Decentralization Policies and

Water Governance in Developing Countries

Tom Eickhof, Lucia Scodanibbio, Christine Wenman

PLAN 597 – Course Presentation

Introduction:

Increasingly, decentralized water governance is being adopted in developing countries and is often a pre-condition for funds from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank. On one hand, proponents argue for the value of decentralized governance under the subsidiarity principle: that decisions made locally are economically more efficient and socially more empowering.  Meanwhile, critics suggest that the lofty goals of decentralization cannot be met with the limited resources of developing countries and that where it has been implemented the results have not been particularly promising. In this presentation we will explore variations of decentralized water governance and explore the potential and limits of its successful implementation through examining case studies in three regions of the world: Mexico, El Salvador, and Ghana.

Objectives:

- to become familiar with decentralised forms of water governance;
- to learn from the experiences of three different case studies in developing countries;
- to identify policy recommendations for an improved decentralisation process; and
- to identify the benefits, challenges and misgivings of decentralisation.

Readings:

Part 1: Background Information

Everybody please read the following articles for general background information about decentralization policy. What are the different forms of decentralization? What are the positive and negative impacts of decentralization policies as they are experienced on the ground in developing countries?

• FAO Corporate Document Repository (2001). In: L. D. Smith, Reform and Decentralization of Agricultural Services - A Policy Framework. FAO Agricultural Policy and Economic Development Series 7.

Read from section 1.2.3 (‘The World Bank and Structural Adjustment Programmes’) to the end of 1.6 (‘The challenge and risks of diversity’) in chapter 1: What is decentralization?

Read section 4.2.2 (‘The political impact of different forms of decentralization’).

Note Box 11.5 (chapter 11): Factors affecting the success of community management of water supplies.

• Robinson, M. (2007).  Introduction: Decentralizing service delivery? Evidence and policy implications. IDS Bulletin 38:1.

(Note: Requires you to be connected to UBC net – on campus or via VPN – in order to access subscription article)

• Kemper, K.E. et al. (2007). Part I: River Basin Management at the Lowest Appropriate Level: When and Why Does It (Not) Work in Practice? In: K.E. Kemper et al. (eds.), Integrated River Basin Management through Decentralization.

(Note: Requires you to be connected to UBC net – on campus or via VPN – in order to access subscription article)

Read from section 1.3 through to the end of chapter 1, pages 4-15.

Part 2: Case Studies

During the second part of the class, you will each look at a case study. You only need to do the readings for the case study you’ve been assigned to – please come ready to share them with the class.  As you read, think about the following questions:

• How would you describe your case study, in a nutshell?
• What kind of decentralization is at play here?
• Who are the stakeholders affected?
• What are the intended benefits?
• Are there obstacles or unintended ramifications of the policy?

During the class discussions you will present to delegates from your respective case study-countries attending an international conference: “Decentralization policies: challenges and opportunities”.

In your workgroups, you will be asked to contribute to a focus group discussion and develop policy recommendations to meet the challenges associated with decentralization.

Mexico                       (Nathalie, Genevieve, Darha, Renee, Nazarin)

• Guerrero, Vicente Reynoso.  2000. Towards a new water management practice: experiences and proposals from Guanajuato State for a participatory and decentralized water management structure in Mexico. Water Resources Development 16: 571-588. (Available in WebCT)

Please read the abstract and info until the top of p. 574; the paragraph entitled Responsibilities and Capacity… p. 575 to the top of p. 576; the paragraph entitled Proposal for effective decentralization, pages 578-579; and from Future challenges and opportunities to the end (pages 585 to end).

• Tortajada, Cecilia; Conteras-Moreno, Nancy. 2006.  Institutions for Water Management in Mexico.  In Biswas et al. Water Resources Development and Management, chapter 5: 99-129.

- Follow link to chapter 5.1.

(Note: Requires you to be connected to UBC net – on campus or via VPN – in order to access subscription article)

Please read the introduction (first part of section 5.2) and sections 5.3-5.5 (pages 118-126).

Ghana            (Chani, Jeff, Jacqui, Erica)

• Jackson, E.T. and Gariba, S. (2002). Complexity in local stakeholder coordination: decentralization and community water management in Northern Ghana. Public Administration 22: 135-140.

     (Note: Requires you to be connected to UBC net – on campus or via VPN – in order to access full article)

• Odame Abaio, K. (2006). Chapter 13: Putting integrated water resource management into practice: the Ghana experience. Proceedings of the African Regional Workshop on Watershed Management.

• Larbi. G.A. (2005). CAPAM Symposium on Networked Government: ‘Freedom to manage’, task networks and institutional environment of decentralized service organizations in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(3): 447-465. (Note: Requires you to be connected to UBC net – on campus or via VPN – in order to access full article)

This article deals with decentralized management structures in public health and water services in Ghana and Zimbabwe – please focus only on the paragraphs addressing water services in Ghana, and pay attention to the diagram depicting the ‘institutional environment’ on page 449.

El Salvador            (Courtney, Joel, Zohreh, Trevor, Celene)

• “Context matters: how state forms and reforms influence water provision in Latin America” (Haglund-Gomez, November 2006).

       Read statement of the problem (page 2) and ‘The Salvadoran Water Sector’ (page 26-30; in addition you may want to skim pages 22-26 to get additional background).

• “IDB approves $45.2 million for water sector in El Salvador - New Regulatory Framework, Greater Investment, Conservation”.

• “Tim’s El Salvador blog – Decentralization and Privatization”.

• "Not for sale: El Salvador's movement against Water Privatization".

Supplementary general readings (background/ policy recommendations):

• Edwards, D. et al. (1993). WASH Technical Report No. 89: Designing and Implementing Decentralization Programs in the Water and Sanitation Sector.  Office of Health, Bureau for Research and Development, USAID.

Chapter 2: Defining decentralization in the water and sanitation sector, p. 5-13.

Chapter 4, pages 23-33: Elements required in a decentralization strategy

• Kemper, K.E. et al. (2007). Part III: River Basin Management: Conclusions and Implications. In: K.E. Kemper et al. (eds.), Integrated River Basin Management through Decentralization.

(Note: Requires you to be connected to UBC net – on campus or via VPN – in order to access subscription article)

Chapter 12, pages 229-238.

Class Agenda

A.  Introduction

• The development of decentralization as a new policy approach

• The rationale for decentralization

            - stakeholder participation

            - increased efficiency in service delivery and allocation of resources

            - improved accountability and transparency

            - increased congruence between public spending and local interests

• Forms of decentralization

            - Deconcentration

            - Delegation

            - Devolution

            - Partnership

            - Privatization

       4.  Brief overview of the case study settings

B.  Group discussion in case study groups

You will all be asked to discuss your case study within your case study groups, facilitated by Tom, Lucia, or Chris. Discussions will centre on the discussion questions laid out in part 2 of the readings. The aim is to stimulate thought and reflection on your case studies so that you can share them with the other groups.

C.  Group discussion in mixed groups

You will be placed in groups mixed with delegates from other countries. Together, based on your experiences in your ‘home (case study) countries’, you are asked to come forward with policy recommendations that will help to facilitate the smooth transition to decentralized governance. In the end, your mixed group will be asked to report back to the class.

D.  Conclusion: Recommendations and future challenges

After we have presented some conclusive remarks on decentralization in developing countries, we encourage the class to engage in a discussion on future challenges by reflecting on the following questions:

• Is decentralization the solution for improved (good!) governance?
• What services should rather remain at central level?
• How does decentralization relate to the IWRM’s subsidiarity principle?
• What mechanisms are needed to ensure transparency and accountability? Who should be in charge (monitoring, performance evaluation, etc.)?
• Many suggest implementing decentralization gradually: Is this possible? How should this be done?
• Governments in developing countries are sometimes labeled kleptocratic; decentralization policies may in fact be only symbolic, with central governments in practice retaining control over all significant resource management decisions. What are the chances of bottom-up approaches for decentralized water services supported for example by NGOs or village communities?

A kleptocracy is a term applied to a government that extends the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats) at the expense of the population/ the people.