Getting water in the right hands

As we have seen, water is an essential resource that has become an increasing priority for states in terms of international power struggles and internal governorship. As a result, water often falls in the hands of the elites, whether that means state representatives, rebel leaders, or foreign investors. To define this process, scholars have used the term 'water grabbing,' which refers to 'the appropriation of water and the control of its associated uses and benefits', with the transfer predominantly being from poor, disenfranchised communities to powerful actors.

Those water grabbing hands are closer than you think

In previous blog posts I have offered examples of international water grabbing, but the contestation around water resources in the Omo River Valley shows that water grabbing can take place within national boundaries. Since 2006, this uniquely diverse region has been the focus of a huge hydro-electric dam project, known as Gibe III, which finally opened in 2015. The completion of this dam has had devastating consequences on indigenous groups and radically reduced the Omo's river flow. The University of Oxford predicts that continued use of the dam will mean that 50% of the lake's Omo inflow would be abstracted for irrigation alone, causing the lake to drop by more than 20 metres. In addition to the drastic reduction of freshwater reserves, 'tens of thousands of hectares of land were expropriated' and thousands of locals displaced.

It is not difficult to conclude that the Ethiopian government has completely disregarded the interests of local communities for profit, which has resulted in a myriad of minority cultures suffering a severe curtailment of their basic human rights. Equally, the project bears huge ecological costs since it has side-lined local environmental wisdom, thereby destroying a long-standing system of sustainable living. 

Photograph 1: 

On immediate inspection, it’s easy to see why these top-down approaches are favoured: why engage in an extensive and time-consuming dialogue with consumers when elites can design impressive hydro-projects from the comfort of their office or home? As the Gibe III dam illustrates, many projects, regardless of scale or quality, don’t respond directly to the needs of local consumers. In fact, a survey of sample villages found that 74% of drinking water still comes from traditional sources and only 10% of village water came from improved wells. * This highlights that even with the best intentions, water projects often don't yield their desired outcomes.

Giving power back to the people! 

This slogan, spearheaded by the likes of both Trump and the Black Panthers, has been a popular demand and has also permeated into the field of hydro-politics. The idea of community involvement dates back to the four principles concerted at the 1992 Dublin Conference on Water, which state that ‘water development and management should be based on a participatory approach involving users, planners and policymakers at all levels.’ According to Biswas, such principles offer little practical resonance when faced with the realities of water management and I will, therefore, try to bridge this gap by looking at some real examples of community engagement.

The concept of community management has gained traction in Ethiopia where citizens have started to transform from 'users and choosers to makers and shapers'. In 2003, ‘the Ethiopia Country Water Partnership’ (ECWP) was launched, which brought together over ‘100 members that represent government, NGO, international organization, private sector and bilateral aid agency partners'. This initiative allowed for a more collaborative and sustainable management of water by allowing participants to share information regarding water resources and their uses. For example, in the Berki Catchment, found in the Tigray Regional State, rival groups and competing water uses meant that independent projects served only to fuel conflict and increase water scarcity. Within this region, the ECWP initiated several capacity building activities, such as training courses and workshops which grossly increased cooperation. In addition, the joint forums and multi-stakeholder platforms further mitigated disputes and meant all communities benefited from improved water access. 

Photograph 2: Different stakeholders participating in Berki.

The contrast between the two examples of the Omo River Valley and Berki Catchment clearly demonstrate the huge implications of ignoring local voices. Decentralised participatory platforms thus play an instrumental role in achieving more effective and equitable water management solutions. It is worth noting, however, that communities themselves are not one monolithic entity and instead represent varying voices and interests. As such, bottom-up approaches need to ensure additional efforts are made to incorporate all voices, including women and minorities who are often sidelined during decision making processes. 

* This study takes place in Sierra Leone but  highlights the lack of correlation between top-down water projects and community benefits.