Chapter 4: Governance and Water Resource Management

Chapter 4: Governance and Water Resource Management

Water resources management is a function of good governance. To that end it is a product of a social, legal, political and economic system of institutions at various levels of society and polity that provide a balance of cooperative synergies. These, as the preceding chapters discuss, are a function of active stake holder involvement, reflective yet actively involved government, and administrative and social institutions that respects and responds to the values of community in an environment that engages and cultivates trust and cooperation. With this, it must embrace history and traditions that have developed over time relative to society’s goals and in response to success and dilemma. Moreover, it must be supported by social values and an appreciation for the unique properties of water. The case of Figuig highlights the important foundations of effective governance and water resources management. It further develops the IWRM model to include history, social value and water value.

Governing, according to Kooiman, is the totality of interactions, in which public and private actors participate, aimed at solving societal problems or creating societal opportunities.”(Kooiman, 2002:4) Governance, he argues, is a much broader concept that includes processes for developing “the totality of interactions, in which public and private actors participate, aimed at solving the totality of theoretical conceptions of governing.”(Kooiman, 2002:4) Accordingly, good governance relies on a system of interdependent, coordinated institutional interactions that support the long-term goals of society. To succeed, it must allow for accountability, be transparent, and encourage participation.

Governance has an important role that requires local understanding. “Governing from a distance”, however, often leaves a community without the appropriate supports and resources to succeed in development, and even inhibits a community’s ability to sustain itself over the long-run. Figure 15 shows an illustration of how governing from a distance leads to the breakdown of communities.

Figure 15: Governance

Bevir and Rhodes argue that governance must be considered relative to traditions and dilemmas.(Bevir, 2004, Rhodes, 1995) Further, the authors suggest that current governments must promote governance as “a network of institutions and individuals acting in partnership held together by trust.” A government’s role in this environment is to deliver public services through networks of organizations where the currency is not authority (bureaucracy) or price competition (markets) but trust.(Bevir, Rhodes, 2004)

According to their model Bevir and Rhodes posit that institutions are the product of social behavior. The governance system is a product of aggregate actions and beliefs that create “tradition and dilemma” that form the foundations of value and knowledge.(Bevir, 2004, Rhodes, 1995) By acting from afar and imposing policy that is not linked to regional and local stakeholders, social values, and institutions a central governing apparatus cannot incorporate long-standing social and political traditions that support important locally sustained governance structures.

Governance is not a byproduct of central authority, but rather supported by central government. As the case of Figuig illustrates, good governance is developed locally and supported by society. While it can support, direct, and coordinate action it can not, alone, drive a comprehensive governance system without participation from private and public actors and civil society at the local and regional level. Representative institutions that represent and be accountable to stakeholders in the system, must be appropriately accessible to support local consumers or constituents “voice” and transparent to dissuade corrosive behavior. A central government, while it can administer and support a system that can appropriately respond to local stakeholders, a hierarchical system is inherently bureaucratic and administrative controls inhibit voice, involvement, direct accountability and flexibility in responding to different needs in different communities. An integrative process of exchange and support at all levels of government provides an important balance of influence to support an effective and sustainable governance system.

Water Governance

The problem of water scarcity has been an issue of national and global concern for thousands of years. In turn, water policy and governance are routed in history at various levels of society and government around the world. Thus, it is thought that the establishment, growth, development and sustainability of many ancient civilizations are the result of effective governance and a function of their understanding of the natural environment and the value it attributed to its water resources.(Pearse, 2006)

For centuries Figuig could be considered an important example of good governance. First, the division among ksars created and encouraged cooperation and checked power imbalances. Within each ksar there was a system of responsive, accountable, transparent, and representative institutions created and supported by each community. Each of these institutions was able to respond to a socially developed and imposed mandate. Each was accountable to its respective community, met daily allow its constituents’ voice, in an open forum. As the Water Council became central to the Jmaa and was responsible for overseeing a broad range of social, political, and legal issues as most involved water on some level, the Council perpetuated an integrative approach to water resources management. Its governance structure established the foundations for a sustainable IWRM system whereby the value of water was central to community. The effective local governance system and water management institutions developed out of social need that consequently supported a relationship built on mutual trust with its corresponding communities that supported long term success. A cautious, but respected interplay of relationships between regional and national institutions allowed Figuig to become self-reliant and develop systems that reflected local needs and environmental sustainability, incorporating and perpetuating the value of water.(Figuig Interviews, 2005) A tentative relationship with the national system encouraged local institutional development. The governance framework of national legal and political goals provided legitimacy and external support. An established trust and relative respect for corresponding institutions within ksars and the balance of power that existed among ksars supported a system of active stakeholder participation at various levels of society and politics. These stakeholders and subsequently the community therefore was active in developing the evolving institutions. This, in turn, provided the foundations of effective governance that was able to survive crisis and change for generations.

The importance of water and its effective management was evident from the founding of Figuig as tribes established themselves relative to the prolific source. The value of water and the importance of managing it effectively encouraged the development of networks to support effective procurement and distribution to the community. As tribes continued to reorganize themselves into groups the issues of access and relative power became increasingly complex thus, a system of rights and duties, social controls and subsequently, a means of brokering relationships evolved to establish a complex governance system.

A system of social, political, and legal institutions developed relative to local realities and community goals. The Water Councils that supported each community’s resource needs immediately became the most prestigious and powerful institutions within the community. They mediated influence and action that could offset imbalances in the governance system.(Figuig Interviews, 2005)

The Water Councils were represented by trusted members of the Ksar. Each member of each Council was elected relative to his knowledge of water, his place in the community, and his ability to support long-term social goals, through fair and transparent elections.(Figuig Interviews, 2005) The respected authority of the Water Council and the relevance of water in the lives of individuals and communities in the Oasis, resulted in an expansive set of responsibilities including oversight of social, political, legal, and technological issues. The evolution of interaction with social institutions, property owners, and the community allowed these Councils to endure and remain central to the community for centuries.

While governance is intensely political it is a process of effectively implementing socially acceptable allocation systems and regulation (Rogers, Hall, 2003) through a system of social, political, and administrative interactions at various levels of society and government. Thus, according to Kooiman, governance is supported by “mutually influencing relations…”(Kooiman, 2002:231) The distribution of institutions across Ksars and throughout the Oasis continued to balance interests and provided for an integrated system of exchange and development that supported the community at large and its ability to effectively manage its water resources.

The community today, however, faces a crisis that many argue threatens the Oasis’ long-term survival.(Figuig Interviews, 2005) The dissolution of prominent local institutions while imposing outside administrative appointments, following Morocco’s independence from France compromised the foundations of the balanced governance system, and corrupted technological restraint, and subsequently allowed for environmental disequilibrium that had historically been carefully balanced. The Water Councils were representatives sanctioned by each community to allow stakeholders to be represented through a transparent process of decision-making. The administrative appointments responsible for overseeing water resources management did not engage community support, was not legitimized, and proved not to be responsive to the needs of individuals and the community of Figuig.(Figuig Interviews, 2005)

Many of the challenges facing Figuig can be traced to a period of disjointed government, single-process policy, and a top-down administration that undermined the established system of trust, respect for values, and interdependence. As a result, particularly as it relates to water, policy became a function of technology, short-term economic development goals and environmental limits. Today, we see restricted economic growth, social decline, cultural erosion, and environmental devastation.

The cumulative effect of post-Independence policy has led to a realization at all levels of government that reform is essential to achieve the country’s and community’s development goals. An integrated approach to development has since been adopted. A recent appreciation for the need to support local community viability has led to national policy reform to encourage more involvement by society to support a developing economy. New laws and policies to spearhead water conservation were introduced but a lack of focus on water value and its place in society produced less than encouraging results. The inability to build on social supports and established institutions had significant consequences. The residual problems of radical policy changes that essentially dismembered a system of governance and imposed disjointed administrative mandates on local communities undermined the wisdom of tradition and history, and ignored the value of relationships with community and the environment. By looking back at Figuig to look forward to change and sustainability, I endeavor to shed light on the important foundations for institutional development, good governance and effective IWRM systems that supported the Oasis’ needs for generations.