On 17th October, 2025, Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS) hosted a hybrid-format session as part of the Future Himalayan Research Seminar, featuring Professor Maarten Loopmans from the University of Leuven, Belgium. Prof. Loopmans presented on the concept of “Social Material Bricolage and Irrigation Infrastructure.” Drawing on case studies from Turkey and Malta, he explored how communities adapt to new technologies and institutional frameworks through improvised, locally grounded responses that reshape both infrastructure and governance. The 90-minute session included a detailed presentation followed by an interactive discussion.
Dr. Anushiya Shrestha, thematic Lead-Water at SIAS opened the session by introducing Prof. Maarten Loopmans, a distinguished scholar from the University of Leuven, Belgium. With over two decades of research experience across Turkey, China, and Belgium, Prof. Loopmans specializes in urban and rural marginalization, environmental justice, and water governance. He is currently editor-in-chief of 2 Diamond Open Access journals (Belgeo; Ruimte & Maatschappij) and board member of Alterfin, a cooperative investment fund investing in sustainable smallholder farming and microfinance institutions.
The first half of the session was dedicated to the presentation, followed by a discussion segment.
Prof. Loopmans introduced the concept of socio-material bricolage. The term builds on Francis Cleaver’s theory of institutional bricolage, which focuses on social production and evolution of institutions.
Drawing evidence from the cases of irrigation infrastructures in Turkey and Malta, Loopmans discussed the socio-material bricolage concept. Through these cases, he illustrated how infrastructure and institutions co-evolve, shaped by local politics, resource availability, and collective action for accessing water, regulating behavior and facilitating predictability similar to formal rules and organizations.
His first case study examined Ağlasun, a village in Turkey in Taurus Mountains. Here, the municipality introduced drip irrigation by installing plastic pipes inside old concrete canals rather than building new systems. This practical blending of old and new reflected how communities creatively adapt infrastructure to local realities. Adoption varied depending on proximity to the new pipes, showing how economic and geographic factors shape technological uptake. Drawing on Jessica de Koning’s metaphor of a rock thrown into a pond, Loopmans described how new systems may bounce off, sink into, or reshape existing ones. In Ağlasun, some farmers kept using surface irrigation with the new pipes, some repurposed old canals to protect them, and others negotiated new rules to prioritize water use. These responses were political as well as technical, rooted in local councils and everyday relations.
The second case came from Malta, where treated wastewater or “new water” was introduced for agriculture in 2018. The government built a network of dispensers connected to a reverse osmosis plant, but farmers had to manage distribution themselves. The placement of dispensers reflected political lobbying, and water pressure declined significantly toward the tail end of the network. Farmers responded with different strategies. In some places, they cooperated informally to extend pipelines and rotate access, while elsewhere competition led to conflict and fragile compromises. These practices revealed how infrastructure shapes social relations, influencing access, cooperation, and conflict.
The discussion, moderated by Dr. Dil Khatri, brought in perspectives from SIAS researchers. Questions focused on equity, gender, power, and the agency of infrastructure. Sanjaya Khatri raised issues of inequality between head-end and tail-end users. Loopmans explained that although everyone paid the same fee, tail-end farmers were disadvantaged by low pressure and weak regulation. Dr. Meeta S. Pradhan asked about gender and politics; Loopmans noted that farming in Malta is male-dominated and that political lobbying determined infrastructure placement. Responding to Binod Adhikari, he affirmed that infrastructure itself shapes behavior by structuring opportunities and constraints.
Other participants linked the discussion to Himalayan water contexts. Dr. Gyanu Maskey reflected on water-sharing in Diktel, while Dr. Govinda Poudel asked about collective farmer organizations. Loopmans observed that informal arrangements often replaced formal governance, though not always equitably. Responding to Dr. Dilli Poudel, he situated his work within structuration theory and Bob Jessop’s strategic relational approach. He also highlighted how delays and corruption often undermined infrastructure maintenance.
In his concluding remarks, Prof. Loopmans emphasized that infrastructural development is rarely linear or entirely planned. Communities reinterpret and reshape technologies, creating hybrid arrangements that reflect local priorities, power relations, and practical needs. His examples from Turkey and Malta revealed how infrastructure and institutions co-evolve in messy but creative ways.
Dr. Dil Khatri closed the seminar by noting the relevance of these insights to Himalayan water governance. Understanding bricolage, he said, helps explain how communities adapt to changing resource systems, offering valuable lessons for policy and practice. The seminar demonstrated that behind every irrigation system or pipeline lies a social process negotiated, improvised, and deeply local.