Western Values Challenged Part 5 - How to fight against the elite groups

Over the last few posts, I have examined water resources management in Africa taking the Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands as an example, with the three questions being addressed. Today, I would like to consider the following final question.

3) How can we ensure the needs of small local groups/institutions will be met without their being politically hampered by the elite groups of authorities.

Photo.1 sharing water is not free of political challenges (Reference: Model UN, 2016)

The question above essentially highlights the fact that the way water is managed is often largely influenced by the national elite (Mehta et al, 2014). It is clear that they have sufficient funds to bribe other institutional groups to support their management option they raise in the course of discussion. Indeed, World Water Week (2014) once suggest that 'corruption is both a cause as well as a result of poor water governance'. In order to combat the corruption in water management, there are a number of suggestions that can be considered to be effective.

In the study undertaken by World Water Week (2014), the find that anti-corruption movement is increasingly in favour of the 'sectoral approach' to fight corruption. They argue that 'sectoral reforms can reinforce the effectiveness of general public administration and sector specific knowledge is critical to understand the risks, pressures, and resistance to reforms'. The report published by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (2006) defines the public sector reform as being 'consisting of deliberate changes to the structures and processes of public sector organizations with the objective of getting them to run better' (International Centre for Parliamentary Studies, 2012). The examples of reform include increasing integrity and transparency, and formal legislation that support transparency, and corporate governance of water utility companies (UNDP Water Governance Facility (WGF), 2015). Here, I would like to the first two examples.

In Malawi, for example, they adopted, so-called, Corruption Prevention Policy, which outlines how all stakeholders detect, report, prevent and deal with corruption and promote transparency and accountability (UNDP Water Governance Facility (WGF), 2015). This is in response to the result of the 2006 Governance and Corruption Baseline Survey which reveals that 'public institutions that are characterised by low levels of requests for gratification (bribes) include the postal service, the bureau
of standards, public health services, and water boards (Governance Baseline Survey, 2006). In fact, about half of the population (10 million) have access to water-supply facilities with only 32% of these have access to potable water across the year. The rural population is the most severely affected by the poor management so that they are mostly dependent upon unsafe gravity-piped water supply, shallow wells and boreholes (UNDP Water Governance Facility (WGF), 2015). In order to improve the quality of water regardless of the socio-economic status, the above policy is believed to help the water boards consider the equity in water supply.

In South Africa, there is a formal legislation regarding water resources management, known as 'Water Services Act No.108' in 1997 together with 'The National Water Act No.36' in 1998 (Governance Baseline Survey, 2006). The former introduces the regulatory framework for the provision of water services by local authorities whereas the latter establishes the framework for water resources management and protection by all the stakeholders being involved. The significance of this law is to promote community participation in water management with 'the objective of achieving a balance among the interests of water users, potential water users, local and provincial government and environmental interest groups (Governance Baseline Survey, 2006).

Furthermore, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) runs an anti-corruption hotline
through which 'stakeholders can report unethical behaviour and wrongdoings anonymously and confidentially and steps are taken to investigate allegations and pursue necessary actions' (Governance Baseline Survey, 2006). Certainly, the combination of the inclusive water management with the anti-corruption measure greatly helps improve transparency and prevent briberies.

Despite the counter-measurement, it is argued that even with briberies being avoided, it does not necessarily mean that the voices of small local groups / institutions will be equally valued as much as those elite groups. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, politically less powerful local groups tend to be less educated to present their views on scientific basis, which is the most powerful tool in politics. It is known that some humanitarian NGOs help train them, however, it is often criticized that it does not help reflect the local's perspective but those who fund them on the back (Mehta et al, 2014).

Secondly, the above bribery measure is often concentrated at higher political level not community level. The problem is that a village head is often formally 'paid' for his community governance by the regional/national government, and this encourages him to follow the will of the government but community members (Adams and Thomas, 1996). The consequence is that the needs of community may not be reflected in the course of discussion in IWRM.

For the above problems, I think it is necessary to set up a platform in which small groups like at community level are supported by multiple institutions which cooperate with to manage the progress as well as monitor each other. This needs to be a legally binding force that ensures the system so that both community groups and institutions are motivated enough to keep working together. It is also vital to employ the warden of the system to whom any suspicious case can be reported by the members. In this way, small local groups can manage to prevent regional political corruption and build the capacity to better engage in the discussion regarding water resources management with those who are more politically powerful in general.

To conclude, the answer to the question raised at the beginning is basically to provide anti-bribery measures at both national and regional levels as well as to set up a platform where they are provided with supports from various stakeholders. It is essential to develop the system under the force of law in order to ensure the sustainability of the new management force. If you have any question or would like to share your thoughts feel free to write a comment below! 

Western Values Challenged Part 4 - What defines equity?

In the last post, I addressed one of the three questions I have raised in the last two post - 'how do you define who should be involved?', highlighting the fact that migratory tribes and environmental migrants are often disadvantaged. The discussion ends with the conclusion that the minority groups should also be eligible to participate in the water resources management, yet, there are a number of difficulties associated with it. If you are interested in reading further, here is a link to my previous blog post. In this post, I would like to discuss the second question:

2) How can we quantify the degree of equity among different individuals/stakeholders?

Photo.1. Agriculture in Africa (Reference: the World Bank, 2015)

The question above fundamentally deals with the fact that the values of water resources go beyond simply water for drinking, cooking and treatment, which we all consume in every day manner. It changes the form into agricultural crops, fishes, and sometimes non-monetary goods such as ecosystems (Zagg, 2005). The latter case is often dismissed due to the difficulty to assess the economic values of, ecosystems, for example. Therefore, sharing the same amount of water directly withdrawn from the basin does not mean that the resources are equitably distributed among individuals.

In order to draw a full picture of water resources, the concept of IWRM can be useful since it assesses the values of water from a number of different perspectives (Savenjie and Zaag, 2008). There are mainly four dimensions; natural dimension; human dimension; spatial scale; and temporal scale. Natural dimension takes the entire hydrological cycle including stock and flows. It classifies fresh water resources into blue, green and fossil water (Haileslassie et al, 2014). The first is the water that flows and is stored such as in rivers, lakes, active shallow aquifers, and wetlands. These are often managed by water resources planners (Molden, 2007). By contrast, green water is the one stored in the unsaturated zone and is responsible for the production of biomass (Molden, 2007). This type of water is often neglected in managing resources because it cannot be directly used for human's consumption. However, 60% of the world's agricultural crops and forest's materials are produced using green water. Fossil water is in deep aquifers, which are essentially non-replenishable because the flows are either not active or not fast enough to keep up with human's withdrawal (Molden, 2007).

Human dimension evaluates the economic interests of water resources (Savenjie and Zaag, 2008). It is more demand side perspectives because water resources are understood in monetary terms. The concept of 'virtual water'  is born out of this perspective (Gupta, 2010). It is where products are expressed in the amount of water used in its production. Spatial dimension deals with the fact that the scale of water resources stored in the basin significantly influences the availability of water, for instance, individual users, village, watershed, catchment and basin (Savenjie and Zaag, 2008). Basins are generally considered the most appropriate units for operating management, however, there is a barrier to the institutional arrangements because the basin often extends beyond one single political boundary (Thompson, 2000). Note that the geopolitical concerns shall be discussed in the next post when I address the third question relevant to the point. Temporal dimension, lastly, highlights the significance of temporal fluctuation of the availability and demand of water, due to seasonality of crop production and the local climate (Savenjie and Zaag, 2008).

Photo. 2 Water dam at the Blyde River Canyon, Mpumalanga, South Africa (Reference: Nkem et al, 2011)

These four dimensions are critical to understand the full values of water resources. Natural dimension, in particular, is the most significant of all because it takes into account the indirect values of water as I mentioned earlier. In the case of Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands, wetland communities are heavily reliant upon blue water in floods season and upon green water after floods so that crops can be produced using the residual water (Thompson, 2000). On the other hand, upstream populations who constantly practice irrigation depends solely upon blue water, and that is the reason why they would prefer to damming the rivers to keep resources when dry season comes. Similarly, fishes are an indirect outcome of the wetlands' water resources, and its monetary values are enormous especially in downstream communities (Thompson, 2000).

Obviously, fulfilling the potential of these production, both of the quantity and quality of water needs to be sustained at appropriate level. The implication is that whether different individuals and stakeholders residing across the basin receives an equitable amount of benefits from water resources is not to do with the average required amount of water for human life. Instead, I guess the following key question will help address the question raised at the beginning of this post:

- How much water is required to sustain 'a good quality of the environment' in which they depend upon for production of food and economic goods that can support their life either directly or indirectly?

The above question places a focus upon the land rather than water itself. I think considering the wellbeing of land, such as through assessing the healthiness of ecosystems is more appropriate because it reflects the feasibility of food production as well as direct water withdrawal. Although the quantification of water in this way can be complicated by the introduction of virtual water, I believe it helps draw a true picture of how much water is required to sustain individual's life. This land-based / ecosystems-centred perspective then leads to equitable sharing of water resources. In the next post, I will try to answer the third question and complete this series of blog posts on Africa's wetlands management.

Western Values Challenged Part 3 - Who wins and loses

In the last post, I explained about the complex nature of basin-wide management, namely integrated water resources management (IWRM). It is essentially because a basin is utilized and managed by a number of authorities, and their political boundaries frequently cut across the hydrological boundary (Barbier and Thompson, 1998). Today, I would like to put a primary focus upon the first question of the following that I raised in the previous part:

1) How do you define 'who should become involved'?

2) How can we quantify the degree of equity among different individuals/stakeholders?

3) How can we ensure the needs of small local groups/institutions will be met without their being politically hampered by the elite groups of authorities.

Photo.1 (Reference: ManageWaste.org, 2015)

The question is to do with the degree of involvement of those who influence / depend on water resources in the basin. In general, a number of different institutions such as national and local government, environmental and humanitarian NGOs, agricultural and fishery associations as well as community / village representatives are invited to discuss the concerns over the use of their shared water. Zagg (2005) describes it as 'the agreed solution; the one over which consensus among all interested parties has been reached'. 

However, the problem is that it does not always involve migratory tribes / environmental migrants who do not permanently live in the surrounding area of the basin but show a great reliance upon the water resources that are withdrawn from the basin nevertheless (United Nations University, 2011). Or, when tribes from other countries or linguistic areas flee from severe drought to the basin, how can the basin management be sustained? In Kano, the city in Nigeria, for example, the population has shown a ten fold increase from about 130,000 in 1950s to more than 2 million today (Zacchaeus, 1982). This has been accelerated by the city's economic potential. The majority ethnic groups are Hausa and Fulani who are indigenous to the area with the minorities including Yorubas, Kanuris, Igbos, Tivs and others (Zacchaeus, 1982). The latter groups started residing outside the ancient walled city of Kano (known as 'Birni') where they created new towns called 'Sabongari' once they migrated into the area (Zacchaeus, 1982). Considering the frequent and more prolonged droughts occurring due to climate change in the surrounding area (especially in Sub Saharan Africa), the rate is expected to remain high. However, this poses both physical and material pressures to the area, which can hinder socio-economic growth through pollution, lack of social welfare, and potentially internal conflicts. 

In Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands, such tribes are considered to be disadvantaged because they are not adapted to local cultures and traditions that strongly rules how people practice agriculture and fishery (Thomas, 1994). For instance, fishermen cannot catch fishes without a legal permission from a village head, and sometimes, they have the assigned time and date when all fishermen from the village and neighborhoods are invited to go for collective fishing with festive celebrations being followed (Thomas, 1994). Similarly, the land for agriculture and the timing of irrigation from a main river channel is strictly managed by the village / water head (Adams, 1993). Generally, lawbreakers from outside the community are not punished straightaway but are given a warning to be prosecuted to upper governmental bodies such as local / national authority because they are assumed to be little aware of the local regulation. It is usually enough motivation for the outsiders to follow the local rules as they are afraid of being legally forced to pay high fines to their 'illegitimate' action. 

Photo.2 shows environmental migrants (Reference: United Nations University, 2011)

Here, I wonder whether the voices of the minorities can be, or should be heard in the integrated water resources management in the basin. I understand that immigrants first have to learn the way of life in the land of destination, yet, I doubt if any of them can really manage to make their voices heard in IWRM in long term. Today, traditional ethnic groups such as Hausa and Fulani run their fishery foundation and agricultural associations, which are already integrated into the basin-wide management practice. Obviously, the involvement of local residents is essential to ensure the public interests such as equity, poverty alleviation and food security will be met (Savenjie and Zaag, 2008). Yet, are these available to the newcomers any time in the future? This relates to the second question.

I believe these minorities should be involved in the decision-making of the water resources management. As Savenjie and Zaag (2008) argue, water is a basic requirement for human life and survival, and therefore, society has to defend the uses of water in public interest. The argument is based upon the assumption that water if a free public good (Savenjie and Zaag, 2008). For instance, their demand for water in the land of arrival can be justified using scientific knowledge that proves the severity of droughts in the land of their origin. If the use of water crashes with the demand of the local community, I propose there should be a series of discussion with an intermediate from the third party, preferably a member of the IWRM within the basin, to reach an agreement to the extent to which the amount of water will be used by them as well as its timing. 

Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and difficulties with the involvement of minority groups. Firstly, they are usually not educated to present their position with a scientific evidence. This makes it difficult to give a clear justification to their use of water without support from the third party such as humanitarian NGOs, therefore, complicates the assessment of equity too. It can be costly, and the motivation of the supporters is highly dependent upon the interest of donors, which can not always be sustained for long time. Secondly, the linguistic barriers can be another constraint to the agreement between local community and the migratory groups. It is often the case in Sub Saharan Africa where the movement of people are very common due to the migration of ITCZ (Richard, 2004). 

Furthermore, there is a conflict between 'community interest, the public interest, and sustainability' (Savenjie and Zaag, 2008). To put into another word, there are multiple interests to the management of water resources in the basin. For instance, if the priority is placed upon sustainability of water resources, the amount of water available to people is expected to decline. Likewise, if the community continues to allow the increasing use of water to support migrant groups, which, from an humanitarian point of view is regarded ethically right, the long-term sustainability of water can be threatened. This clearly problematises the water resources management where immigration is frequent.

Therefore, the answer to the first question should take into consideration the following: a) who historically influences / contributes to the hydrological system of the basin; b) who has NO alternative choice to water available in the basin; c) who can advise a long-term strategy to sustain water resources without dismissing the humanitarian aspects. In the next post, I will try to discuss the remaining two questions. Any thoughts or questions are welcome as always!