendix for more detailed characteristics). Five community water management needs, concerns, of these interviews were conducted with personnel and priorities in a farming context, as identified in in regional water management agencies in order to the interviews. As such, the coproduction process obtain contextual information; however, agencies in the context of this study involved two phases: were not the focus of this study. The purpose of 1) semi-structured interviews, where researchers this initial qualitative research phase was to both asked participants about their water management collect qualitative data to understand the context practices and their specific needs; and 2) focus of watershed management in the region and to groups, where participants were asked to provide gather data about community needs as a first stepfeedback on specific tools for water and crop of our coproduction process. Specifically, our management. Focus groups were conducted using interview goals were to: 1) assess the formal and the agora approach (Pohl et al. 2010), where SWM informal institutions for watershed management researchers worked with local community leaders and 2) identify community needs in terms of water, in each district to organize in-person meetings crop, and pasture management. The interview between the research team and the community questions centered around past and present members who had participated in the semi- water management practices for agriculture and structured interviews. A coproduction approach pastoralism specifically. Participants were asked was considered most appropriate because SWM

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR 115 Popovici et al. researchers wanted to receive as much feedback sought feedback about whether these needs had and participation as possible from farmers when been correctly identified. The team presented a designing the tools, to make sure they effectively preliminary set of tool ideas for water and crop addressed local needs. management. These tools included calculation To obtain feedback on the tools, SWM team methods for estimating crop water use and members conducted a total of five focus groups, irrigation scheduling, fact sheets on 30-year one in each of the study districts. During the historic climate trends, information on regional focus groups, SWM members reported the needs crop quantities and growth stage using remote identified through the semi-structured interviews sensing, and water quality testing kits. About 15 (specific to that particular community) and people were invited to participate in each focus

Figure 2. Study districts in the province of Caylloma, Peru.

Table 2. Number of community-level interviews, focus groups, attendees, and key informants. Location Interviews Focus Focus Group Key Community Informants (n) Groups Attendees (n) (n) Caylloma 32 1 1* • Past and present district authorities (i.e., mayors) Lari 17 1 ~40 • Past and present irrigation commission leaders Yanque 25 1 ~10 • Community members that did not hold leadership Cabanaconde 30 1 ~40 positions Community elders Majes 35 1 ~10 • *Only one person showed up for the focus group in the Caylloma district. We gave them a paper copy of our results summary, but we did not go through the entire presentation of the tools.

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods 116 group, including some previously interviewed encountered during the coproduction process, and community members. Attendance ranged from oneto explain how these challenges contributed to rising to about 40 participants (see Table 2). coproduction costs. We analyzed the transcripts Focus group participants were invited to of 144 semi-structured interviews and five focus provide feedback on the accuracy of the research groups conducted by the SWM team during 2018 findings, on the usefulness of the preliminary ideas and 2019. Interview and focus group transcripts identified by SWM, and on additional tools they were analyzed in NVivo (version 12), a software for would like the team to develop. SWM members qualitative data analysis. We conducted thematic facilitated an open conversation acknowledging coding (Saldaña 2009), identifying commonly the many community needs, the areas of expertise mentioned community needs and obstacles to of the SWM team, and the areas of overlap where coproduction. After the obstacles to coproduction SWM experts could develop tools to address were identified, we conducted process coding specific community needs. Figure 3 is an example (Saldaña 2009) by tracing the chain of events and of a PowerPoint slide that was presented during the underlying causes leading to those obstacles. the coproduction focus groups. The star indicates The codebook was revised by two of the coauthors, the “sweet spot” where certain community who convened to discuss definitions and coding needs intersected with the SWM team’s areasmethods of until agreement was achieved. Interviews expertise. Based on information obtained during were transcribed and analyzed in Spanish, and the the initial focus group, the SWM team developed quotes included in this paper were translated to tools and then revised them following additional English. community feedback to ensure they adequately met community needs. Results At the time of the study, SWM members had two additional visits planned to collect input on This section describes the challenges to tool prototypes and to deliver final products. These coproduction encountered by the SWM team in the additional visits were not yet completed and are context of changing rural livelihoods. We identified not reported in this paper. As part of this research two specific challenges, namely community effort, SWM members also conducted focus members’ declining ability to participate in ongoing groups with staff from regional water management coproduction efforts, as well as the transfer of local agencies. However, the community and agency irrigation water management responsibilities to focus groups were conducted separately, and only regional-level organizations. the analysis of the information from focus groups conducted with community members is explored Declining Ability to Participate in Ongoing in this paper. Coproduction Efforts For this paper, we used the data collected in While coproduction focus groups were well- the first phase to discuss the specific difficulties attended in four of the five study communities, we found that community members had limited ability to participate in longer-term coproduction efforts that required follow up with key community contacts. In all five study districts, we found that community members were under economic pressure to work multiple jobs, reducing their capacity for continual participation in coproduction. Interviewees in Caylloma, Lari, Yanque, and Cabanaconde told us that several decades ago, community members practiced subsistence pastoralism and crop farming. Farmers had few reasons to leave their communities. They would Figure 3. Coproduction focus group objective. barter in local fairs to obtain food, clothes, and other

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR 117 Popovici et al. items. Over time, the economic pressures created their municipalities. Interviewees also said there by globalization and market integration led many was less participation in community celebrations. community members to abandon their farmland Several interviewees made comments such as, and migrate to larger cities or different countries. “Before we were more united, everyone attended These pressures also pushed community members meetings” and “Now, people are less available.” who chose to remain in their district of origin to Reduced ability to participate in group activities commute and take on additional employment. affected the majority of our interviewees across Interviewees told us that the fluctuating pricescommunities. The pressure to commute and/or of crops and the low price of alpaca meat and work multiple jobs affected community members wool (usually sold to market intermediaries for a whose income varied based on market fluctuations. fraction of their market price) pushed them to seek Given that our study districts were populated by other employment opportunities. As one farmer farming communities, almost all our interviewees interviewee put it, “It used to be possible to live and focus group participants were crop farmers from the farm alone. Now we need to work multiple and pastoralists. This included the leaders of the jobs.” Villagers supplemented their income by local irrigation commissions, who were farmers travelling outside their district to larger cities such themselves and did not receive any monetary as Arequipa, where they worked as farm laborers compensation, as well as some mayors and on other people’s farms, tradesmen, shop owners, municipal workers. They reported that the low prices and miners, among other jobs. Some community of crops and of alpaca meat and wool forced them members also held professional positions such as to diversify their income by pursuing additional veterinarians, nurses, engineers, and crop advisors. economic opportunities, leaving them with less It was also common for community members to time to participate in community activities. Even own a house in their district of origin, as well as relatively wealthier community members, with another one in a larger city such as Arequipa, and professional degrees (i.e., veterinarians, healthcare to commute between the two places for work. workers) or employed in the local tourism market A second house in a larger city also enabled(i.e., tour guides, restaurant and hotel owners) told community members to send their children to better us that they worked long hours and/or multiple jobs schools and ensure their employment opportunities which prevented them from attending community outside the farm after graduation. In the coastal meetings. As one healthcare worker and part-time , formed in the more recent 1970s, farmer put it, “I don’t really go to meetings because the original settlers who migrated in the early I’m busy working [in the health center]. […] During 1980s practiced export-oriented agriculture from my free time, I work on the farm. […] I recently the onset. However, interviewees from Majes went to a community meeting after a year of not also reported an increase in out-migration and attending because I happened to be free that day. ” commuting. Community members receiving a fixed and regular In all five study districts, interviewees linked salary included schoolteachers and principals, market pressures, out-migration, and commuting municipal workers (although their position was to decreased ability to organize and to participate usually temporary, lasting until the new election in community meetings and events. As one cycle), priests, and healthcare workers. However, community leader expressed, “There is a lot of out- the wages paid to full-time workers were generally migration and it is difficult to get organized now. low, and it was very rare to find a person that did It is a lot more difficult, even though it’s easier to not have one or more side businesses in addition to communicate with technological advances. We their main job. have cellphones and communicating is faster than Declining community cohesion and participation ever.” in meetings and events posed obstacles for the Specifically, community members in Caylloma, coproduction initiative led by SWM. For example, Lari, Yanque, Cabanaconde, and Majes reported the SWM team sent personalized invitation letters decreased attendance in general assemblies to key contacts interviewed during Phase 1 of organized by their local irrigation commissions and the study. These key contacts included mayors,

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods 118 community leaders, and farmers who indicated members were discussed among SWM members, interest in the coproduction process. Though they it was decided that the scope of coproduction had initially agreed to participate and the focus would be limited to the specific water- and crop- groups were scheduled and confirmed several related issues that fell within the expertise of SWM weeks in advance, many community members had researchers. to make last-minute trips to Arequipa to attend To generate effective solutions, the coproduction to other business. In the districts of Caylloma process would have ideally included members and Majes, none of the key contacts interviewed from regional water agencies and NGOs. during Phase 1 were able to participate in the Personnel in these regional organizations have focus groups on specific dates that were set based a deep understanding of farmer livelihoods and on their own availability. In Caylloma, only one might have been able to brainstorm potential person showed up and SWM members gave him ideas. Therefore, successful coproduction a pamphlet summarizing the research results but not only depends on creating an agora where were forced to cancel the focus group. In Majes, stakeholders can deliberate, but it is also important SWM members managed to gather ten community to include boundary actors that have the power members with the help of local contacts, moments and resources to address community concerns. In before the focus group was scheduled to start. In fact, the inclusion of boundary organizations in the districts of Lari, Yanque, and Cabanaconde, a the coproduction process might be increasingly few community members that received invitation important as rural communities become more letters were present at the focus groups. Additional globalized and integrated into regional markets. community members also became interested and Local Responsibilities are Increasingly decided to attend once the focus group started, a Transferred to Regional Organizations common occurrence in smaller villages. However, members of SWM were not able to follow up with An additional reason limiting community many of their original key contacts. Thus, while members’ long-term participation in coproduction some focus groups were well-attended, they were is that watershed management responsibilities, not always attended by the original contacts, making previously localized, are increasingly being it difficult to establish the ongoing relationships transferred to regional organizations. While necessary to the coproduction process. community members agreed to participate in An additional coproduction challenge was that the coproduction process, many saw water most of the tools developed by SWM were designed management as the responsibility of regional to address discrete and specific challenges related officials. to water and crop management. These included Before the 1990s, water management for apps for selecting an appropriate crop mix given farming practices in Peru was mainly carried water limitations or monitoring the water demand out through local irrigation commissions, which of currently growing crops. As such, the tools were the main bodies governing the allocation only addressed one part of community members’ of irrigation water. Their boards of directors, increasingly diversified livelihoods. Furthermore, composed of elected community members, were the issues that were listed as most pressing by responsible for overseeing the irrigation schedule, farmers were economic in nature, including the amount of water used on each plot, sanctioning for irrigation-related infractions, and irrigation fluctuating crop prices and the lack of agricultural infrastructure maintenance, among other tasks. insurance. Not only were SWM members not Irrigation commissions are still in place today1, qualified to address economic issues, but these issues were too broad in scope to be addressed 1At the time of our study, crop farmers in the districts of by a single team of university researchers. With Lari, Yanque, Cabanaconde, and Majes were organized in today’s globalized economy, farmers need cross- irrigation commissions operating at the sub-district level. cutting solutions that address the issues created by In the Caylloma district, pastoralists did not have formal irrigation commissions because their irrigation needs were markets. While the economic issues that emerged minimal compared to crop farming. However, they were in from the qualitative interviews with community the process of forming them at the time of our study.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR 119 Popovici et al. but they operate in conjunction with regional- to perform canal maintenance and infrastructure level watershed management institutions, which repairs. Now, interviewees report a decline in gradually took on some water management tasks. this practice. One farmer said that “Now, group In the 1990s, the World Bank funded the work is diminishing, little by little.” Furthermore, development and strengthening of regional-level community members made comments such as Water Users’ Associations Juntas ( de Usuarios), “Irrigation canal maintenance and repair are the which are organizations that represent all water responsibility of the Water Users’ Association” and users (and multiple irrigation commissions) in a that “ANA should come and see what infrastructure particular region (Vera Delgado and Vincent 2013). we are missing. For example, [ANA should] help In 2009, the Peruvian government adopted a new us build reservoirs.” Water Resources Law Ley( de Recursos Hídricos) This upward delegation of water management and established the National Water Authority responsibilities (Popovici et al. in press) has (ANA, Autoridad Nacional del Agua), a central made it more difficult to coproduce directly organization with local branches, overseeing water with communities because community members management and distribution throughout Peru now rely on and expect regional organizations (Filippi et al. 2014). Water Users’ Associations and to solve water-related problems. In fact, several local ANA branches took on some responsibilities interviewees reported that “ANA and the Water that were previously conducted by irrigation Users’ Association should be more present in commissions for which farmers now pay a water [their] community” in order to help resolve conflicts fee. Specifically, decisions regarding the irrigation and repair irrigation infrastructure. In theory, the water amount to be used by each farmer are now tools could be distributed by local Water Users’ determined by ANA. Interviewees explained that Associations and ANA branches, which would in the past, they had district-level waterkeepers involve training their personnel in the coproduction that allocated water. One interviewee told us that process. In practice, however, these organizations “My grandfather was a waterkeeper […] He are understaffed and lack the necessary time and resources to participate in the necessary trainings made sure that everyone had sufficient water and to take over tool distribution. This was and that everyone finished irrigating on time. especially true for the Water Users’ Association The waterkeeper worked for free […] It was a located in Chivay, which represented water users form of service to the community. We didn’t pay in Lari, Yanque, and Cabanaconde. The manager […] Now, we no longer have waterkeepers.” of the Water Users’ Association in Chivay told us Now, the irrigation water amount to be used by that “According to the 2009 Water Resources Law, each farmer is determined by the ANA; however, Water User Associations are supposed to have nine local irrigation commission authorities still set the full-time technical staff. But here, we only have irrigation schedule and ensure that farmers do not three.” irrigate past their allocated window. In addition, Thus, we are witnessing a shift in Caylloma’s local conflicts that are difficult to resolve can be rural areas where community members are elevated to the Water Users’ Associations, and then increasingly busy, reducing their ability to to the ANA, which reviews the case and applies the participate in community gatherings and efforts to necessary sanctions. An additional responsibility manage their local water resources. At the same transferred to the Water Users’ Association is the time, government agencies are stepping in and oversight of irrigation infrastructure maintenance taking on some of the local water management and repair. This organization collects annual responsibilities, although these efforts are watershed management plans from irrigation incomplete due to lack of capacity. To address the commissions, who are given the option of paying gap between local needs and incomplete assistance a higher water fee in exchange for help with from regional water agencies, community leaders irrigation infrastructure repair and maintenance. In in some local districts decided to hire experts such the past, community members organized regular as lawyers, hydrologists, engineers, and business faenas (groupwork days), where they gathered experts, to provide technical and targeted advice

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods 120 in exchange for payment (Popovici et al. in press). the transfer of water management responsibilities At the time of our study, irrigation commissions from local to regional organizations. Together, in two of the five districts had hired engineers and these two processes mean that successful hydrologists to design blueprints for a small dam coproduction requires additional elements in order that would increase water supply for agriculture. to be successful. Furthermore, leaders in two other districts had Indeed, coproduction must account for hired lawyers to advocate for a change in ANAcommunity members’ changing livelihoods and water regulations on their behalf. Therefore, we are priorities, posing some obstacles to the iterative seeing the emergence of contractual relationships and intensive relationship-building needed for between experts and community members, which, this process to be successful. In particular, it was according to interviewees, were less common over difficult for community members to participate in ten years ago. coproduction because attending a focus group to During the coproduction focus groups, some provide input might result in missed travel or work of the community members made comments that opportunities. Furthermore, community members suggested they expected to form similar consultant- had multiple occupations and were becoming less client relationships with SWM researchers. For dependent on crop farming and pastoralism, a trend example, some community members expected that has been documented in Peru and other parts us to give them a diagnosis along with proposed of the world (Bryceson 2002; Desta and Coppock solutions to some of their water-related issues 2004; Popovici et al. in press). In contrast, the (i.e., what should be the optimal water quality tools presented by SWM in the coproduction or optimal irrigation schedule). While SWM focus groups with community members (most researchers strived to take on a facilitator role and of whom were farmers) were mainly focused on encouraged brainstorming and open discussion improving water management for agriculture. about potential solutions to water-related issues, Thus, community members may derive fewer some community members made comments such benefits from coproduction focus groups because as “We don’t have enough knowledge. You’re the they only relate to a part of their livelihoods. experts” and “What do you think we should do?” Specifically, it might be necessary to involve While a top-down transfer of ideas is assumed to organizations that can play a boundary role produce less effective and less equitable outcomes, between different stakeholders. This could ease there nevertheless seems to be a demand for quick some of the participation burden for community and expedient solutions from busy community members, as well as some of the travel and other members. Such transfer of knowledge would ease relationship-building costs for researchers. To their participation burdens and free up their time date, much of the coproduction efforts presented to be spent on economically productive activities. in the literature have focused on empowering community members to be able to participate in the Discussion and Conclusions process. However, it might be equally important (if not more so) to focus on building the capacity Coproduction is already recognized as a of regional institutions to conduct coproduction complex and time-consuming process (Lemos and efforts or other appropriate forms of participation. Morehouse 2005; Briley, Brown, and Kalafatis In fact, given the socioeconomic pressures faced 2015). This is because coproduction often requires by community members, the arena of coproduction capacity-building to enable stakeholders to build might have to shift from in-person meetings with relationships with each other, address power community members to meetings with boundary imbalances, and engage with stakeholders in organizations, whose members can represent different areas (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2015).various In stakeholders, including local communities. this paper, we have outlined additional factors that Furthermore, the livelihood changes observed complicate the coproduction process in rural areas, in rural communities pose a new set of challenges namely the decline in community members’ ability when it comes to managing power relations to participate in long-term coproduction efforts and between researchers and community members. In

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR 121 Popovici et al. particular, the heavy participation requirements in The transfer of water management the form of an agora may be a burden for research responsibilities for irrigation to regional water participants who are increasingly outsourcing agencies further complicates the coproduction some of their water management responsibilities process, and changes its focus. The fact that local to regional organizations. Thus, there seems to community members have less decision-making be a local demand for transactional relationships power over the management of their irrigation water with experts, as opposed to intensive collaboration makes it difficult for them to take full ownership that relies on in-person participation. In contrast of the tools developed in the coproduction focus to these trends, SWM researchers assumed that groups. Furthermore, it becomes necessary to a collaborative coproduction approach would be involve regional water agencies in the coproduction the most empowering for community members. process. A possible way to do this is to conduct Nevertheless, the coproduction process imposed coproduction focus groups with both community costs on both researchers and community members members and agency personnel as participants, (Oliver et al. 2019). This indicates that even a present in the same room. This way, participants collaborative approach can be harmful if it is led can be prompted to discuss who will be responsible by a stakeholder group that is well-meaning but for distributing the tools as well as strategies for operating on assumptions about collaboration maintaining tool continuity after they have been and participation that might not match local developed. preferences for more expedient solutions based on However, researchers need to be mindful that more transactional relationships. regional water agencies might not be able to take on Given these challenges, it might be beneficial additional responsibilities due to limited funding for the organizers of coproduction focus groups and high staff turnover (Rahmani 2012), among or other participatory efforts to offer monetary other issues. Coproduction projects thus need to compensation to community members for find a way to build capacity without increasing the attending. In addition, coproduction efforts needburden to for regional water agency staff members. consider and accommodate diversified lifestyles.A possible solution might be to use project funds Initially, SWM researchers attempted to identifyto hire a a local consultant who could work under subset of community representatives that would be the supervision of regional organizations and best suited to participate in coproduction, namely ensure the tools developed through coproduction local leaders and individuals that expressed an are distributed to community members. Another interest in participating in our study. However, solution may be to create a local partnership with these individuals also faced the pressure to travel in-place institutions that can serve as boundary for work and coproduction inevitably became less institutions in the coproduction process. This of a priority. For this reason, allowing more time could provide a level of understanding local for the coproduction process might be necessary in norms and information-gathering, as well as order to identify the community members that have ensure distribution of final products developed to the most time, interest, and ability to participate. community members. Another strategy for approaching busy In sum, successful coproduction must operate individuals, particularly farmers, is through across multiple scales while at the same time individual interviews, rather than focus groups. accommodating community members’ changing In this study, both interviews and focus groups livelihoods. Such efforts are likely to require were conducted in each community. Interviews more funds, time, and effort (Bidwell, Dietz, and better accommodated schedules of the participants Scavia 2013; Briley, Brown, and Kalafatis 2015), because they could be working in the fields during as well as a different model of engagement with the process. Interviews were also generally shorter stakeholders. Rather than relying on a prescriptive than focus group meetings, taking up less time of manual of who to engage in a coproduction process each individual. However, this method may be and a rigid set of procedures of how to engage more time-consuming for the interviewer, as they stakeholders, it is important to recognize that the have to repeat the process many times. coproduction approach itself needs to be responsive

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods 122 and adaptive to the context within which it is purdue.edu or 920 W. State St., West Lafayette, IN applied (Bremer and Meisch 2017). Additionally, 47907. with increased globalization and market integration Anna E. Erwin is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in rural societies, we see less demand for co- in the Purdue University Department of Forestry creation and more demand for expert consultation. and Natural Resources. She is a social scientist who In such a context, a traditional research method conducts mixed-methods research on how to increase with deliverables developed through consultation public engagement in climate change and agricultural might be more appropriate. Coproduction can still policymaking at mulitple scales. She can be contacted at be pursued through boundary organizations, who [email protected] or through www.annaerwin.com. could perform negotiations on behalf of community Zhao Ma is an Associate Professor of Natural members and/or help build local capacity should Resource Social Science at Purdue University. Her communities wish to engage in coproduction research examines how individuals and organizations through the agora method. Ultimately, researchers make natural resource decisions in the context of social- and practitioners who are interested in coproduction ecological change. She can be contacted at zhaoma@ need to carefully consider the following questions purdue.edu or 195 Marsteller Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2033, USA. before, as well as during, the recruitment and engagement of stakeholders: 1) who would receive José P. Pinto Cáceres is a professor in the Department direct benefits from engaging in coproduction?, of Agronomy at the Universidad Nacional de San 2) what capacity do different stakeholders have to Agustín de Arequipa. He conducts agricultural research and connects with interested associations to improve engage in coproduction?, and 3) what can be done natural resource management. He can be contacted to contribute to stakeholders’ agency to influence at [email protected] or Urb. Aurora s/n (costado change as part of a coproduction process? Estadio UNSA) Arequipa - Perú. Regularly reminding ourselves of these important questions and adapting our practices of engaging Laura C. Bowling is a Professor of hydrology in the stakeholders accordingly can greatly improve the Department of Agronomy at Purdue University. Her research investigates the water resources impact of chance of success for all who are involved. environmental change across multiple scales, climate regimes, and ecosystems and communicates these Acknowledgments findings to stakeholders. She can be contacted at [email protected] or 915 W. State St., West Funds to support research in the Arequipa Nexus Lafayette, IN 47907. Institute for Food, Energy, Water, and the Environment were provided by the Universidad Nacional de San Edwin F. Bocardo-Delgado is a principal professor Agustín. We would also like to thank our research in the Department of Biological Sciences and a graduate participants in the districts of Caylloma, Lari, Yanque, Environmental Science professor at the Universidad Cabanaconde, and Majes. Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa. He also works as an environmental consultant for several companies Author Bio and Contact Information and a natural resource management specialist. He can be contacted at [email protected] or Av. Sánchez Ruxandra Popovici (corresponding author) is a Carreón s/n , Cercado Arequipa. Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of ForestryLinda S. Prokopy is a Professor in the Forestry and and Natural Resources at Purdue University. Her workNatural Resources department at Purdue University. She focuses on environmental governance, where she conducts research on the social dimensions of watershed researches the various rules and norms through which management. She can be contacted at lprokopy@purdue. people on the ground manage their natural resources. edu or 195 Marsteller St., West Lafayette IN 47907. She can be contacted [email protected] or 195 Marsteller St., West Lafayette IN 47907. References Katy E. Mazer is coordinator of the Sustainable Water Management team of The Nexus Institute at Purdue Aggarwal, R.M. 2006. Globalization, local ecosystems, University. She engages with stakeholder groups and the rural poor. World Development 34(8): in Arequipa, Peru to coproduce water management 1405-1418. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. decision-making tools. She can be contacted at kmazer@ worlddev.2005.10.011. Accessed December 9, 2020.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR 123 Popovici et al.

Ahmad, R., Y. Kyratsis, and A. Holmes. 2012. When services. Public Administration Review 67(5): 846- the user is not the chooser: Learning from 860. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- stakeholder involvement in technology adoption 6210.2007.00773.x. Accessed December 9, 2020. decisions in infection control. Journal of Hospital Bowen, K.J., F.P. Miller, V. Dany, and S. Graham. 2015. Infection 81(3): 163-168. Available at: https:// The relevance of a coproductive capacity framework doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2012.04.014. Accessed to climate change adaptation: Investigating the December 16, 2020. health and water sectors in Cambodia. Ecology Akpo, E., T.A. Crane, P.V. Vissoh, and R.C. and Society 20(1): 13. Available at:https:// Tossou. 2015. Co-production of knowledge in doi.org/10.5751/ES-06864-200113. Accessed multi-stakeholder processes: Analyzing joint December 9, 2020. experimentation as social learning. The Journal of Brandsen, T., T. Steen, and B. Verschuere (Eds.). Agricultural Education and Extension 21(4): 369- 2018. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging 388. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/138922 Citizens in Public Services. (Routledge Critical 4X.2014.939201. Accessed December 16, 2020. Studies in Public Management). Routledge, New Alford, J. 2002. Why do public-sector clients coproduce? York, New York. Toward a contingency theory. Administration Bremer, S. and S. Meisch. 2017. Co-production in & Society 34(1): 3256. Available at: https://doi. climate change research: Reviewing different org/10.1177/0095399702034001004. Accessed perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: December 9, 2020. Climate Change 8(6): e482. Available at: https:// Almekinders, C.J.M. 2011. The joint development of JM- doi.org/10.1002/wcc.482. Accessed December 9, 12.7: A technographic description of the making of 2020. a bean variety. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Briley, L., D. Brown, and S.E. Kalafatis. 2015. Sciences 57(3-4): 207-216. Available at: https:// Overcoming barriers during the co-production of doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2010.11.007. Accessed climate information for decision-making. Climate December 16, 2020. Risk Management 9: 41-49. Available at:https:// Baum, F., C. MacDougall, and D. Smith. 2006. doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.04.004. Accessed Participatory action research. Journal of December 9, 2020. Epidemiology and Community Health60(10): Bryceson, D.F. 2002. The scramble in Africa : 854-857. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1136/ Reorienting rural livelihoods. World Development jech.2004.028662. Accessed December 16, 2020. 30(5): 725-739. Beier, P., L.J. Hansen, L. Helbrecht, and D. Behar. 2017. Campbell, L.K., E.S. Svendsen, and L.A. Roman. 2016. A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable Knowledge co-production at the research–practice science. Conservation Letters 10(3): 288-296. interface: Embedded case studies from urban Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12300. forestry. Environmental Management 57: 1262- Accessed December 9, 2020. 1280. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267- Berkes, F. 2010. Devolution of environment and resources 016-0680-8. Accessed December 9, 2020. governance: Trends and future. Environmental Castellanos, E.J., C. Tucker, H. Eakin, H. Morales, J.F. Conservation 37(4): 489-500. Available https://at: Barrera, and R. Díaz. 2013. Assessing the adaptation doi.org/10.1017/S037689291000072X. Accessed strategies of farmers facing multiple stressors: December 9, 2020. Lessons from the coffee and global changes project Bidwell, D., T. Dietz, and D. Scavia. 2013. Fostering in Mesoamerica. Environmental Science & Policy knowledge networks for climate adaptation. 26: 19-28. Available at: https://doi.org/https:// Nature Climate Change 3: 610-611. Available at: doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.003. Accessed https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1931. Accessed December 9, 2020. December 9, 2020. Chimhowu, A. 2019. The ‘new’ African customary Biggs, S.D. 1989. Resource-poor Farmer Participation land tenure. Characteristic, features and policy in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from implications of a new paradigm. Land Use Policy Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. 81: 897-903. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. International Service for National Agricultural landusepol.2018.04.014. Accessed December 9, Research, OFCOR Series No. 3. 2020. Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: Cvitanovic, C., J. McDonald, and A.J. Hobday. 2016. User and community coproduction of public From science to action: Principles for undertaking

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods 124

environmental research that enables knowledge Higginbottom, G. and P. Liamputtong (Eds.). exchange and evidence-based decision-making. 2015. Participatory Qualitative Research Journal of Environmental Management 183(3): Methodologies in Health. SAGE Publications, 864-874. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. London, UK. Available at: https://doi. jenvman.2016.09.038. Accessed December 9, org/10.4135/9781473919945. Accessed December 2020. 9, 2020. Dalton, T.J., N.K. Lilja, N. Johnson, and R. Howeler. Homsy, G.C. and M.E. Warner. 2013. Climate change 2011. Farmer participatory research and soil and the co-production of knowledge and policy in conservation in southeast Asian cassava systems. rural USA communities. Sociologia Ruralis 53(3): World Development 39(12): 2176-2186. Available 291-310. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ at: https://doi/org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.05.011. soru.12013. Accessed December 9, 2020. Accessed December 16, 2020. Hutchings, P. 2018. Community management or Davis, K., E. Nkonya, E. Kato, D. A. Mekonnen, M. coproduction? The role of state and citizens in rural Odendo, R. Miiro, and J. Nkuba. 2012. Impact of water service delivery in India. Water Alternatives farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and 11(2): 357-374. poverty in East Africa. World Development 40(2): King, C. and S. Gillard. 2019. Bringing together 402-413. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. coproduction and community participatory worlddev.2011.05.019. Accessed December 16, research approaches: Using first person reflective 2020. narrative to explore coproduction and community Desta, S. and D.L. Coppock. 2004. Pastoralism involvement in mental health research. Health under pressure: Tracking system change in Expectations 22(4): 701-708. Available https://at: southern Ethiopia. Human Ecology 32: 465- www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx. 486. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/ doi.org%2F10.1111%2Fhex.12908. Accessed B:HUEC.0000043516.56037.6b. Accessed December 16, 2020. December 9, 2020. Laursen, S., N. Puniwai, A.S. Genz, S.A.B. Nash, L.K. Djenontin, I.N.S. and A.M. Meadow. 2018. The art Canale, and S. Ziegler-Chong. 2018. Collaboration of co-production of knowledge in environmental across worldviews: Managers and scientists on sciences and management: Lessons from Hawaiʻi Island utilize knowledge coproduction to international practice. Environmental Management facilitate climate change adaptation. Environmental 61: 885-903. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ Management 62: 619-630. Available at: https:// s00267-018-1028-3. Accessed December 9, 2020. doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1069-7. Accessed Dudgeon, P., C. Scrine, A. Cox, and R. Walker. 2017. December 9, 2020. Facilitating empowerment and self-determination Lebel, L., S. Wattana, and P. Talerngsri. 2015. through participatory action research: Assessments of ecosystem services and human Findings from the National Empowermentwell-being in Thailand build and create demand for Project. International Journal of Qualitative coproductive capacity. Ecology and Society 20(1): Methods 16(1): 1-11. Available https://doi. at: 12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06527- org/10.1177/1609406917699515. Accessed 200112. Accessed December 9, 2020. December 16, 2020. Leimona, B., B. Lusiana, M. van Noordwijk, E. Farr, M. 2018. Power dynamics and collaborative Mulyoutami, A. Ekadinata, and S. Amaruzaman. mechanisms in co-production and co- 2015. Boundary work: Knowledge co-production design processes. Critical Social Policy for negotiating payment for watershed services in 38(4): 623-644. Available at: https://doi. Indonesia. Ecosystem Services 15: 45-62. Available org/10.1177/0261018317747444. Accessed at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.07.002. December 9, 2020. Accesssed December 9, 2020. Filippi, M.E., M. Hordijk, J. Alegría, and J.D. Lemos, M.C. and A. Agrawal. 2006. Environmental Rojas. 2014. Knowledge integration: A step governance. Annual Review of Environment and forward? Continuities and changes in Arequipa’s Resources 31: 297-325. Available at: https://doi. water governance system. Environment and org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621. Urbanization 26(2): 525-546. Availablehttps:// at: Accessed December 9, 2020. doi.org/10.1177/0956247814539233. Accessed Lemos, M.C. and B.J. Morehouse. 2005. The co- December 9, 2020. production of science and policy in integrated

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR 125 Popovici et al.

climate assessments. Global Environmental Popovici, R., A. Erwin, Z. Ma, L.S. Prokopy, L. Zanotti, Change 15(1): 57-68. Availablehttps://doi. at: E.F.B. Delgado, J.P. Pinto Cáceres, E.Z. Zeballos, org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.09.004. Accessed E.P.S. O’Brien, L.C. Bowling, and G.R.A. Larrea. December 9, 2020. In press. Outsourcing governance in Peru’s Lemos, M.C., C.J. Kirchhoff, S.E. Kalafatis, D. Scavia, integrated water resources management. Land and R.B. Rood. 2014. Moving climate information Use Policy. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. off the shelf: Boundary chains and the role of landusepol.2020.105105. Accessed December 9, RISAs as adaptive organizations. Weather, Climate, 2020. and Society 6(2): 273-285. Available at: https:// Prokopy, L.S., J.S. Carlton, T. Haigh, M.C. Lemos, A.S. doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00044.1. Accessed Mase, and M. Widhalm. 2017. Useful to usable: December 9, 2020. Developing usable climate science for agriculture. Lövbrand, E. 2011. Co-producing European climate Climate Risk Management 15: 1-7. Available science and policy: A cautionary note on the at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.10.004. making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Accessed December 9, 2020. Policy 38(3): 225-236. Available at:https://doi.org Rahmani, R. 2012. Donors, beneficiaries, or NGOs: /10.3152/030234211X12924093660516. Accessed Whose needs come first? A dilemma in Afghanistan. December 9, 2020. Development in Practice 22(3): 295-304. Available Meadow, A.M., D.B. Ferguson, Z. Guido, A. Horangic, at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2012.664622. G. Owen, and T. Wall. 2015. Moving toward Accessed December 9, 2020. the deliberate coproduction of climate science Saldaña, J. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society 7(2): Researchers. Second edition. SAGE Publications, 179-191. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1175/ Thousand Oaks, CA. WCAS-D-14-00050.1. Accessed December 16, Schuttenberg, H.Z. and H.K. Guth. 2015. Seeking our 2020. shared wisdom: A framework for understanding Munoz, S.-A. 2013. Co-producing care services in rural knowledge coproduction and coproductive areas. Journal of Integrated Care 21(5): 276-287. capacities. Ecology and Society 20(1): 15. Available Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JICA-05- at: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07038-200115. 2013-0014. Accessed December 9, 2020. Accessed December 9, 2020. Oliver, K., A. Kothari, and N. Mays. 2019. The dark Shaffer, L.J. 2014. Making sense of local climate side of coproduction: Do the costs outweigh the change in rural Tanzania through knowledge co- benefits for health research? Health Research production. Journal of Ethnobiology 34(3): 315- Policy and Systems 17(33). Available at: https:// 334. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2993/0278- doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3. Accessed 0771-34.3.315. Accessed December 9, 2020. December 9, 2020. Stensrud, A.B. 2016. Dreams of growth and fear of Ostrom, E. 1996. Crossing the great divide: water crisis: The ambivalence of ‘progress’ in the Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Majes-Siguas Irrigation Project, Peru. History Development 24(6): 1073-1087. Available at: and Anthropology 27(5): 569-584. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2016.1222526. Accessed December 9, 2020. Accessed December 9, 2020. Pohl, C., S. Rist, A. Zimmermann, P. Fry, G.S. Sternberg, H. 2011. Rural electrification: Towards an Gurung, F. Schneider, C.I. Speranza, et al. 2010. application of coproduction and its potential for the Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: case of India. International Journal of Regulation Experience from sustainability research in Kenya, and Governance 11(2): 77-111. Available at:https:// Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and doi.org/10.3233/IJR-120104. Accessed December Public Policy 37(4): 267-281. Available at: https:// 9, 2020. doi.org/10.3152/030234210X496628. Accessed van Kerkhoff, L.E. and L. Lebel. 2015. Coproductive December 9, 2020. capacities: Rethinking science-governance Poocharoen, O. and B. Ting. 2015. Collaboration, co- relations in a diverse world. Ecology and Society production, networks: Convergence of theories. 20(1): 14. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- Public Management Review 17(4): 587-614. 07188-200114. Accessed December 9, 2020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.20 Vera Delgado, J. and L. Vincent. 2013. Community 13.866479. Accessed December 9, 2020. irrigation supplies and regional water transfers

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods 126

in the Colca Valley, Peru. Mountain Research water source and water availability, land owned, and Development 33(3): 195-206. Available at: and main income source. The district of Caylloma https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd-journal-d-12-00119.1. has an elevation of 4,310 meters above sea level, Accessed December 9, 2020. where most crops do not grow. Thus, agricultural Vincent, K., M. Daly, C. Scannell, and B. Leathes. producers interviewed were pastoralists raising 2018. What can climate services learn from theory alpacas, llamas, and some other livestock such and practice of co-production? Climate Services as sheep. The districts of Lari, Yanque, and https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 12: 48-58. Available at: Cabanaconde are small villages largely populated cliser.2018.11.001. Accessed December 9, 2020. by crop farmers who practice small-scale terraced Wall, T.U., A.M. Meadow, and A. Horganic. 2017. agriculture. The main crops grown in these districts Developing evaluation indicators to improve are maize, barley, garlic, broad beans, quinoa, and the process of coproducing usable climate alfalfa. In addition to glacier melt and natural science. Weather, Climate, and Society 9(1): 95-107. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1175/ springs, the districts of Yanque and Cabanaconde WCAS-D-16-0008.1. Accessed December 9, 2020. receive irrigation water from the Majes Channel. The Majes Channel is a government-sponsored Wyborn, C. 2015. Co-productive governance: A relational framework for adaptive governance. Global water diversion project constructed in the 1970s Environmental Change 30: 56-67. Available at: that brings water from the Condoroma Dam near https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.009. the Tuti district (located upstream from the Yanque Accessed December 9, 2020. district but downstream from the Caylloma district) to the coastal Majes District (Stensrud 2016). Thus, Appendix: Characteristics of Our the Majes district is a “new” community that does Five Study Districts not have the same social history as the other study districts. The Majes Channel is the main source of As shown in Table 3 below, our five study irrigation water for the Majes district, where crop districts varied in terms of elevation, population, farmers practice larger-scale agriculture.

Table 3. Characteristics of the study districts. Study Districts Elevation Population Water Sources Average # Main Sources of (m) Hectares per Income Household Glacier melt; Caylloma 3,697 100 Pastoralism; 4,310 Natural springs and rivers Mining industry Glacier melt; Agriculture; Lari 3,330 904 1 Natural springs and rivers Some pastoralism Glacier melt; Agriculture; Yanque 3,417 2,117 Natural springs and rivers; 1 Some pastoralism; Majes Channel Tourism Glacier melt; Agriculture; Cabanaconde 3,296 2,096 Natural springs and rivers; 1.5 Tourism; Majes Channel Remittances

Majes 1,410 60,108 Majes Channel 5 Agriculture

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR