RESPONDING TO LOCAL VOICES: WATER, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?
The political dimension of water is evident in the widespread protests. It raises the question of responsibility. ‘In search of the right formula’, various strategies have taken place in Africa, ‘from centralised public administration systems to their decentralised variant[s]’.
The role of the government?
According to the Hobbesian tradition and Locke’s social contract theory, society is built around an agreement among individuals, where the sovereign, understood as the state, owes protection to the people under its authority. It ought to safeguard the rights of the people composing its society, including the right to water.
Reflecting on the previous post, the mobilization of civil society against the state’s current management of water translates into a rupture of consent by the people, an alteration of the agreement between them and the sovereign.
Solid political leadership seems essential to set the agenda and guide water-related plans and policies. However, the state might lack the means or expertise to adequately manage water and ensure its sustained, equitable, and sufficient provision. Thus, the government might decide to transfer the power to manage water, which, in some way, implies that it acknowledges its failure but also that it takes a step towards change, although the outcomes are usually uncertain.
Private sector participation?
The term privatisation ‘encompasses a spectrum of contractual arrangements between the government and the private sector, ranging from a management contract through to divestiture (i.e. ownership transfer)’. Water becomes the responsibility of a non-state actor with different knowledge, expertise, and agenda. ‘One of the core objectives of privatisation is to reduce the level of political interference in the operation of an enterprise or sector’.
In Côte d’Ivoire, the shift to private management of water started in 1960. The management of water was largely monopolized by French companies. While ‘the government provide[d] strong policy guidance’, SODECI (Société de distribution d’eau de la Côte d’Ivoire) had ‘the managerial and financial strength to implement the government’s pro-poor aims’. Partly due to its well-managed 'cross-subsidy mechanism’, and the support of local political leaders that incorporated the rich-poor divide at the heart of their activities, SODECI managed to extend its coverage and customer base and improve the provision of water. This public-private partnership is considered an ‘African success story’ that led to ‘remarkable progress’ in terms of access to water.
Conversely, as Johannesburg or Cape Town’s protests demonstrate, private ownership did not solve the challenges faced by the communities in South Africa. In particular, the lack of regulation on pricing led to a rise in barriers to accessing water. Indeed, profit-driven private companies might not people’s interests first. Privatisation reinforced preexisting disparities and failed to address ‘the politicized nature of service delivery, and lack of access for the poor’.
Privatisation involves other concerns. For instance, it includes anticipating the potentially long-lasting dependence on foreign intervention or evaluating the local government’s aptitude to take over after the end of the private company’s contract.
Community-based approach?
The state might also transfer the task of managing water to communities. It can be interpreted as ‘efforts to empower local communities’, as it ‘aligns with a main pillar of the broader international development paradigm – building and strengthening civil society’. However, this way of approaching water management can also be problematic and ‘perpetuate vulnerability’.
Training every community member using the water utility would be resource and time-consuming and likely unnecessary for the goal of managing water. However, solely providing training to water committee members can cause or deepen the exclusion of other individuals in the community. Such information asymmetries are likely to be linked with preexisting power dynamics. Thus, for instance, one should adopt a gender-sensitive lens when evaluating a community-based approach.
Moreover, it rests on the assumption that the community will have a continuous willingness and sufficient motivation to ensure the maintenance of water infrastructures. The absence of remuneration can decrease incentives to get involved in water management or lead to ‘committee member resignation’. This approach risks suffering from a ‘lack of long-term sustainability’ because ‘it is reaching the limits of what can be realistically achieved in an approach based on informality and voluntarism’.
Will the winning formula be found in a collaboration between such potential actors? Who will attempt to solve the challenges of public health and social dilemmas associated with authority? The question of responsibility remains at the core of the issues surrounding water in Africa.
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire