Transboundary Groundwater Governance: Information deficits, Incentives and barriers to cooperation

Transboundary Groundwater Governance: Information deficits, Incentives and barriers to cooperation

The main point I would like to draw upon here is simple: ‘Given the present stage of resource utilization, groundwater mismanagement has not yet become critical enough to compel decision makers to engage in joint endeavors (except in North Africa).’ These remarks, made by the German Development Institute (GDI) (2008: 76) nearly 10 years ago, are in my opinion, increasingly invalid in terms of resource utilization. Appraisals of effectiveness regarding many prominent transnational surface water initiatives, such as the NBI being ‘excrutiatingly slow’ and ‘seemingly unsuccessful’ (Paisley et al. 2013:11), alongside increasing needs to move beyond existing and strained sources through development pressures, point towards the need to diversify water requirements through groundwater. Yet the GDI’s appraisal of the seeming lack of groundwater governance was attributed to the costs of non co-operation: It seems unfeasible to under utilize this resource any longer.

However, the recognisations by academics of the growing importance of groundwater as a resource does not seem to be replicated by a similar proliferation of governance in Africa. Specified knowledge of individual aquifer complilation needs to improve to help inform a chronic lack of management institutions. Although not totally realised, efforts to combat this are ongoing, evident through formations like that of the ‘Joint Authority for the Study and Development of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System’ (a real mouthful) and the Consultation mechanism of the North-West Saharan Aquifer System. There still remains a knowledge gap concerning aquifer dynamics in various specific sites and as a trend in Africa more broadly, a lack of knowledge makes it difficult to enact governance strategies, as they cannot be sure of;

-       Whether or not their country forms part of a groundwater basin, and if so to what extent?

-       If they do, the degree to which they have a stake, and thus an incentive to co-operate

-       If they do form part of the basin, what is at stake by co-operating, or not?

The last question has proved to be mutual reinforcing as uncertainty understandably favours a continuation of the status quo. In conjunction with this, Africa more than any other country in the world has a very unequal distribution of economic development which translates into asymmetric distributions of information. This is believed to be a limiting factor in so far as more developed countries feel they would be required to put in disproportionate inputs for the benefits received (Steyrer, 2008). Reinforcing this, Jarvis has noted that pure institutional convenience can be understood as a pull factor in establishing aquifer management schemes as he goes on to note that 14/40 acknowledged transboundary aquifers fall ‘inside a river basin with some form of freshwater agreement’ (2007:76)

However, in line the remarks made at the outset, the opposite also applies, in that countries who have a heavy reliance on groundwater have actively been the forerunners in searching for the establishment of cooperation platforms and institutions. Tunisia is one such example and their precarious position with regards to their high dependence on the Rejim Maatoug aquifer in particular has seen significant efforts to demonstrate how they would be easy and beneficial to work with – reflected by their own efforts to display both good water policy and a consistent implementation of it. Their efforts seem to have been recognised as they consistently score the highest on the corruption perception index (scoring highest means you have the lowest, I know don’t) has seen their initiation of the successfully established OSS (Observatory of the Sahara and the Sahel) to ‘co-ordinate promote rational management’ (Burchi and Mechlem 2005:7) North-West Sahara Aquifer System Algeria and Libya with research being the name of the day, the initial focus reflective of the continued limitations that effective groundwater process knowledge has on good governance.

Subsequently, many aquifer management systems still seem in very early stages of development and increasingly matured efforts are being made to mediate the legal difficulties that have accompanied the increased uses of groundwater resources.

Bibliography

Burchi, S. / K. Mechlem (2005): Groundwater in international law: Compilation of treaties and other legal instruments, Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO Legislative Study 86)

German Development Institute (2008): Conceptualising Cooperation for Africa’s transboundary groundwater resources)

Jarvis, W. T. (2007): Transboundary groundwater: geopolitical consequences, commons sense, and the law of the hidden sea, Dissertation; online: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/publications/jarvisdissertation.htm (accessed 2 Aug. 2007)

K. Paisley & Henshaw, 2013. Transboundary governance of the Nile River Basin: Past, present and future. Environmental Development, 7, pp.59–71.

Steyrer, T. (2007): Transboundary groundwater management – non-African case studies