There are many different narratives that exist today about how to politically address the current concern of water scarcity in Africa. Some narratives make arguments that granting Free Basic Water ("FBW") in the constitution of a government is the best way to ensure that the people of a country receive safe, adequate access to water resources; others assert that governments ought to step out of the way and allow for market mechanisms to distribute water in an economically efficient manner. In this blog I intend to dive into some of the intuition of FBW and see whether or not it may work outside the realm of theory.

Most of the current academic literature on water rights makes arguments similar to the following: “the human right to water exists without requiring any legal recognition, if one admits that water is vital to life and the only basis for human rights is being human” (Ziganshina, 2008). The arguments centralize on the rationale that water is a necessity of life, and therefore all humans are entitled to it in order to live. For instance, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life” (ICCPR, 1966). 

So clearly international conferences, epistemic communities and politicians tend to agree that we, as humans, need water to survive. This may seem superfluous, but it is an important starting point for passing legislation that will allow for African countries to get clean water to their people. By establishing a framework in which all are guaranteed access to water, we can move forward with deciding how to fulfill this promise. 

However, we have faced certain troubles in attempting to solve the provisioning troubles of water, as the actual quantity that humans are rightfully entitled to remains ambiguous. In 1977 the United Nations Water Conference resolved that “all peoples, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantities and of a quality equal to their basic needs” (UNWC, 1977). Unfortunately, the UN did not provide any guidance regarding how much water any one individual is entitled to, raising the question of “what are the implications of a human right to water? A right to water cannot imply a right to an unlimited amount of water… how much water is necessary to satisfy this right?” (Gleick, 1998). 

There have been many research coalitions that have attempted to answer this question, in order for us to more successfully understand the amount of water we must generate in order to provide for a decent quality of life. Gleick, 1996 provides some data on the minimum amount of water that individuals need to sustain life. Different research reports vary on the amount suggested for minimum water and water equivalent in direct consumption, ranging from 1.8 liters to 5 liters per day.

Figure 1: Average daily water requirements for survival, in liters of water per day per capita. Gleick, 1996

However, we know that in order to live a healthy life a person needs access to a much greater amount of water than just 5 liters per day. Water is needed for agriculture, irrigation, sanitation, cooking and various other household tasks. Ultimately, Gleick, 1996 recommends an approximate 50 liters per capita per day in order to provide all of the basic household tasks one must perform in order to live a satisfactory quality of life. However, this rate of 50 liters of water for each person daily represents a significant threshold to meet in order to provide for adequate quality of life outcomes.

Many researchers assert that we must meet these basic water levels per capita in order to maintain human dignity and health in developing countries in Africa. In a follow up on previous research, Gleick, 1998 argues that incidences of cholera have soared as a result of governments not implementing programs around a framework with water as a fundamental right. However, even in a framework where water is treated as a guaranteed right, we still have seen water problems from improper legislative implementation.  

When South Africa instituted its Free Basic Water initiatives, it allowed for 6,000 liters per household per month, which provides for roughly 40 liters per day per capita in a family of 5 individuals (Peters and Oldfield, 2005). This was seen as an ambitious program that nearly reached the recommendation of 50 liters per person per day provided by Gleick, 1996. However, the legislation failed to calculate for the fact that most household were larger than 5, sometimes as large 15 or more, especially in poor families. Thus, many poor households needed access to a greater amount of water than was provided for as a basic right. After the minimum amount of water for the month was passed, water rates increased explosively, and many poor families were forced to pay premiums they couldn’t afford. Thus, we experienced the odd phenomena reported by Owusu-Mensah, 2017, where poor families in Africa not only receive water of lower quality, but also tend to pay more for it. 

Ultimately, scientific findings showed that as a result of the new program, “residents in a variety of lower-income and poverty-stricken areas face severely limited access to water, despite adequate infrastructure and extensive Constitutional rights to access basic services such as water” (Peters and Oldfield, 2005). Moreover, this change in payment structure forced many poor families to revert to lower quality water they could find for free, which the epistemic community largely agrees may have led to the cholera outbreak in South Africa in 2001. This consensus goes directly against the argument Gleick, 1998 makes that FBW is needed to end cholera; rather, poor policy implementation of FBW in this instance appears to have actually promoted a cholera outbreak.

Clearly this is not the outcome intended for the poor people of South Africa when the new constitution guaranteed them Free Basic Water. This result came from a political failure to implement a smooth transition into the new water system, where differences in household needs could be recognized, and where payment structures were not created to reflect different needs on a household basis. FBW is no easy thing to promise the people of a country. If legislation will guarantee it, the program must do so carefully and ensure provisioning and pricing truly reflects community needs.

Ultimately, the fundamental guarantee of water as a basic right is something that most people can agree upon. On paper, the intuition makes sense academically and ethically. However, if we are going to use this framework in order to guide policy that promotes water equality in Africa, we must ensure the systems put in place do indeed guarantee water to those who need it, and do not accidentally disadvantage them as a result of the system.

In today’s post I will be discussing one of the most widely adopted approaches to water solutions in Africa: Integrated Water Resources Management ("IWRM"). These principles, born from the 1992 International Conference on Water and the Environment in Dublin, have become one of the most widely accepted approaches to approaching water infrastructure development in Africa, Southeast Asia

The Global Water Partnership provides the following definition:

“IWRM is a process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” (IWRM - Global Water Partnership).

IWRM calls for establishing systems that take a holistic approach to management and ensure that all local actors and stakeholders have a voice in water management. This can come through either direct involvement or via elected locals who take charge of supporting and managing the local water infrastructure. By employing this framework, policy leverages the local knowledge and expertise of community members and provides a means of ensuring equity in the distribution of water once a project has been completed.

In theory this sounds ideal, and in many cases it has proven to be successful. For instance, the Nairobi Water and Sewage Company (NWSC) transformed itself from an ailing, disorganized government utility to a public company that now is much more successful in delivering water across the capital. With the 2002 Water Act, the government had its role in policy formulation reduced, and increased the role of local communities in designing and implementing a water utility system that would meet their needs (World Bank Water and Sanitation Program in Africa). As the role of local governance increased, communities were able to express their own needs. The mix of open dialogue and community engagement with international funding and NGO assistance led to a successful utility company that increased access to clean water across the various communities and districts in Nairobi.

However, it appears that many communities are struggling to implement equitable solutions as IWRM defines it. In a project developed in the Lake Manyara sub-basin that was described as IWRM, Ngona et al., 2003 reported that many local stakeholders affected by the new project had little to no awareness of the project in place; with ignorance came a lack of voice and equitable input regarding the project. This dynamic was arguably worse in Tanzania, where local participation was simply a mask to legitimise decisions that were already pre-determined by local government and influential donors (Dungumaro and Madulu, 2013). In both cases, many ex-post conflicts arose upon completion of the project from resistance of locals who had little influence on the project as it was going through the project formation and approval process. Thus, it appears that, in order for IWRM to be implemented successfully, it needs to be truly equitable and create a structure that is not simply used as a mask to legitimise the decision-making of existing institutions.

Furthermore, the previously mentioned project in Nairobi came with a significant financial cost, over USD $20 million, which was sponsored largely by The World Bank. Although it was successful, many academic are concerned that IWRM is starting to become a prescribed solution for any community struggling with water insecurity. This problem is described in the following claim:

“Integrated water resources management provides a set of ideas to help us manage water more holistically. However, these ideas have been formalized over time in what has now become, in capitals, Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), with specific prescriptive principles whose implementation is often supported by donor funding and international advocacy” (Giordano and Shah, 2013).

The global political prescription of IWRM advocates for a localised approach to water management, as it should. However, from what we have seen in actual implementation it has become anything but a localised solution with local stakeholders engaged in constant interactions with national and global actors. Although the resources and expertise of international NGO’s and donors are often welcome and helpful in creating solutions to local water problems, a rigid definition of IWRM may impede certain communities from being able to receive much-needed funding for water infrastructure overhauls.

Thus, we are already seeing some issues with the use of IWRM as a water management term. A report by the UN World Water Assessment Program found that approximately 75% of countries in the program used IWRM in the writing of legislation, even when the actual IWRM does not appear to have been put in place (UN World Water Assesment Program, 2009). Many programs have made few changes at all to the planning process, but do so under the name of IWRM in order to attract political support, NGO involvement, and capital from donors.

Ultimately, it is important that NGO’s and other international organizations provide assistance to local governments in Africa as they seek ways to serve their people and solve their water provisioning issues. However, if IWRM becomes a drug that we prescribe developing countries instead of a truly community-based approach, it may inhibit our ability to truly provide assistance to communities in need.

Hello, and welcome to my blog African Water Politics: Actors and Frameworks in Water Development. Over the course of this blog I will be discussing the complex role that politics plays in addressing the problem of water provisioning across Africa. The continent houses many different types of governments and societies of various levels of development with different needs. There are many various frameworks and political actors across the water development landscape, and I hope to discuss the roles that each of these concepts play across the continent, applying a critical lens to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each topic. 

First, an understanding of why this water problem exists must be developed. Water, above all other resources, is critical in ensuring a dignified quality of life. It is used in almost everything we do from industry and recreation to sanitation and agriculture. Without adequate access to safe water, life expectancy and food security decline steeply. Unfortunately, many countries in Africa have for a long time been constrained in ability to provide clean, fresh water to the people who live there. The reasons for this are many, but include inconsistent precipitation across much of the continent, a lack of sufficient infrastructure, environmental change, and an exploding population that requires greater amounts of water to sustain its people on a per capita basis (Falkenmark, 1989). 

A common misconception is that many people envision Africa as a continent that is harsh and dry, whereas in many cases annual precipitation may be abundant and more than adequate to provide for the people of the region, as shown in Figure 1.  

 Figure 1: Annual average precipitation (mm) across Africa, based on ECMWF corrected ERA-Interim data from 1989-2010. European Commission JRC 2012

However, many of the countries that receive significant rainfall still struggle with water insecurity. This is because the problem of water insecurity goes beyond the role of geography and natural resources. In many places, it is a human-induced problem, or at a least a problem that humans have yet to successfully solve.

As the countries in Africa continue to expand and develop, local governments and political institutions will play a significant role in ensuring (or not ensuring) clean water for their people. There are many opinions on the role politics must play in solving the water conflict. Some argue that a constitution protecting the right to free water is paramount, whereas others argue that governments ought to promote the privatization of water to economically incentivise companies to provide the service, similar to public utilities in larger developed companies. However, is it fair to commodify a resource that is a public good by nature, even if it improves the access to the resource for all?

In most cases, there is no immediately right answer as to how to distribute water in an equitable process. Situations vary significantly on a case-by-case basis, and the governments of each country must consider what may work best in their own unique situation as it relates to their geography, population distributions, local infrastructure, and economic and natural resources. Thus, in this blog I will look into the complex decisions made regarding water conflicts and intend to discuss and assess various case studies where politics were involved in water provisioning. By dissecting why certain projects were successful and others unsuccessful, I hope to further understand what actions a government body can take to promote equitable access to water for its people.