Unavailable or inaccessible water? Inequality as political scarcity.

In this post, I would like to come back to the IWRM principle I tried to explore in this blog -equality- and reformulate it in consideration of political scarcity, a notion we mentioned in the first seminars of the course.

The concept of scarcity has been defined, among others, by Scoones et al., (2014) as absolute, relative and political. In particular, political scarcity can be useful to take into account not only the issue of water availability -which can be viewed as absolute scarcity, but also the problem of water access and distribution.

The previous sentence does not imply that predicted reduction in water resources is not a problem (Taylor, 2004), also considering the effects of climate change and population growth on water availability (Carter and Parker, 2009). Conversely, it aims at highlighting that the narrative of water scarcity has often oriented the debate on water management in the direction of a 'zero-sum game' -in which limited resources have to be allocated in specific sectors at the expense of others (van Koppen, 2003), rather than considering this points:

·         How much water is available?

The use of annual river runoff (MARR) as a criterion in water scarcity indices does not take into account changes in freshwater storage (Taylor, 2009); subsequently, groundwater storage is often excluded from assessments of freshwater availability (MacDonald et al., 2012); the potential of groundwater, for example in irrigation, is often untapped (Villholth, 2013); ); at the same time, increasing costs in groundwater abstraction due to falling levels of groundwater are not considered in the estimation of groundwater withdrawals (Taylor, 2014).

·         Does access and distribution only depend on availability?

Availability of water itself does not seem the only explicatory factor for access to and distribution of water. In particular, Chenoweth (2008) shows absence of significant correlation between water resources per capita and 'the ability of a country to satisfy the basic water resource needs of its population'.

Therefore, I think taking into account political scarcity can be relevant to understand the drivers of access to and distribution of water. I reformulate this concept from Scoones et al., (2014) as the set of power relationships which determine (or have determined) participation of different groups in decision-making processes on water management in past (with colonialism) and present times (with non-institutional social dynamics expressed in cultural norms and attitudes; institutional aid, development and governmental relationships). 

For example, complex cultural dynamics (combined with other factors) shaping traditional gender roles¹ can exclude women from decision-making on the use of water (Jalal, 2014), even when they carry out both productive and reproductive roles (Cleaver and Elson, 1995; Peter, 2006). Participation in water management -which takes many forms: choices on irrigation systems, for example- usually derives from water rights (mainly intended as rights at collective choice level defined by Zwarteveen, 1997: 1339), sometimes not recognised to women as their water needs are not legitimated (ibidem). Water rights are strictly linked to land titles and rights of inheritance, which are denied to women in some cases (Torou et al., 2013; van Koppen et al., 2013; Villholth, 2013).

  
Moreover, development organisations, national and regional governmental institutions can privilege the involvement of some stakeholders (see the first post for an example) in these decisions and reinforce, rather than equalise, gender roles.

© Roger Leguen / WWF-Canon

Patterns of participation determined by the above mentioned dynamics and relationships shape the economic and cultural factors affecting access to and distribution of water resources. For example:

·         Economic factors: 

The agreed or imposed cost of water determines access to this resource, also on the basis of: fixed/progressive costs and level of economic inequality of a country (which rises inequality in access to water at the increase of water costs);

Decisions of both local private and institutional actors on the allocation of economic resources on water supply infrastructures have an impact on access to water (van Koppen, 2003).

·         Cultural factors: 

Groups excluded from active participation in land and water management (women, for example) are more subject to be marginalised in a passive assignation of duties (for example, in domestic water supply -see Schreiner and van Koppen, 2001) and resources (such as a possible unequal distribution of water at the household level).

I believe this view can point out the primary role of equity in participation in determining equity in distribution and access itself: groups excluded from decisional process are often disadvantaged in access to natural resources.

Again, comments and critiques are more than welcome - thanks in advance for reading this post!

¹ I consider Peter’s (2006) definition: behaviours, ‘attitudes and beliefs that a particular cultural group considers appropriate for males and females on the basis of their biological sex’.


Sources:

Carter, R.C. and Parker, A., (2009) Climate change, population trends and groundwater in Africa. Groundwater and climate in Africa: a review.Hydrological Sciences Journal Vol. 54(4), pp. 676-689.

Chenoweth, J. (2008) A re-assessment of indicators of national water scarcity,Water International,33:1,5 —18.

Cleaver, F., & Elson, D. (1995). Women and water resources: Continued marginalisation and new policies. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Jalal, I. (2014). Women, Water, and Leadership, ADB Briefs.

MacDonald, A., Bonsor, H.C., O Dochartaigh, B.E. and Taylor, R.G. (2012) Quantitative maps of groundwater resources in Africa. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 7, 024009.

Peter, G. (2006). Gender roles and relationships: Implications for water management. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 31(15), 723-730.

Schreiner, B., & van Koppen, B. (2001). From bucket to basin: poverty, gender, and integrated water management in South Africa. In Intersectoral management of river basins: proceedings of an international workshop on ‘‘integrated water management in water-stressed river basins in developing countries: strategies for poverty alleviation and agricultural growth (pp. 45-69).

Scoones, I., Smalley, R., Hall, R., & Tsikata, D. (2014). Narratives of scarcity: understanding the ‘global resource grab’ (No. 76). FAC Working Paper.
Taylor, R.G. (2004) Water Resources and development challenges in eastern and southern Africa . In: T. Bowyer-Bower and D. Potts (Eds.), East and Southern Africa . Regional Development Text, RGS-IBG Developing Areas Research Group, Addison-Wesley Longman (London), Chapter 7, pp. 198-228.

Taylor, R.G. (2009) Rethinking water scarcity: role of storage. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 90(28), pp. 237-238.

Taylor, R.G. (2014) When wells run dry. Nature, vol. 516, 179-180.
Torou, B. M., Favreau, G., Barbier, B., Pavelic, P., Illou, M., & Sidibé, F. (2013). Constraints and opportunities for groundwater irrigation arising from hydrologic shifts in the Iullemmeden Basin, south-western Niger. Water international, 38(4), 465-479. DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2013.817042

van Koppen, B. (2003). Water reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: what is the difference?. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 28(20), 1047-1053.

van Koppen, B., Hope, L., & Colenbrander, W. (2013). Gender aspects of small-scale private irrigation in Africa (Vol. 1543). IWMI.
Villholth, Karen G. (2013) Groundwater irrigation for smallholders in SubSaharan Africa – a synthesis of current knowledge to guide sustainable outcomes, Water International, 38:4, 369-391, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2013.821644

Zwarteveen, M. Z. (1997). Water: From basic need to commodity: A discussion on gender and water rights in the context of irrigation. World development,25(8), 1335-1349.