Decentralisation in Africa has become one of the largest political trends across the continent, with an increasingly large amount of government roles and responsibilities being transferred from large, bureaucratic central governments to localised forms of community governance. This form of governance changes the way many of the various public services are provided to the constituents, including access to water.

Decentralisation advocates assert that “because decentralisation brings government closer to the governed both spatially and institutionally, government will be more knowledgeable about and responsive to the needs of the people” (Mirumachi and Van Wyk, 2009). By being closer to the people, government institutions ought to be more knowledgeable and care for the needs of the people they represent. Importantly, they are coming from a smaller area with a greater sense of communal identity; they are the people they represent. Therefore, increased understanding of local needs ought to translate into improved understanding of water infrastructure challenges and solutions.

However, in most local governments there appears to be a tendency towards power struggles that influence water distribution. For smaller communities, local “participants do not necessarily share professional or technical common ground” which can often lead to inequalities in the way that a new water infrastructure system is put into place (Muchara, et al., 2014). When certain individuals in a community have superior technical knowledge and influence within a community, they can change the way that a water system is set up such that it that may be more beneficial to the individual of influence than certain members of the community. This problem emerges in larger international water disputes as well, where research has shown that power asymmetry can significantly affect the equity of water disputes for transboundary water supplies (Zeitoun and Warner, 2005).

Other researchers have noted “participants that may previously have been deprived of the opportunity to engage in negotiations of consensus building face the challenge of having to create and sustain new relationships in water governance” (Mirumachi and Van Wyk, 2009). Thus, as the process of governing water supply becomes more localised, members of the community who beforehand had not had political clout must learn how to represent their own interests and exert influence. In communities that value equity and promote democracy, this does not tend to represent a significant problem. However, as noted in my previous post about IWRM, in some countries local participation is claimed but larger influential actors are truly making all the decisions (Dungumaro and Madulu, 2013). In many instances, local leaders, such as chiefs of certain areas, have significant influence regarding final decision making, whereas many of the poor may have less influence, despite arguments that decentralised government encourages greater participation and voice of the lower classes.

A common framework for assessing community water resource management is through collective action. Collective action occurs when a group cooperates in order to achieve a common goal, such as in the development of new water infrastructure. Although collective action goes far beyond simply political aspects of water management, it is largely affected by the politics of decentralized government, as shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Framework for analysing collective irrigation water management (Muchara, et al., 2014)

Many of these aspects of water management are either directly political (institutional, decision making, regulation and control) or indirectly political (incentives, financial contribution towards maintenance). For instance, community government may choose to disseminate information to all stakeholders with interests in new water infrastructure, or may establish laws that enforce how often and when people may get access to certain water sources (Muchara, et al., 2014). With community government decisions regarding water projects, the social framework of a community will have significant implications regarding the equity of the project and the fairness of the decision making process.

Therefore, decentralized politics have significant implications regarding the overall outcome of water infrastructure projects. If done right, the lack of bureaucratic hierarchy may be the best solution for water management in a community, but it is critical to ensure that local social hierarchies and power politics do not greatly disadvantage the members of community with less social clout.