Watershed Management - Governance

Governance

The second World Water Forum held in The Hague in March 2000 raised some controversies that exposed the multilateral nature and imbalance in the demand and supply management of freshwater. While donor organisations, private and government institutions backed by the World Bank, believe that freshwater should be governed as an economic good by appropriate pricing, NGOs however, held that freshwater resources should be seen as a social good. The concept of network governance where all stakeholders form partnerships and voluntarily share ideas towards forging a common vision can be used to resolve this clash of opinion in freshwater management. Also, the implementation of any common vision presents a new role for NGOs because of their unique capabilities in local community coordination, thus making them a valuable partner in network governance.

Watersheds replicate this multilateral terrain with private industries and local communities interconnected by a common watershed. Although these groups share a common ecological space that could transcend state borders, their interests, knowledge and use of resources within the watershed are mostly disproportionate and divergent, resulting to the activities of a specific group adversely impacting on other groups. Classic examples being the Minamata Bay poisoning that occurred from 1932 to 1968, killing over 1784 individuals and the Wabigoon River incidence of 1962. Furthermore, while some knowledgeable groups are shifting from efficient water resource exploitation to efficient utilization, net gain for the watershed ecology could be lost when other groups seizes the opportunity to exploit more resources. This ‘gap’ in cooperative communication among multilateral stakeholders within an interconnected watershed, even with the likely presence of the usually reactive and political boundary-constraint state regulations, makes it necessary for the institutionalisation of an ecological-scale cooperative network of stakeholders. This concept supports an integrated management style for interconnected natural resources; resonating strongly with the Integrated Water Resources Management system proposed by Global Water Partnership.

Moreover, the need to create partnerships between donor organisations, private and government institutions and community representatives like NGOs in watersheds is to enhance an ‘organisational society’ among stakeholders. This posits a type of public-private partnership, commonly referred to as Type II partnership, which essentially brings together stakeholders that share a common watershed under a voluntary, idea sharing and collectively agreed vision aimed at granting mutual benefits to all stakeholders. Also, it explicates the concept of network governance, which is ‘..the only alternative for collective action’, requiring government to rescale its role in decision making and collaborate with other stakeholders on a level playing field rather than in an administrative or hierarchical manner.

Several riparian states have adopted this concept in managing the increasingly scarce resources of watersheds. These include, the nine Rhine states, with a common vision of pollution control, the Lake Chad and river Nile Basins, whose common vision is to ensure environmental sustainability. As a partner in the commonly shared vision, NGOs has adopted a new role in operationalising the implementation of regional watershed management policies at the local level. For instance, essential local coordination and education are areas where the services of NGOs have been effective. This makes NGOs the ‘nuclei’ for a successful watershed management.