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.