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not permanently live in the surrounding area of the basin but show a great reliance upon the water resources that are withdrawn from the basin nevertheless (United Nations University, 2011).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!