The right to water from a political ecology perspective: the case of Zimbabwe's water reforms
From WaterWiki.net
Publication Title | The right to water from a political ecology perspective: the case of Zimbabwean water reforms |
Publication Type | Paper presented at the International Conference on the Right to Water and Sanitation in Theory and Practice |
Author(s) | Professor Bill Derman, Norwegian University of Life Sciences and University of Michigan and Dr. Emmanuel Manzungu, Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering, University of Zimbabwe
|
Publication Date | 26 Nov 2008
|
ISBN-ISSN-EAN | |
Publication URL | |
Contact | |
|
Contents |
Summary
Content
Abstract
In the growing emphasis and support for the right to water, this paper examines the need to combine analyses of power, ecology and international human rights in framing past, present and most likely future conflicts over the implementation of a right to water. To illustrate these complex intersections, we re-examine Zimbabwe's water reform programme to illustrate how multiple layers of actors shape and reshape national and local water management processes. The foundation for contemporary water reform in Zimbabwe rests upon the long-standing divide between 'commercial' and primary water. Primary water while absolutely critical for agrarian producers and users was and is only a small percentage of actual water use. Water for irrigated agriculture consumed more than 70 per cent of Zimbabwe's available waters. Control over water (and rain) has been critical in state planning and development throughout the world and Zimbabwe is no exception. Underlining the centrality of controlling water to political power, the paper describes the fundamentals of the national water reform process, the national and local debates which surrounded its implementation and whose interests took precedence. In the unravelling of water reform due to the fast track land reform and its accompanying crises, we analyze the multiple levels of contradiction embodied in the reforms, the neglect of local laws and practices, and once again, donor dependence.
Given the commodification and control of water resources it is appropriate to ask whose agenda is the right to water, and what happens when that conflicts with power. The Zimbabwe example provides a salutary example because the right to drinking water and livelihood was mainly practiced at the local level without any consideration in the water reform process. The moment to build on those practices we fear, has passed. One has to ask who will or can push a 'right to water' given the array of interests involved in controlling water.
