Water Management andConflicts in Africa: The Roleof Knowledge andTechnology

Chris Huggins

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES No. 26

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network, P.O. Box 10081, 00100
General Post Office, Nairobi, Kenya.

© 2006 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

PUBLISHED BY ATPS COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENTABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary network of researchers,
policy makers, actors in the private sector and other end users interested in generating, promoting
and strengthening innovative science and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in
Nairobi, the network operates through national chapters in 23 countries, with an expansion plan tocover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policy makers, legislators,
the organized private sector, civil society, mass media and farmers’ groups through publications,dialogue and advocacy. Among its range of publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS),
Research Paper Series (RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
Papers published under the ATPS Special Paper Series are those commissioned as concept
papers, think pieces, leading conference papers and keynote addresses. In keeping with
our knowledge brokerage function, ATPS publishes, with permission of the author(s) or
journal editors, papers (published or unpublished) produced by distinguished academics/
researchers for a different purpose but judged by ATPS to be of excellent quality. Thesepapers address significant policy questions relevant to the work of ATPS and/or support
the Southern voice or an African perspective. We also consider theoretical papers that
advance our knowledge of science and technology policy issues.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank,
the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, InfoDev,
and the Royal Dutch Government.

Table of Contents

Introduction
2 Overview
3 Case Studies
4 Knowledge,Technology and Institutions
5 Conclusions
References

1
3
5
15
17
20

Introduction
Over the last two decades, a plethora of studies have investigated the actual and potential links
between environmental change and violent conflict. In general, the idea of ‘environmental sourcesof conflict’ has been highly influential, especially in Western countries. The claim that, “the wars of
the twenty-first century will be fought over water”1 is so widely-spoken of to have become almost acliche. Analysts point primarily to the volatile geo-political situation surrounding the Nile basin, or the
strategic importance of the rivers of the Middle East, as evidence for this view.
However, others, especially in the southern countries, remain skeptical of the significance ofenvironmental issues in the genesis of conflict. In terms of ‘water wars’, for example, they point to thefact that very few violent conflicts have been fought over or around 2 water sources; and these have all
started due to other reasons.
One of the reasons for disagreement is conceptual misunderstandings over the definition of ‘conflict’;
another is the complex, changing, and multi-dimensional nature of conflict. The concept of conflictmust be unpacked in order to be understood: is it violent non- violent? If violent, is it high- or lowintensity? Who are the actors involved? Broadly, at which level does it take place: local, national, orinternational? How do the many different forms of conflict in Africa today influence each other?
Conflict is a complex phenomenon, a product of many diverse social, economic, political, andcultural processes. Many violent conflicts in Africa have gone on for many years, and the actors,
motivations, resource flows and strategies have changed over time. Often, the causes andmanifestations of conflict are purposefully obscured for the self-interest of those involved: for example,
ideology is often utilized as a handy cloak to obscure more materialistic motivations.
The topic is huge, and this paper will only attempt to sketch out some key issues. It first makes
reference to the debates (within academic and political contexts) over the existing and potential
significance of water as a source of conflict in Africa. It then offers working definitions of conflict (atI

See. for instance. Ohlsson. Leit: 1995, Hydropolitics, Zed Books/ ‘University Press. Dhaka. BangladeshWorld Commission on Dams. World Commission on Dams Challenges ‘Water war’ Rhetoric. Pr\:s~ Relea~e.2000

2

1

2

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

local, national, and international levels) with relevance to Africa. Then, based on brief case studies
the paper provides some examples of key issues in disputes at the interstate, national, and local
level.
While acknowledging that water management can be a factor in conflict, the paper acknowledges
that, through a variety of technological, policy and institutional innovations, water management in
Africa also has the potential to act as a source of co- operation and mutual benefit between
communities and nations. Perhaps the main point of the paper however, is that ideas of conflict overwater should be broadly defined, to include debates over water allocation and pricing, for example.
Such issues, though not directly leading to bloodshed, are as significant as violent conflicts in tern1Sof their effects on livelihoods.

1.

Overview

1.1

Discourse on ‘Water Wars’

The idea of conflicts over water -particularly over international shared watercourses - appeals tocommon-sense understandings of conflict. About 60% of global river flow occurs in internationalriver basins, which straddle national boundaries... The majority of all international river basins, some
62% of them, are found in Africa3. The threat of conflict is presumably higher now than ever, due toincreased demand for water and reduced availability, due to environmental deterioration, reduced
efficiency of aging infrastructure, and other factors.
A number of high-profile personalities have made statements over the possibility of conflict overwater, including President Anwar Sadat who declared in the spring of 1979 that “The only matt~~ that
could take Egypt to war again is water”, implicitly directing his threats at Ethiopia.’.. In 1988, BoutrosBoutros Ghali (Egypt’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs at the time) said that, “... the national
security of Egypt is...a question of water.” Ismail Seragaldin of the World Bank also famously warned
that, “the wars of the next century will be over water.” Thomas Homer-Dixon, a well-known theorist in
the field of ‘environmental conflict’, also argues that, “the renewable resource most likely to stimulateinterstate resource war is river water”iv.
However, the issue is not a new one. As long as four and half thousand years ago, a war was fought
between two city-states in Mesopotamia (now Southern Iraq) over disputed water supplies.v Since
then, much of the attention has remained focused on the Middle East- particularly the role of water
resources in relationships between Israel and its neighbours. This is due both the levels of water
scarcity in the region, as well as the history of violent interstate conflict in the region (it is interesting
to note that water is managed in Israel by the Ministry of Defence). In addition, parts of South Asia arealso seen as high-risk, due to high levels of population growth and population density, coupled withdegradation of highland catchments, and the significance of lowland rice- production for food security.

3

Powers, K. (2004 )3

4

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

Particular areas of Africa are also on seen as problematic; with much attention focusing on the Nile
Basin, and Southern Africa. Specifically, of 17 basins identified by a major research project as beingat risk of ‘political stresses’ over water resources, 8 are African, including the Lake Chad, Incomati,
Kunene, Limpopo, Okavango, Senegal, and Zambezi basins.vi. The Nile is already considered to beunder political stress but of course, efforts are underway to address this through the Nile Basin
Initiative.
Over the past decade, the idea of conflict over water has certainly captured the popular imagination.
A Google search for online material on “conflicts over water”, for example, provides links to 12,000
sites. It is significant though that for the much more media- friendly soundbite ‘water wars “ some
155,000 sites are found. This may be an indication of the way in which the issue has been treated press coverage has been much more persuasive and frequent than in-depth, systematic research.
Similarly, many of the verbal warnings or public relations ‘conflicts’ over water, such as statements by
Kenyan politicians advocating ‘water for oil’ swaps regarding use of the Nile by downstream riparians,
do not have official sanction. Hence, much of the public face of conflict over water may be ‘sabre
rattling’. In an exhaustive study, 62% of all international conflictive or cooperative events over water
were verbal statements or exchanges, of which two-thirds were not officially sanctioned4. According
to this study, no water war has occurred since 2,500 BC. Of the 37 military events related to water
were recorded, 30 were between Israel and its neighbours. Overall, the study found cooperative
events to be twice as common as conflictual events. In general, the study found that shared water
resources tended to act as an irritant in situations where states were already at odds; or as a positive
factor when relations were good. It is important to - note that this study only looked at the international
level. The lead author has acknowledged that within states, violence related to water resources has
occurred and continues to occur .
However, as with most fields of research, and conflict studies in particular, there is a divergence ofviews. Other studies by eminent specialists, examining incidences of ‘militarized interstate disputes’
where at least one person died (though without a declaration of war necessarily being made) suggestthat such disputes are associated with the existence of a shared river basin, and the size of thatbasin5. Poorer states, and states located in the water-scarce regions of the Middle East, North Africa,and sub-Saharan Africa experience more conflict than comparable basin-sharing countries
elsewhere. In the words of the study paper, “ Africa is indeed at the centre of the shared basin andconflict questions”6.

4

Wolf et al (2003)
Gleditsch et a) (2004 )6G)Gleditsch et a) (2004)
5

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

5

However, one interesting finding that to some extent goes against intuition and ‘received wisdom’ isthat countries with endemic water scarcity and shared basins have long-term incentives to invest inwater management measures and avoid conflict; incentives which other basin-sharing countries do
not have. This is in line with the Wolf study described above, which points to the fact that we shouldlook at issues of cooperation, as well as conflict over water, in order to understand the potentials aswell as challenges that water resource pose in Africa.

1.2

Characteristics of Water as aResoruce

Water has unique characteristics and is crucial to every form of life and practically every humanactivity. It is important for agriculture, facilitates transport, disperses waste products, lubricates thewheels of industry, and often forms district or international borders.7 For this reason, it ‘eludes
institutional classification “ and requires extensive inter-sectoral coordination for proper holistic
management8. This makes disputes or inefficiencies more likely.
Its key characteristic, from the point of view of management, is that it is a ‘fugitive resource’. It is easily‘lost’ due to evaporation or seepage into porous substances, and has to be contained. It flows as
surface water, often crossing administrative (including international).boundaries, and it crosses
such borders underground, in the form of large aquifers. Therefore any alteration of water sources,in terms of quality or quantity, will have ripple effects outside the immediate location of the changes.
In the case of a river, “what happens at its source will reverberate all through its course until it reaches
the ocean. Problems at the mouth may be unsolvable if you cannot control what happens at thesource.”vii In the case of underground reservoirs, pollution at one point can make the source unusable
by anyone for decades, or longer.
If a river or lake is shared by a number of riparian communities, one can easily abstract more than its
allotted share from its own territory: it may even be able to do so undetected, if the downstream user
lacks an effective monitoring capacity. Underground reservoirs may cross international borders,meaning that over-pumping can effect neighbouring countries. Overpumping of oil reservoirs was
Saddam Hussein’s justification for going to war with Kuwait -could a similar scenario unfold in termsof water?
Uneven geographical distribution of water means that many areas of the African continent with a highwater demand -due to agricultural and industrial development - are water-scarce. South Africa, forexample, accounts for 80% of Southern Africa’s total water use, but only 10% of the water resources

78Powers, K. (2004
Wolf et al (2003)

6

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

in the southern African region are found in that country.Viii North Africa is another case-in-point. Libya,
for example, by draining underground aquifers at unsustainable rates, withdraws uses four times
more than its annual renewable water supply9.
The mobility and the resulting complexity of hydrological systems has resulted in a radical restructuringof water regulation institutions in most countries world-wide. In the past, the mismatch between
administrative boundaries (e.g. districts) and the physical boundaries of water basins have resulted
in some inter-agency conflicts and sustainability problems. Due to the way in which water resources
are distributed geographically, some areas will abstract more water than is available within the
district, by taking from other parts of the basin. The River Basin approach is intended to deal with thisproblem. However, because of mismatches between water supply and demand, transfers between
river basins are becoming increasingly common. A well-known example of this is the water transfer
scheme between Lesotho and South Africa, through which Lesotho gains foreign exchange in returnfor water transferred to its heavily industrialized neighbour.
In addition to uneven geographically distribution, water availability is also prone to great temporalvariability, in terms of seasons during a single year, and in terms of multi-year cycles of drought andflood. The El Nino effect, as well as the longer-term effects of global climate change, are adding tothis variability. Across much of Africa, climatic events are expected to become more extreme andalso more frequent as a result. In the specific case of Kenya, expected impacts include: abnormal
rains in arable areas, that will generate floods and threaten houses and other infrastructure; drier
conditions in the arid parts of the country, thereby affecting food production, leading to increased
malnutrition; increased occurrence of extreme climatic events such as droughts, heavy and prolonged
rains and floods; and increased mean temperature.’x
One answer to the challenge of temporal fluctuations in water availability is storage -and Kenyan
legislation, for example, requires every water permit holder to have capacity to store enough water tolast for 90 days.x However, the expense involved means that this is only implemented by a few largecommercial operators, and it is hardly enforced in practice.xi Currently, the capacity of African
governments to store water is also limited.
It is also important to note that control of water opens doors to many potential land-uses. The
location of water sources can influence pastoralists’ choices of grazing areas, opening up new
pasture areas and thus improving the animals’ nutritional status. Because of the need for water
sources in dry areas, water access rights are the key to control and utilization of arid and semi-arid
areas, and can make African countries more food secure through irrigation technology. The systemsof access to such water sources may therefore be the most complex of all natural resource tenure

9World Bank, (1994)

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

7

systems in such an area. Interventions should be carefully located geographically and in terms ofsocio-cultural ‘ownership’. Development of water sources can lead to many second-order conflicts
not directly around the water itself, but related to the effects of water development. For example, indryland areas of Tanzania, the population of villages provided with anew borehole can increase by afactor of three within a few yearsl0. This has obvious implications for land use.
Finally, it is clear that a key characteristic of water resources in Africa is their increasing ‘scarcity’ due
to a variety of factors. In many ways, the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) paradigm,
which is dominant across the globe, is predicated upon the idea of scarcity, which has put emphasis
on demand-management, and efficiency in both allocation and distribution. However, we should becautious in definitions and assessments of scarcity. Due perhaps to a bias towards certain kinds ofprofessions in the most involved in high-level decision-making in the water sector (various aspects of‘hard science’), water scarcity is usually diagnosed as a ‘technical’ issue, to be solved by improved
water management through technological improvements, allocatory efficiency, and the like. However,even in areas of relative ‘natural’ water abundance, many people lack access to water. Indeed, theAfrican countries where populations have the least access to water are not those with the least
natural water availability, but generally those in the equatorial belt with higher levels of rainfall. It isclear therefore that amongst the primary causes of lack of water access, economic, institutional,
political and social factors are just as significant as (‘hard’) technological factors.11
In addition, because of the importance of shared water resources and other regional links, water
scarcity cannot be seen in a local or even national context, but rather as a regional issue. States,
corporations, and other institutions have the power to manage water and transfer water from one
basin to another. “Scarcity therefore is relative and mediated by power relationships, amongst otherfactors, within and between states”. 12

1.3

A Typology of Conflicts

One of the reasons for the divergence of views on the link between competition for water and conflictis the tendency towards misunderstanding regarding the definition of ‘conflict’. ,The first thing to note is that conflict need not involve violence. Instead, a useful definition of conflictis a situation where actors have ‘incompatible goals’. This means that one actor, if it is to fulfill its
goals, must act in a way that will prevent another actor from fulfilling their goals. Some theorists havedefined goals to include status, power, and/or resources.XIl According to this definition, conflict is

WaterAid (undated) Social Conflict and Water; lessons from North-east Tanzania. Discussion Paper.
This argument is rather compressed, but similar ideas are more fully developed in McGranahan and Satterthwaite (2004 )12
Thompson, L. (2000)
10

11

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

8

manifested in purposeful behaviour by the protagonists, in order to capture more of the scarce
resources, and/or to overcome the strategies of other protagonists.
However, in much of the literature on water and conflict, only violent conflict is considered. Even
using this narrow definition, many different
This methodological problem has been noted by Peter Gleick, one of the foremost experts on the
topic. He has been seen as a proponent of the idea that competition for water resources can indeed
contribute to conflict, while people such as Aaron Wolf, coordinator of the Transboundary Freshwater
Dispute Database, are associated with an argument that water resources tend to catalyze cooperation,rather than conflict. However, a close look reveals that Gleick takes a wider definition than Wolf,
including the use of water as a tool of warfare (not necessarily a cause). Water resources may be
managed or otherwise altered for tactical purposes during conflicts (which may have started forreasons completely unrelated to water). In this sense, water can be used as a weapon of war or as ameans of putting extra pressure on parties during diplomatic disputes.
Gleick also assumes conflicts to be essentially multi-causal. This is an important point - large-scaleviolent conflicts are notoriously complex, and the causes, boundaries, and actors involved in conflicts
are nearly always themselves disputed.
In trying to address issues which are of importance to Africa’s people, we should be wary of taking anarrow definition of conflict. Much of the attention so far has a very state- centric character. Critics ofmainstream ‘environmental sources of conflicts’ narratives have noted that such a focus tends toprivilege certain kinds of knowledge and actors over others. Some of the ways in which issues havebeen conceptually framed may reflect a desire to increase the visibility of the topic, and also thefunding available for research. A state-centric, ‘realist’ approach to conflict also neglects a wider,more ‘bottom up’ approach to security based on the idea of human security.
Case studies of water management at the national or local level also neglect some important
aspects -particularly the external factors which represent the parameters of local knowledge, accessto technology, and availability of water. In the words of one critic of mainstream approaches:“the degree to which water use, water pollution, water scarcity, and water management are a reflectionof global patterns of production, finance, security and knowledge are left unmentioned.”13

13

Thompson, L. (2000)

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

9

There may be many ways to analyze conflict. For example, disputes can be classified in terms of thedifferent water uses involved. Thus in Africa, competition is common between water uses such as
irrigation (commercial and small-scale), the hydro-electric sector, pastoralism, and industry.Contentious issues such as deforestation, overgrazing, pollution and other activities which can leadto water degradation can also be included in this list.
Alternatively, conflicts can be seen in terms of the geographical location of the disputed water uses.
Most can be classified as ‘downstream versus upstream’ disputes, but the rural versus urbanclassification may also be relevant. In both cases, social, ethnic, and occupational differences
between areas may increase the chances of a dispute become exacerbated.
Disputes can further be typified in terms of the actors involved. Thus disputes can occur between
various combinations of social units including individuals, committees, villages, corporations, districtauthorities, and Ministries. Water conflicts may have a gender component -for example, when a man
and wife disagree over the best use of water within the household, system. Conflicts over water rarely
involve a clear-cut argument between two groups of disputants. Usually, “they involve a complex
interaction between diverse clusters of competition”. 14
There is also an inter-generational aspect, which exists when environmentally unsustainable activities
prevent future generations from using natural resources.
Additionally, it is possible to develop typologies of conflicts over water according to the nature of theroot cause of the problem. In dryland areas such as East Africa, these may commonly include
decreasing supplies of water, resulting in so-called ‘simple scarcity’ conflicts. “ As water supplies
decrease, communities are forced to move to seek new sources; resulting in tensions with othercommunities which may be termed ‘group- identity conflicts’. 15
Water scarcity and the related social stresses (migration of the community, coping mechanisms“such as increased spending on water from vendors, etc) can disrupt key social institutions. Indigenous
councils of elders may no longer be able to meet, for “instance, or the loss of the most mobile
members of society (stereotypically young men) may mean that traditional natural resource
management regulations and other social regulations can no longer be enforced. Lack of water for
agriculture or industry also affects government revenue, limiting the state’s capacity to manage
water resources. This leads to social instability, breakdown of mutual support mechanisms, andpossible civil’ strife. Of course, it may be difficult to identify cause and effect, as water management
capacity exacerbates water scarcity, in a vicious circle.

14
15

de Bois, 1994
This description approximates Prof. Homer-Dixon’s conceptual framework.

10

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

All of these analytical lenses, or a combination, may be appropriate for different ends. For the
purposes of this paper, which is meant to provide an overview of the issues, we can categorize
conflict over water depending on the broad type of actors involved, following earlier research:• Interstate conflict• State-community conflicts• Intercommunity conflicts (within a single state)• Intercommunity conflicts (which straddle international borders)16

2.

Case Studies

2.1

Interstate Conflicts - the Example of the Nile

As mentioned above, violent conflict between states directly over water (as the main cause) is rare.
However, it is important to remember that disputes take other forms as well. Non-cooperation andundermining of water development activities are both forms of conflict which can retard development.
In that regard, the example of the Nile is taken to illustrate some of the legal disputes which hamper
development of water resources.
A number of international agreements over the Nile waters have been signed since the late 191
century. These include, for example, a 1891 protocol between the United Kingdom and Italy (themain colonial powers in the eastern Nile region at that time) which involved Italy undertaking not toconstruct any engineering works that would affect the flow of the Atbara river in the Nile. In 1902,
Ethiopia and the UK signed a Treaty which provided that Ethiopia would refrain from constructing
engineering works on the Blue Nile, Lake Tana, or the Sobat. Further agreements between the UK
and the Congo ( 1906), the UK, France and Italy ( 1906), and the UK and Italy ( 1925) all included
provisions designed expressly to protect what the UK and its strategic ally/client state, Egypt, saw as
Egypt’s ‘natural and historical rights’ to the flow of the Nile. These agreements, largely between
colonial powers, are generally seen to have lost any legal basis with the end of colonial occupationof Africa. In the case of the 1902 Treaty, Ethiopia did not recognize the Treaty as binding once Haile
Selassie’s government came to power in the 1950s.xiii In any case, they do not affect Kenyan waters.
Today, the most talked-about document relating to utilization of the Nile Waters is the 1929 Nile
Waters Agreement. This Agreement, which had been preceded by a number of hydrological studies
and reports, consists of an ‘exchange of notes’ between Mohamed mahmoud Pasha, the Presidentof Egyptian Councial of Ministers, and Lord Lloyd, the British High Commissioner in Cairo. The
Agreement had the following key terms: • The Nile Waters were to be shared between Egypt and Sudan, with Egypt claiming rights to48bn cubic m per year, and Sudan 4bn cubic m.
• The dry season flow, between the I 5th of January and the I 51h of July , was entirely reservedfor Egypt• Egypt claimed the right to monitor the flow of Nile Water into and out of upstream riparian
countries.

11

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

12

•
•

Egypt claimed the right to veto any upstream engineering works that would affect the flow of
the Nile.
Egypt claimed the right to construct engineering works on the Nile without the consent ofother riparian states. xiv

There was however some leeway over future re-negotiation, based on the political future of Sudan.
Accordingly in 1959, after Sudan had gained its independence, Egypt entered into an Agreement for
the Full Utilization of the Nile Waters, which is discussed below.
The,1929 Agreement was concluded without the involvement of any other riparian states.. During thecolonial period, the East African Territories of Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya expressed concern
over the terms of the Agreement, and declared their interest and right to a share in the Nile Waters,
based on detailed estimates of water requirements.xv Following independence, Tanzania rejected
the Agreement as not binding upon itself as an independent sovereign state. This was in accordancewith the Nyerere Doctrine on State succession which considers colonial-era treaties to be nonbinding if incompatible with state interests. Tanzania sent a Note to this effect to the Governments of
the UK, Sudan and Egypt in 1962, to which Egypt replied with a Note submitting that the Agreement
remained valid, though there may be room for negotiation. Similarly, the Government of Uganda
declared in a letter to the Secretary General of the UN in 1963 that all colonial-era Treaties would,
after December 31 SI, 1963, would be considered ‘terminated’ unless modified by agreement with
the Government.
However, this position has been complicated by the later policies of the Ugandan government, which
has continued to seek consent of the Government of Egypt for all projects of the Nile (as per the termsof the Agreement), has continued to observe the 1949 Owen Falls Agreements, and signed a new
agreement with Egypt, through an exchange of notes, in 1991, “affirming the so-called existing
agreements”.xvi
When Tanzania and Uganda were officially rejecting the Agreement, the Kenyan Government -at thattime still a colonial machine -stayed silent. However, after independence, Kenya declared that it
adopted the Nyerere Doctrine, and considered Treaties which were not modified by mutual consent
within a 2-year period, and “which cannot be regarded as surviving according to the rules of customaryinternational law” to be terminated.xvii .
A number of other international agreements on the Nile were entered into after 1929, the most
relevant being the 1959 Agreement for the Full Utilization of the Nile Waters between Egypt andSudan, which provided for the construction of the Aswan High dam, and modified the terms of use of
Nile Waters. Under the 1959 Agreement, the two countries were to achieve “full utilization” of thewaters: Egypt was to receive 55bn cubic m per year, while Sudan was to receive 18bn cubic m peryear.

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

13

While some downstream powers consider the 1929 and 1959 Agreements to be binding legal
documents, many lawyers, academics and politicians have argued otherwise. There are manyreasons put forth to argue that they are null and void. Some of the key arguments include:• The 1929 Agreement was between the UK and Egypt, and thus became void following theend of the UK’s colonial control over East Africa.
• The 1959 Agreement was intended to replace the 1929 Agreement, which was then implicitly
superceded.
• The statements of the Governments of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda (notwithstanding any
later bilateral agreements) rejecting colonial-era agreements are, arguably, upheld byinternational customary law.
• The 1959 Agreement between Egypt and Sudan did not involve any consultation with third
parties such as riparian states, and cannot therefore be seen as binding upon them.
For reasons such as these, the East African Legislative Assembly chose not to refer to the Agreement
in a set of resolutions on Lake Victoria and Nile Waters issues in June 2003, because they feel that
the Agreement’ does not exist’ .
Despite these arguments, many Kenyan officials and politicians have identified the 1929 Agreement
as a constraint to development of irrigation, hydroelectric power generation, and flood-control
structures. In off-the-cuff remarks during a speech to the East African Legislative Assembly in June
2003, the Minister for Water Resources Management and Development, Ron. Martha Karua
wondered if some people had not used the Agreement as an ‘excuse’ for lack of action. This may betrue -for example, it is unclear whether a number of rivers in the Lake Victoria Basin in Kenya would
be affected by the Treaty, as it is unlikely that flows of water to Egypt would be affected -certainly, nonconsumptive hydropower projects would not have had an impact. Conspiracy theorists then wonder
if it is an excuse for the lack of development in parts of Kenya which were seen as opposing KANU,
which was in power until 2003. Others have pointed out that many references to the effects of theAgreement on Kenya have been made in ignorance of its historical and legal context.
Notwithstanding formal and informal discussions around the use of the Nile waters in Kenya, “Kenya
continues to participate in the NBI and negotiate on the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework andrelated issues of access to Nile waters. This may be due to some of the wider geo-political andeconomic issues discussed below. I
The Nile Basin Initiative has been described as a ‘closed shop’, typified by high-Ievel meetings
between politicians with minimal civil society input. Indeed, the NBI has been described as ‘secretive’by its critics.xviii This is partly due to the massively sensitive nature of the discussions, particularly as
they pertain to the re-negotiation of the current water allocation regime (whether it is believed to bede jure or de facto). There have been efforts to bring civil society into the process, via a Nile Basin
Discourse, but these have been controversial and there are currently funding problems with theinstitution. This situation demonstrates the need for transparency and information flows from donors
and NGOs, not just state-driven processes. ‘. ~

14

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

It may be instructive to look at other processes of negotiation on international waters. LeMarquandsuggests that the following issues, in order of importance, are most critical for governments duringnegotiations:• Concern for national image• Principles of international law• Linkage to other bilateral or multilateral issues• Reciprocity• Sovereignty
The first issue is linked to the complex web of relationships within the Nile basin and the wider
African political arena (see section on conflict below). National image presumably has both ‘internal’and ‘external’ aspects -e.g. how do citizens feel about the national image; and how to foreign states
perceive the nation? This may shed some light on the predilection for verbiage, rather than action,
on water issues.
The second issue is somewhat complex. There is no real internal consensus on the legal frameworks
or norms for negotiation over international waters. Efforts to arrive at consensus have so far been
unsuccessful. For example, despite 20 years of effort in developing the Convention on the Law of the
Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1997), only 5 countries have ratified it. Noneof the Nile Basin countries have signed the Convention.xix The development of several influential
legal frameworks has helped to build a general sense of common principles for the management ofinternational watercourses, for example the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of Watercourses and theHelsinki Rules for International Watercourses both include the principle of equitable sharing andreasonable use of the resources. Though these are not binding on the riparian states of the Nile, theRio Declaration and Agenda 21 of the Convention on Biological Diversity call upon states to apply
generally accepted principles of international law in water management.xx
Both the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of Watercourses and the Helsinki Rules have, however, been
criticized as lacking in clarity as the term “equitable” is open to many different interpretations.xxi
The financial implications of co-operation, and of the alternative {withdrawal from the NBI, eitherwith or without” undertaking significant development activities on the Nile ‘unilaterally’) are great.
Informal remarks by politicians indicate that Kenya may favour an approach of compensation, where
mechanisms are developed for downstream countries to offer aid in return for continued water
security. Ugandan politicians have also called for compensation of up to US$ 1.2 million, specificallyfrom Egypt.xxiiThis situation would approximate the so-called ‘potential pareto’ improvement, bywhich one party benefits, and the’ losers’ are compensated to the full value of their losses.xxl11
Table 2 might shed useful light on the riparians’ relative abilities to provide such compensation.
Other politicians have called for East African states to ‘sell’ water to downstream states, though theseideas are not official policy.

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

15

According to the World Water Development Report, which lists 180 countries according to theirwater availability per person per year, Kenya is ranked 154th, Uganda 115th and Ethiopia 137th. The
upstream countries of Egypt and Sudan are ranked 156th and 129th respectively.
Table 2: GDPper capita {US$), Riparian Countries of the Nile xxiv

It is also worth considering the ongoing NBI process, and especially the negotiations over the
Cooperative Framework (project 03) within the wider geo-political context of the Nile Basin.
For example, while the potential for ‘conflict over Nile waters’ has been much discussed in recent
years, and often over-exaggerated, several of the riparian countries have actually gone to war witheach other over other issues (e.g. Eritrea and Ethiopia), while many of them have reportedly fought‘proxy’ wars through support for rebel groups (allegedly Sudan and Uganda; Uganda and Rwanda;
DRC and Rwanda; several other examples could be given). From this perspective, the NBI mightoffer a basis for communication and cooperation between these countries, where few others exist.
It has also been claimed that Egypt has maintained its control over the Nile through support for rebel
factions in upstream countries and other destabilizing measures. Analysts argue that Egypt is only
now altering its foreign policy in order to enhance regional co-operation. This may be linked to adesire to access increased funding from multilateral lending institutions and to boost income fromregional trade in order to increase its capacity for efficient water use, including water recycling, as it
attempts to increase its food production capacity to feed a rapidly expanding population. There are
two major projects planned: the Toshka project will divert Nile waters upstream into Egypt’s desert
oases and increase the exploitation of groundwater sources in order to irrigate 200,000ha of land ata cost of $88.5 billion. The second project, the North Sinai Development project, plans to expand thearea of irrigated land by 250,000ha by mixing water from the Nile with drainage water.xxv
Analysts argue that Egypt may also plan to remain influential in the Basin despite any change in water
allocation regulations, due to its experience in dam construction, water management (especially for
irrigation) and its economic power.

16

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

From abroad view of the situation, the wider geo-politics of the Nile is also linked to the Arab-Israeli
conflict, and since September 11th to the ‘War on Terror’. This is because of the religious aspects ofsome of the internal and proxy conflicts in the Basin ( e.g. Sudan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia) and theinterests of foreign powers -primarily the US -in maintaining influence in the region. The recent
IGAD-facilitated Somali Peace Process, and the Sudan Peace Process, could be interpreted as aproblem to some countries, which may prefer to have neighbours which are too disorganized toengage in major water development activities or to monitor, or oppose, water uses upstream.
Any process of high-Ievel negotiation between the 10 riparian countries is bound to be sensitive.
When those negotiations centre on the Nile, with its strategic importance as the source of actual andpotential food security, hydropower, and other key aspects of national stability, the negotiations arebound to become more sensitive still.
As mentioned above, governments are likely to be assessing the merits of different negotiation
positions according to a range of priorities. It may be, for example, that for some countries, the valueof any improved access to Nile waters (e.g. for irrigation) might actually be less than the perceived
benefits from the various NBI projects or any economic incentives being offered by downstream
countries. Rational economic decision-making will presumably take a ‘national’ view of the situation,
but will hopefully be guided by national policies for poverty eradication (including for example the
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) as well as water management objectives.
In Tanzania, both violent and non-violent conflicts exist over water, and to some extent, these stemfrom a mismatch between customary (local) and ‘modern’ (state) conceptions of water rights.
Under Tanzanian law, all water in the country is vested in the government. In theory, “Tanzania
citizens have equal right to access and use of the water resources”.xxvi However, access depends on
many factors. Indeed, the statutory laws are just one of a variety of systems which have de facto
influence on water management. There is a situation of legal pluralism, where land and water
resources are regulated according to a range of institutions and agreements, including customarylaws, and religious injunctions. Despite the ubiquitous nature of customary water and irrigationrights, the statutory water management system has simply been superimposed on these existingnorms, leading to conflicts. This is increasingly recognised by those involved, but when faced withpotential conflicts over water, it is often the case that, “the authorities pretend that the only prevailinglaw is state law”.xxvii
The first national water policy was formally adopted in 1991. It reintroduced charges for water
services (“economic water users fees”). Government funding was also to be specifically limited to“basic needs facilities”. In 1994 -1997 however, studies on the water sector funded by the World Bank
recommended that these fees be increased so as to fully cover operation and maintenance costs,
including the functioning of river basin offices, and monitoring of water abstraction and flow regimes.
The emphasis of the 1991 policy on water resources development was also criticised, and instead,the Bank and the Government focused on water resources management. Fees for water wereA SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

17

designed not just. to provide revenue, but also to lead to demand management, through more
economical)y ‘rational’ use of water. One of the justifications for this focus was the power rationing
introduced in Dar es Salaam 1993, but later shown to be only partially the result of localised water‘scarcity’.xxviii This demonstrates that scientific knowledge, of course, develops over time, and scienceshould not be considered sacrosanct: especially when scientific investigations are managed bythose with vested interests.
In Tanzania, my abstraction from surface waters, other than minor water collection using buckets
rather than pumps or fixed structures, requires a Water Right, as does groundwater extraction of
22,700 L per day or more. It costs a significant amount of money to apply for a Water Right: $40 as afixed-rate registration fee, and an extra annual fee based on volume of water extracted. However,
because of a general lack of technical capacity, volume~ are usually estimated, making the exercise
highly subjective and prone to corruption. XXIX However, for uses under 3.7L/S, a flat-rate is applied of$35 per year. These charges are significant in a country where per capita GDP is only $560, and
85% of the rural population lives in poverty.xxx
There are a number of significant problems with the water rights system as currently designed andimplemented. These problems are social and cultural as well as economic and technical in nature.
Essentially, the imposition of water user fees, without any apparent associated benefit for the users,
has led to perceptions that it represents a tax. It has therefore been extremely difficult for water office
staff to collect taxes, and the exercise is not cost effective, resulting in a loss rather than a profit for
the government.
In the Pangani River Basin, research conducted in 1994 indicated that of 2265 ‘;)’j abstractions, only
171 had Water Rights.xxxi Many Water Rights which were allocated during the pre-Independence
period allowed for very high rates of abstraction, sometimes on a 24-hr basis. The allocations weremade during a time when the population was much .lower than at present, and when industry andurban centres were less developed. Holders of rights included private and state-owned commercial
irrigators, and the Tanzania Electricity Supply Company (T ANESCO).xxxii Some of these early rights
are still valid today. Payment for the rights was nominal, and the results were merely to protect theuses . of the wealthy and the ‘formal’ sector at the expense of the peasant majority. There are many
conflicts between colonial-era coffee and tea estates and local people.
In the Rufiji Basin, the majority of people still abstract water without any water right. A survey carriedout three years ago found that 37% of the total abstractions were outside the water right system withmany of the abstractions in distant villages where the basin board has little access. Unpermitted
abstractions have not been inspected by Ministry of Water staff, in order to set maximum permitted
levels of water use.
Furthermore, insufficient funding for the Ministries in charge of water means that staff cannot travel
to inspect all permitted abstractions, both before and after required infrastructure is installed to help
keep water flows within the set bounds. Water users may pay bribes, or pay for the transport of staff so

18

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

that they arrive at a time of high water volume, so that the appropriate amount for abstraction is overestimated.xxxiii
The current Tanzanian water policy recommends that those abstracting without legal rights are
given two years to apply, after which time abstractions will be treated as a criminal offence. If thisapproach is taken, an extensive public information campaign will, have to be mounted, and support
services will have to be provided to communities. Many of the rights granted before Independence inTanzania are still legal, and provide for very large abstractions: clearly these need to be re-assessed.
However, “it is very difficult [for the state] to alter water rights, no matter how unfair they may be, as weneed to pay compensation for lost access to water”.xxxiv
The water availability situation is so critical that since 1994, Pangani Basin Water Board has had apolicy of granting no new applications, except under special circumstancesxxxv.
Because of the mismatch between the changing water demand context to the unchanging waterrights, the current draft of the Tanzania National Water Resources Management Policy recognises
the need to implement a fixed water right duration. A 5-year duration (as used in Kenya) may
discourage investment, as people will feel that their water use regime is insecure. South Africa’s newpolicy, which is regarded by many as a ‘model’ of best practice, sets a 40-year maximum duration for
Water Rights. Certainly, the process of reforming the current situation must be handled carefully.
Commercial farms in Tanzania provide employment for many local people as well as vital foreignexchange earnings.
In the Tanzanian water sector at present there are “no guidelines for prevention of conflicts throughconsensus-building”XXXVi. Although the draft water policy suggests that the River-Basin Water Offices
should be “the preliminary centre for conflict resolution” it is realistic to view its role as a mediator ofmacro-level conflicts. As regards micro-level conflicts, clear guidelines on conflict prevention andresolution should be developed at the regional/national level. Such guidelines should include
transparency at all stages of the Water Rights allocation procedure, and should identify a mediating
institution with independent status. This fits with the Ministry of Water’s aim of separating its regulatory
and operational functions.xxxvii However, each dispute occurs within a different context “and local
political factors, and may require a tailor-made strategy for conflict resolution. Traditional disputemechanisms should be identified and strengthened as appropriate.
In some ways, the mismatch between state and local community conceptions of rights to water are
an example of an issue identified by Thompson (2000): “It is of course the clash of interests. ..thatbrings about the most visible conflicts, whether these occur intra-. or inter-state.. Thus most decisions
on water security are. ..the result of the state’s reallocation from certain allocative interests to others.”
Financial and regulatory mechanisms such as permits are of course one part of allocatory systems.

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

2.2

19

Intercommunity conflicts (within a single state): A Case Study from
Arusha, Tanzania

Local conflicts over water are notoriously common. Indeed, one assessment of international donor
funding suggested that by concentrating funds on local level water development, donors had inmany cases contributed to conflict.17 However, this should not prevent states, communities NGOs ordonors from further efforts to provide water. Instead, more should be done to understand the local
dynamics of conflict. In many cases, lack of coordination between institutions, poor stakeholder
identification, and lack of full negotiation over water development is an issue. Power relations andaccess to information could be seen as cross-cutting themes in such problems.
One case from Tanzania shows how technological issues, stakeholder identification, and local
politics are all significant. Until the late 1980’s, the high level of fluoride in the springwater used by thevillagers of Oldonyowas (Arusha Province) was unrecognized. However, water analysis revealed
levels of around 20ppm, compared to the WHO recommended standard of 1.5ppm. In 1990/91 local
people located a spring, some 15 km away. They requested assistance from MS, the Danish volunteer
service, and received advice on how to proceed. In 1993/94 they paid Ministry of Water staff to test the
new source, which contained only 3.5ppm of fluoride, and applied for a Water Right. The application
process took 3 months and involved the usual process of official notice being published in the local
newspapers, and the Ward Development Committee (which represents Oldonyosambu and othervillages as well as Oldonyowas) met with the hydrologist before the go-ahead was given.
With the assistance of M.S. and the Ministry of Water, the villagers calculated the cost of a pipelinefrom the spring to the village: about $165,000 including labour and equipment costs. Villagers
raised about $3,000 and worked in teams of 60 per day for two days per week during the course ofa year The women of the village prepared food for the workers.
Soon after work had started, moronisl8 from Oldonyosambu destroyed the sections which had been
completed. The Oldonyowas village council and traditional elders started talks with their counterpartsin Oldonyosambu, which lasted for almost a year. Finally they got permission to continue from thesevillage representatives, and work recommenced. After another year or so of construction work, thepipeline was completed. Then, three days before the scheduled opening day, moranis again
destroyed the system. The moronis from Oldonyowas prepared themselves for some kind of battlewith the opposing group, but were dissuaded from doing so by the village council and their traditional
elders.

17

Allan and Nicol (1998)

20

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

Further meetings were held between the traditional leaders and village council officials from eachvillage, and a number of objections to the scheme were voiced by the Oldonyosambu group. These
included the idea that the pipeline would severely reduce the water flow in the pipe used by the
Maasai in the plains, which is contested: the water right was allocated after a hydrology study, whichshould have ensured the plains supply was maintained. However, some local people claim thatwater levels in the pipe used by the Maasai fell dramatically.
A counter-claim is that this pipeline is in urgent need of repair so that much water is lost before it
reaches the watering-point. The lack of storage facilities on the plains also leads to a lot of water
wastage.
Ministry of Water officials mentioned that the hydrologists didn’t study a wide-enough range of water
users when allocating the water, and may have devalued the interests of the pastoralists because of
their geographically ‘marginal’ position. When hydrological studies are being done, it may be wise to
involve legitimate local representatives from surrounding areas in order to avoid this cloud of
misinformation that frequently surrounds such disputes. As MS state, “Part of the problem seems tobe because of lack of sufficient information -and in some cases deliberate mis-information -on theeffects of the changes in the distribution of water to the various users down the stream.” 19
The main issue however was that they apparently thought that money from the district Annual
Development Levy (collected from every household in the village) had been used to fund the project.
Indeed, the vandalism apparently occurred immediately following the release of some morani after
their arrest for demonstrations against the Development Levy. The Oldonyowas village council thinkthat some of the motivation for the destruction may have been political: their theory is that people
were causing unrest in order to destabilize the powerbase of the local M.P. or other politicians.
Discussions were held to try to resolve the situation, and were sometimes chaired by the Regional
Commissioner or the District Commissioner. As a result, the Oldonyosambu group agreed to let theOldonyowas pipeline operate, if the Oldonyowas villagers undertook repairs to the Oldonyosambu
pipe which leads to the plains, and constructed a storage tank for the use of the Maasai and theiranimals. It seems as if Oldonyowas may provide the other group with a storage tank and some pipes
if the Oldonyosambu group contribute some money in return. However, in the end, MS invested in
improving the pastoralist’ s water systems. 20
This example demonstrates a number of things. Most significantly, it shows that the Water Rights
process is not seen as ‘legitimate’ by some people: the opponents to the scheme do not care that
official permission has been granted to abstract water. Indeed, locals don’t trust Ministry of Water

18
19

Young men of the ‘warrior’ age-set
Tanzania Annual Report 1998, MS website, http://www.ms-dan.dk/uk/

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

21

statistics on the yields available from the disputed source.21 If they had been better informed andinvolved in the process of Water Rights allocation, they might have respected the decision.
Secondly, this example demonstrated that the conflict resolution process has not been successfully
institutionalised by the District Council, the Ministry of Water, or other Ministries. There may be needfor an ‘independent’ authority with some measure of local legitimacy to mediate in the process. In
this case, the churches helped to avoid bloodshed, showing the importance of local knowledge andrelations in conflict resolution.
Thirdly, the end-uses of the development levy were not sufficiently detailed by the authorities. It was
thus perceived to be a ‘tax’ over which contributors had no control, rather than an investment in local
development activities. This indicates the importance of information dissemination and transparency,
within a context of wider political competition which is ubiquitous.

3.

Knowledge, Technology and Institutions

3.1

Legal and Normative Framework over water

One of the most fundamental disagreements over water, which is being fought not in the irrigation
ditches or the river basins, but rather in the conference-halls of the world’s capital cities, revolves
around the concept of water as an economic good. A number of institutions argue that given thelevels of inefficiency in water management -not just in terms of water leakage during conveyance,
but in inefficient allocation of water between different users -the only solution is to give water its true
economic value. They also argue that this will help to address the opportunity costs of water use, e.g.
fees from water can be used to protect the environment or provide social goods and services.
Indeed, the idea of water as an economic good is encapsulated in the Dublin Principles.

20

batchelor
E.L. Nassar, 1999
On the other hand, there are fears that putting a price on water may put it out of the reach of poor.
Privatization of water delivery services has seen great price hikes in several countries around theworld.
This discourse is playing out in various processes. For example, momentum has been building fora few years now regarding the possibility of an international convention on water. In 2003, the UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a ‘General Comment’ that theConvention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, includes the right to adequate amounts ofclean water for personal and domestic use.22 This binds governments to progressively provide water
for their citizens.
The important issue is whether the right to water will mean the right to free water; or the right to‘affordable’ water. It seems that, following debates within the UN and between large NGOs, consensus
is forming that there should be a right to sufficient affordable water .23 Of course, the question now is
what is affordable. In East Africa, the urban poor (such as those living in informal settlements)
generally pay 5 times more for water than . the rich, due to economies of scale and other reasons.
Does this mean that they should continue to do so? The General Comment by the UN says that water
should be recognized as asocial and cultural good, and not primarily as an economic good.
21

The Right to water is an important concept. The question is how useful a water Convention would
be. Because of the immense global variation in distribution of water resources, access to water, and

22

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

23

modes of water allocation and distribution, it could turn out to be a blunt instrument. It would, ofcourse, represent a compromise position between various perspectives, and hence would not be
acceptable to all. Some major NGOs, such as the Council of Canadians/Blue Planet Project andPublic Citizen (USA) have already come out against the initiative, arguing that “convention language
would incorporate into the international legal framework the commodification of water and it would
encode privatization”24
There is also speculation that if water comes to be defined as a commodity during other international
processes, it would come under WTO rules which prevent governments from putting obstacles inplace to trade in commodities.25 The approaches of the EU to the General Agreement on Trade inServices (GA TS) under WTO have also been criticized in this regard: “ As part of the GA TS Request/
Offer process the EU has requested opening up of various sectors in 109 countries. The EU is
seeking to liberalize water distribution services in 72 countries. It is scandalous that the EC is targeting
the water distribution sector of some of the world’s poorest nations, including 14 out of the 41 Least
Developed Countries (LDC’).”26 Though GA TS is meant to be optional, the realities of international
trade, aid and politics means that countries may come under pressures to open up -which could
conceivably lead to major international disputes.

22

Details at http://www.righttowater.org.uk/
See Freshwater Action (2004)24
See Source Weekly No.45-46, 22 November 2004
25
Wolf et al (2003)
26
See Wide (2003 )23

Kenya is one example of a country advancing down the path towards increased private involvementin the water sector, though its ‘progress’ down this route is not as far advanced. Hence, disputes overwater privatization are still at an early stage and being played O1,lt largely in the media.27
Like most African countries, Kenya made provision of free water for all a post- independence policy
priority. However, funding and political will has never been sufficient: the Ministry in charge of water
has been constantly under-funded, never being allocated more than 2.5% of the GDP (of which
about 90% was spent on salaries). There were many other problems. Lack of water use monitoring
resulted in ad hoc decision- .making, over-allocation of water and conflicts between water users.
The system was highly bureaucratic and centralised, with water permit applications taking up to six
years to be processed. There were no performance measures for water utilities, and hence nosanctions for those under-performing. Different institutions had overlapping mandates, leading to‘turf wars’ and duplication of activities.
In addition to these ‘technical’ issues, corruption and nepotism robbed the sector of large sums ofmoney and compromised efficiency. As a result, only 65% of urban households, and 35% of rural

24

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

households, have access to safe water. This can be compared to South Africa, where in 1999 it wasestimated that half of all water projects were not functioning.28
In response to these problems, the Water Act 2002 was designed to clarify and streamline the role ofthe Ministry of Water Resources Management and Development. The Ministry of Water Resources
Development sees privatization as an important means to ensure regular water supplies for all. In
fact, efforts at privatization are not entirely new. Several wealthy private estates around Nairobi andMombasa have been supplied by private companies for many years. In less wealthy areas,
unregistered private water kiosks or informal mobile suppliers have become important. In East Africa
as a whole, these are the main source of water for about a quarter of unpiped households. In Kenya,
about 95% of urban households rely on vendors at some time or another. Private supplies tend to costmore than public supplies -an average of 5 times more than public private supplies, per litre, across
East Africa. This means that in general, the poor pay more for water than the rich.
There has been considerable controversy over the move towards privatization in Kenya, just as inother parts of the world.. Some critics of privatization have argued that due to capital costs, it is notviable to build multiple water supply networks in a single area, and hence the sector exhibits ‘natural
monopoly’. Privatisation therefore does not prevent monopoly, but merely shifts it from a public bodyto a private one. In order to safeguard consumer rights, control systems must be put in place toprotect consumer’s rights. The role of transnational corporations in water service provision has also
been questioned 27

This example is chosen, rather than that of South Africa, because the author knows Kenya muchbetter than other countries, However, some comparisons are drawn with other African countries.
28 Mcdonald, D. and Pape, J. (2002)

should their risks be underwritten by donors, for example? Why not exclude transnationals and build
indigenous capacity’?
Most important perhaps are questions over the financial incentives for private organisations to provide
affordable water to the poorest sector of society. This is especially important in regard to informal
settlements, as experts estimate that by 2020 almost half of urban Africans -about 300 million people-will be living in slums. While many advocate cost recovery as the key to sustainability, others point to
the penalties this imposes on the poor, while the rich may benefit from cheaper water due to betterestablished infrastructure in wealthy estates. Some conclude that the incomes of consumers in poor
regions do not allow tariffs high enough to allow cost-recovery.
Opinion polls seem to indicate that the majority of urban-dwellers are suspicious of privatization,
believing it will make water more expensive. Ministry officials confirm that due to hydrogeologicaland other factors, water tariffs will not be uniform throughout the country .In effect, changes in tariffs
will end the subsidy of remote areas by better-served areas. Experiences from other countries suggest

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

25

that price increases could be extreme -in Nelspruit South Africa for example, after British firm Biwater
was given a 30-year concession, prices increased 100% within two years, for many households.29
Even within government, there is controversy over the new policy directions. Rifts have appeared
over which Ministry has responsibility for urban water supply, an important source of revenue for local
councils until recently. The Minister has made statements that ‘privatization’, but not‘commercialization’ is being considered, perhaps indicating the importance of price controls. Others
have defined the terms ‘privatization’ itself as public-private partnerships, and leasing of government
property, rather than privatization through sale of assets.
Potential obstacles to affordable water delivery to the poor also include land tenure insecurity (e.g. in
informal ‘shanty’ settlements), corruption within local government (who might lose out from improved
accountability), and difficulties of including all stakeholders, some of whom may cross traditional
stakeholder categories ( e.g. private users who also informally donate or sell water to neighbours).

3.2

Technological Adaptation

One of the arguments common to many studies on water and conflict is that the levels of water
scarcity and associated risks of conflict can be mitigated if relevant institutions have sufficient capacityfor ‘adaptation’ or ‘innovation ,.30 This concept is often captured by the idea of ‘social resources’available at the state level -a mixture of attributes based on the cohesion of social institutions, flow ofknowledge, level of technological expertise, etc. Often, these attributes are seen as equivalent to theindicators used in UNDP’s Human Development Index, for example. Knowledge and technology areimportant29

Mcdonald, D. and Pape, J. (2002)
Homer-Dixon is a proponent of this view; see also Ohlsson ( 1999)
elements of social resources and innovation capacity, and must be defined to indicate the social
context in which they are generated.
30

Knowledge should be defined not just as information but the ability to use that information effectively.
Technology incorporates ‘software’ elements, related to management, as well as ‘hardware’ aspects.
Indigenous technology, for example, may be primarily based on specific local ecological knowledge,
rather than use of particular physical instruments. It should be noted that the common understandingsof knowledge and technology for water resources management do not fully acknowledge therelevance of local capacities. According to one iconoclast, “academics, researchers and policymakers are obsessed with management. ..[which ] carries within it.. the idea that all environmental
problems can be dealt with through rational debate and scientific and/or technical solutions. ..The
predominance of science in understanding the environment. .. displays the power-relations which
dominate it”.31

26

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

While acknowledging the importance of a comprehensive and holistic definition of ‘knowledge’ and‘technology’, it is useful in this paper to isolate different components, for the sake of clarity, while all
the while considering the wider political and institutional contexts.
Exchange of information -and the transformation of information into knowledge, through joint projects
and training exercises -is a useful first step in many international basin management efforts. The
genesis of the Nile Basin Initiative, for example, as essentially a technical programme with access to
information across the basin as a key element.
In terms of ‘hardware’, technology offers great opportunities in water management. It must be
remembered, on the other hand, that it also offers challenges. One of the most revolutionary factors
in modern water resource management (apart from the flush toilet, which is a disaster for water
quality and use efficiency) is the small diesel pump. The use of small pumps by fanners has madewater use much more difficult for authorities to monitor (compared to furrow irrigation, for example).
The new technology has also had adverse effects on institutional capacities in some areas. In Egypt,
the traditional water wheel (sakieh) has been almost completely replaced by the diesel pump.
Pumps have two-three times the output of a sakieh, and are almost generally owned by individuals(who purchased them with money from labour in the Gulf States). With the end of the sakieh, hascome the end of many water user associations’, which existed because the operation of a sakieh
was largely a communal affair.32 This means that local agreements and compromises, and also
local capacities to advocate for water rights, may be compromised. The key to managing water, andcontrolling the effects of diesel pumps, lies primarily not in better state enforcement (as who will beable to enforce water laws in the most remote parts of the country?) but rather, self -policing on thepart of local people. Institutions are therefore key.

31

Thompson (2000)
Ayeb, H. (2004)
Industry is a major consumer of water in developed and industrializing countries (representing
between a fifth and a quarter of total use). However, not all water used by industry is lost. Indeed, lessthan 10% of such water should actually be consumed -the rest is available for re-use.33 The catchis that re-use will depend on the existence and enforcement of anti-pollution measures, and incentives
to encourage use of low-quality waters for appropriate purposes. This indicates the importance of‘software’ aspects of technology -the ability to manage all the necessary elements, and incorporate
institutional mechanisms to 3;chieve the goal.

32

Turning to information communication technologies (ICTs), they are vital tools for knowledge
management. As in many fields, the sheer availability of information (data) means that the prime
constraint to development may no longer be data availability, but rather the access to the appropriate

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

27

information by the right person at the right time. Knowledge management becomes a big issue, anduse of the internet and digital technology becomes paramount. This is particularly the case in water
resources management which, as mentioned above, is inherently multi-sectoral and thus requires that concept and data flow between institutions. In Africa, internet accessibility is low. According to
the World Bank, in Kenya, in 200 I, the number of internet users was 1.6% of total population. In
Zambia, it was less than one percent.34 In many ways, internet access is a political question, related
to regulation of the sector, and the willingness to provide community services for development
purposes, rather than just individual services on a profit-making basis.
A Burkina Faso-based organisation currently focusing on knowledge management for water, Centre
Regional pour I ‘Eau Potable et I’ Assainissement (CREP A) , recognises that given these constraints.
“Despite their relevance, these tools have to be adapted for in an environment where computers andthe Internet are not always accessible or appropriately used. In this context, knowledge management
for the water and sanitation sector in West Africa cannot solely rely on ICT .,,35

33

Ohlsson, 1999
Beniest et al (forthcoming)
35
Source Weekly 2004 b. Special Features Edition, November 2004 See CREPA website, http://
www.reseaucrepa.org/index.htm
34

During the debates over ‘environmental security’, question of the role of the military has been arecurrent theme. Military academies -especially in the US, but elsewhere as well, including South
Africa -sponsored conferences and research into issues related to environmental change and security.
Some welcomed this, seeing environmental issues (including water resources management) liftedto the realm of ‘high politics’ for the first time. Others were more skeptical. Following the end of theCold War, they argued, security forces (at least in the developed world) had lost much of the justification
for their huge budgets. In response, they had ‘jumped on the bandwagon’ and were now attempting

28

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

to enter into the environmental arena in a bid to maintain their relevance. The problem was that the
military might not have lost its state-centric ‘threat’ orientated perspective, and hence might undermine
the development of the human security paradigm.
Since 9/11, the debates have changed somewhat, as security forces have regained influence in highpolitics. However, the engagement of the military with the idea of water-related conflicts remains a
relevant issue. Key concerns, of course, relate to the perceptions of different parties to the dispute geopolitics did not disappear with the fall of the Berlin wall.
A number of key technologies have been developed through military programmes which may now
offer some opportunities for the management of conflicts over water -if used appropriately. For
example, remote sensing, including GIS and satellite imaging, can improve understandings ofhydrology, human-hydrologic interactions, and environmental changes. They can generate informationthat can be used for common monitoring and to increase common acceptance of hydrologicalmodels. In using these technologies responsibly, scientists and governments should consider accessto technology, information and also capacity-building as political as well as ethical issues. For
example, African states should avoid being drawn into political disputes because of- or in return forbeing given access to such technology.
Finally, from a conflict management viewpoint, power-relations are all-important in negotiations
over potential or actual conflicts. Access to information and technology is a major factor in powerrelations. In order to avoid conflicts at all levels, key institutions should work towards creating a ‘levelplaying field’A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

29

7.

Conclusion

This paper -which is still in draft form -has sketched out abroad range of relevant issues. A fullconclusion will be added later, based on conference discussions. A few common threads canhowever be emphasized at present:
There is some convergence emerging in studies on water and conflict:• While shared water resources are associated with a higher risk of some kind of international
conflict, much of the popular discourse is influenced by ‘sabre- rattling’ and unsanctioned
threats.
• It is likely that Africa is at higher risk of international conflict over water than other areas• Shared water resources may also offer important opportunities for international cooperation• At the local level, violent conflicts over water and water-related (i.e. second order) conflicts
are fairly common.
In terms of local level violent conflicts, stakeholder identification, coordination, access to , information,and lack of acknowledgement of power relations and politics are all key issues. Local level conflicts
are not entirely ‘local’ -they cannot be divorced from the national-level water allocation decisions
and water pricing mechanisms, for example, which create parameters within which water resources
are locally managed.
It is important to consider a conflict from a broad viewpoint, in order to consider not just physicalviolence, but the violence done against communities and individuals through inequitable access towater. It is therefore important to look at issues such as debates over water as an economic good,and particularly the role of the private sector. These will increasingly shape the contours of local
resistance against water allocation, management and development.
Ideas of water scarcity, which tend to dominate IWRM should be interrogated in order to identify thepolitical issues (inter- and intra-state) which may not be overtly addressed. Water access at the local
level may not match ‘natural’ water availability. In addition to ‘hard’ technology, economic, politicaland social factors all limit water access and should be addressed by policy-makers.
16
17

Dr. Kinfe Abraham, op. cit.
Yacob Arsano, op. cit

30A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

31

Technologies of various kinds, and knowledge in its broadest sense, are important tools for effective
water management and management of potential or actual conflicts. Water is inherently a multisectoral issue, making knowledge management key to success of projects. Access to technology
and information are essentially political issues and should be treated as such, in order to redress
imbalances. Hard technologies impact on software aspects -as in the example of diesel pumps
undermining the social basis for water user associations cited above- as well as vice-versa.

References
Allan, T., and Nicol, A., 1998, Water Resources. Prevention of Violent Conflict and the Coherence ofE. U. Policy in the Horn of Africa, SOAS/Saferworld
Ayeb, H. (2004) Free-market Water Management: The Egyptian Hydraulic Crisis Amidst Peasant
Poverty. In Suruchera, M. ed (2004) Securing Land and Resource Rights in Africa: Pan-African
Perspectives. PLAASI PALRR/SRCICCDI/ACTS
Batchelor (2001) War Of Water In Oldonyowass. Accessed in November 2004 at
http:// tanzania.ms.dk/newsletter/visartikel.asp?id= 134
Beniest,. J., Albert D. Atkinsen, Sheila N. Rao. (forthcoming) Can electronic ICTs support agriculturaltraining and education in developing countries ? .World Agroforestry Centre 2Sth Anniversary
publication.
De Bois, Francois, “Water Rights and the Limits t(),Environmental Law”, in Journal of Environmental
Law, Vo16, No.1, Oxford University Press, 1994
Chalecki, E., Gleick, P., Larson, K., Pregenzer, A. and Wolf, A. (2002) Fire and Water: an Examinationof the Technologies, Institutions, and Social Issues in Arms Control and Transboundary WaterResources Agreements. Pacific Institute, California.
Freshwater Action (2004) accessed online in November 2004 at: http :1 Iwww .freshwateraction.net/
resourceslthematiclrights.asQ
Gleditsch, N. P., Owen, T., Furlong, K., and Lacina, B. (2004) Conflicts over Shared Rivers: ResourceWars or Fuzzy Boundaries? Paper presented to the 4Sth Annual Convention of the International
Water Studies Association, Montreal, march 2004.
Global Water Intelligence, (2000) Nile Politics: Egypt ‘s Gamble, October 2000. www .global
waterintel.com
Government of Kenya (2002). First National Communication of Kenya to the Conference of theParties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Ministryof Environment and Natural Resources; National Environment Secretariat.
Homer-Dixon (1994) Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict. International Security, summer
issue.
Huggins, C. (2002) Water Policy and Law in a Water-Scarce Country, in Murray-Rust and Blank (eds)(2002) The Changing Face of Irrigation in Kenya. International Water Management Institute,
Columbo
McDonald, D. and Pape, J. (2002) Cost Recovery and the crisis of Service Delivery in South Africa.
Zed Press: London and HSRC Publishers: Pretoria, 200232

A SURVEY OF INDIGENOUS WATER MANAGEMENT AND COPING MECHANISMS IN AFRICA

33

McGral1ahal1, G, al1d Satterthwaite, D, (2004) Improving Access to Water and sanitation: Rethinking
the Way Forward in the Light of the Millennium Development Goals. In Bigg, T. (2004) Survival
for a Small Planet. Earthscan/iied
Ng’wandu, P.V (2003) The. 1929 Nile Waters Agreement: Can it he Basis .for an Equitable Cooperative
Framework for all Nile Basin Co-Riparians? Paper presented to a meeting of the East African
Legislative Assembly at Imperial Hotel, Kisumu, June 2003.
Okidi, C (2003) Overview of Past Treaties Related to Lake Victoria and River Nile and Implication.’)for Water U.\.e in the Ea.\.t African Community, paper presel1ted to a meeting of the East African
Legislative Assembly at Imperial Hotel, Kisumu, June 2003
Powers, K. (2004) International Institution.\.: Formal Mechanisms for Dealing with Resource Conflict.
Paper Presented at Conference on Journeys in World Politics, October 2004, University ofOttawa.
Sadoff, C.F, Whittington, D., and Grey, D. 2002, Africa ‘.\, Il1lernational Rive/:\.: an Economic
Perspective, World Bank, Washington DC
Source Weekly 2004. Special Features Edition, November 2004
Starr, J. R. (1991). Water Wars. Foreign Policy 82 (Spring): 17-36.
Stratfor (2000) Nile River Politics: Who Receives Water? ,accessed online atwww. stratfor. com
Thompson, L. (2000) Discourses Everywhere and not a Drop to Drink: Water a.\. a Lens on
Environmental Security in Benjaminsen, T ., Cousins, B., and Thompson, L. Contested
Resources: Challenges to the Governance of natural Resources in Southern Africa.
van Wyk, J. (1998) Towards Water Security in Southern Africa. African Security Review Vol. 7 No.2,
1998.
WaterAid (undated) Social Conflict and Water; Lessons from North-East Tanzania. Discussion Paper.
WIDE (2003) Water, GATS and Gender, A panel statement at the seminar: Commercialisation versus
public services: water in Europe, the stakes and European directives, the role of Europe in the
GA TS and the WTO.
xxxiv
Mr. Akonaay, Regional Water Engineer Arusha, speaking during the ACTS workshop on water
policy.
xxxv
Interview with Mr Lokisa and Mr Macha of TIIP and Mr Mihambo of SlIP, 6.5.99, and with Mr
Akonaay, Regional Water Engineer, 16.7.99
xxxvi
Tanzania Ministry of Water , Water Resources Department, 1999, Tanzania National Water
Resources Management Po/icy xxxvii Ibid.

34

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 24

Chris Huggins is a Research Fellow at the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS)

Other Publications in the ATPS Special Paper SeriesSpecial Paper Series 1
Globalization and Technology: Africa’s Participation and Perspectives: Concept Paper and Research Agenda by
Melvin Ayogu &Osita Ogbu (2002)
Special Paper Series 2
Globalization, Markets for Technology and the Relevance of Innovation Policies in Developing Economies by Sunil
Mani (2002)
Special Paper Series 3
Biotechnology in sub-Saharan Africa: Towards a Policy Research Agenda byJohn Mugabe (2000)

Special Paper Series 4
The Impact of Globalization in sub-Saharan Africa Countries by Mwindaace N. Siamwiza (2002)
Special Paper Series 5
A Blueprint for Developing National ICT Policy in Africa by Clement Dzidonu2002
Special Paper Series 6
Impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on Technology Transfer in Africa by Moses M. Ikiara (2002)
Special Paper Series 7
Pursuing Technology Policy Research in sub-Saharan Africa: Reflections on the Dimensions, Applications and
Implications of a Methodological Framework by M.H. Khalil-Timamy (2002)
Special Paper Series 8
African Response to the Information Communication Technology Revolution by G. Olalere Ajayi (2002)
Special Paper Series 9
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs): Poverty Alleviation and Universal Access Policies by Andrew
Dymond & Sonja Oestmann (2002)
Special Paper Series 10
ICT Human Resource Development in Africa: Challenges, Strategies and Options by T.M. Waema (2002).
Special Paper Series 11
Applications of ICTs in Africa: Development of Knowledge Workers in Centres of Learning by John Muraguri
Waibochi (2002).
Special Paper Series 12
State of Science and Technology Capacity in sub-Saharan Africa by Khalil-Timamy (2002).
Special Paper Series 13
Strengthening National Information and Cmmunication Technology Policy in Africa: Governance, Equity andInstitutional Issues by Melvin Ayogu

Special Paper Series 14
A Science Agenda from An Afrian Perspective by Turner T. Isoun
Special Paper Series 15
International Trends in Modern Bio-technology: Entry by and Implications for African Countries by John Mugabe
Special Paper Series 16
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), technology Transfer and Poverty Alleviation: Africa’s Hopes and Dilemma by
Moses Ikiara
Special Paper Series 17
Global Governance of Technology and Africa’s Global Inclusion by Banji Oyeyinka
Special Paper Series 18
Science and Technology and Poverty Reduction Strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa byO. Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 19
An Assessment of Science and Technology Capacity Building in sub-Saharan Africa byO. Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 20
Network as Determinants of Manufacturing SME Cluster Growth in Nigeria Networking Technical Change andIndustrialization: The Case of Small and Medium Firm in Nigeria by Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka
Special Paper Series 21
Technology Transfer in a Globalizing World: Many Promises, Lack of Responsibility, and Challenges for Africa by
M.H. Khalil Timamy
Special Paper Series 22
Integrated Value Mapping for Sustainable River Basin Management by Kevin UramaSpecial Paper Series 23
Wastewater and Irrigated Agriculture Lessons Learned and Possible Applications in Africa by Frans Huibers, Lucas
Seghezzo and Adriaan Mels
Special Paper Series 24
Survey of Indigenous Water Management and Coping Mechanisms in Africa: Implications for Knowledge andTechnology Policy by Femi Olokesusi
Special Paper Series 25
Imbalance in Water Allocation Stability and Collaboration within the Nile Basin by Kinfe Abraham

For more information on this series and ATPS Contact:

The Executive Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-020-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-020-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org