Local Water Governance in Iran: Issues, Challenges ...

C

1st Conference on Governance and Public Policy 3-4 Jan 2018 IRIB International Conference Center, Tehran, iran

S. M. Hashemi Local Water Governance in Iran

Extended abstract:

Local Water Governance in Iran: Issues, Challenges and approaches S. Mukhtar Hashemi

[email protected] +989188724202

The issues and challenges Many River basins in Iran show classic examples of common pool resources conflict which has resulted in overexploitation of water and land resources and subsequently created environmental degradation. Even strong political commitments to Flagship Public polices such as restoration of Lake Urmia has not resulted in delivering water to the Lake (e.g. Hashemi, 2102; ULRP, 2017). In Lake Urmia Basin, the establishment of multitier participatory decision-making governance system acted at a slow pace. Decisions could not be made on time due to the influence of lobbying groups and hidden actors. For example, despite fostering evidence-based decision-making, the empirical scientific evidences were ignored in the water allocation process during. Three factors may have attributed to such public policy failures including (1) continuation of the "hydraulic mission" (Allan, 2005) i.e. "business as usual"; land and water development plans, e.g. the irrigated land has increased from 480, 000 ha to 560,000 ha for the period 2012-2016 (ULRP, 2017) despite a formal rule forbidding any increase in irrigated area, (2) lack of water demand management, an increase in surface and groundwater resources has been noted and (3) lack of dealing with so called "illegal" or informal water abstractions. The key to a successful implementation of sustainable water and land (agricultural) policies is to appreciate the role of influential local actors or informal institutions which have a large bearing on policy outcomes. Many scholars have called for participatory governance where a bottom-up approach to water and land management is considered. One of the reasons for inadequacy of the participation process is that the real actors (local communities such as farmers) have been overlooked: informal and unauthorised water users who made an informal rule of abstraction for generations. Regulatory frameworks to water and land resources management should cater for local jurisdictions. Bearing in mind that there is a great of deal empirical evidence that community based approach to water and land resources management has been effective in dealing with common pool resources such as water and forests (Hashemi, 2012). For example the Nobel Laureate, Professor Elinor Ostrom (2005, 2011) make a summary of tens of case studies that self-organising nested enterprises have been able to monitor resource use. Therefore, one of the main presumptions is that cultural and ethical values together with respect for informal institutions can bring about change in attitudes and cultures (Hashemi et al, 2012).

C



Policy assumptions There are FOUR main policy assumptions for establishing local water governance in Iran :    

Stopping over-exploitation of natural resources cannot be achieved without the involvement of local communities and consideration for their cultural and belief systems There is an explicit relationship and strong inter-linkage between land and water management Traditional practices, knowledge systems and institutions can offer a platform to establish a community based natural resources management Value-laden community ethics including Islamic ethics and a new political culture can provide a coherent set of principles for community-based natural resources governance in Iran.

Policy implications: dealing with Main jurisdictions within regulatory framework There are 5 main jurisdictions within regulatory framework which have to be resolved in order to establish sustainable Local water governance in Iran as part of institutional arrangements: (1) transforming rules and regulations in constitutional and collective choice levels to enforceable rules in operational and local levels specifically dealing with water ownership and rights to water; (2) the impact of the democratic system of the government on decentralization policy and balancing political power among national/provincial and local governance systems with emphasis on political culture and ethics; (3) creating "nested enterprises" at watershed level within the larger river basin; (4) setting a strategy for capacity development at local level and (5) establishing community based conflict resolution model.

Policy implications for Land and water inter-linkage: recognizing local informal institutions The real actors (i.e. farmers) have been overlooked: informal and unauthorised water users who made an informal rule of abstraction for generations. Farmers are not the only monsters of this environmental catastrophe. Perhaps they are a victim of a legacy of past unsustainable land use polices. Most farmers have made a great deal of investments in pumping and irrigation technologies. They feel insecure and vulnerable and have a great deal of financial debts and little choice but to continue with irrigating and developing: Major problem of the water [sector] is that 70% of the [available] agricultural water is from wells, qanats and springs and 30% from surface waters. Nevertheless, 95% of the governmental investment is on surface waters. Surface water consumption efficiency is far less than groundwater consumption rate (MoAJ, 2008)

C



Ostrom (2005) make a summary of tens of case studies that self-organising nested enterprises have been able to monitor resource use; thus the presumption is that the cultural and ethical values together with respect for informal institutions can bring about change in attitudes and cultures. We need to understand the informal (traditional) institutions in order to be able to interface with the modern regulatory frameworks. Institutional analysis is an important part of the strategy. It is interesting to note that Colding et al (2003) reports that Bennet (1990) argued early anthropologists did not believe that traditional (informal) institutions existed in traditional communities; nevertheless, the recognition of the importance of “informal institutions in sustainable resources and ecosystem management is on the rise”. Based on the findings of Hashemi (2012) in Lake Urmia case study, many stakeholders held the belief that “community-based water and land governance system can help to achieve the objectives of water allocation strategy”. One of the key information gaps was that there is very little knowledge about the watershed and farm level management; for example, information about informal (unauthorised) water abstractions is not known. Another key missing elements was absence of local political support; thus representation should have been enhanced by including community, civil society and NGOs. To successfully implement the governmental policy to restore Lake Urmia, it is necessary to (1) link the current institutional setup to existing multitier stakeholder platforms and (2) incorporating local nested enterprises by recognising the informal institutions and their knowledge systems. Hashemi (2012) asserts that bringing the informal institutions into the formal set up can be achieved gradually through the social learning processes and adaptive management practices.

Conformity and harmony with Socio-economic paradigm: dealing with water rights and informal water abstraction Cultural transformations and changing cultures are the main challenges facing communty-based institutions. Many communties have lost some of their traditional identities and so it is not possible continue with traditional norms. The role of women has changed in many societies and so these factors have to be taken into account in developing local water governace system,. The impacts of Socio-political issues such as marginalising and social exculsion of indigenous culture and local communites have to be assessed and evaluated. We need to understand what are the changes in societal values and the nature of land and water conflicts. New youth culture has to be considered if to revive a community-based appraoch to conflict resolution. Involving village youth to help with the adminstration of the conflict resolution mechanisms is a major challenge and can be an opportunity for rival of community based appraoch. We need to understand and identify root causes of conflict between different interest groups. Thus, traditional land and water rights need to be at the heart of any conflict resolution strategy. Traditional rights have to be streamlined with sustainability concepts. New conflicts have to be appreciated e.g.  

Village zone boundaries Claims over ancesteral land

C



    

Sale of land within village (local) zones/ new ownners and change in social fabric Agriculture and long term cultivation in local area zones Logging and illigal activities Relegious/ethnic conflicts Increasing number of people with no respect for local values

In relation to the legal and regulatory framework There is a need to appreciate that any change (i.e. increase or decrease) in the influence of the state legal systems and governance will have a direct bearing on local communities. Therefore, local water governance system(LWGS) will be influenced by state or formal legal and regulatory setups. Ideally, LWGS should find its place on the legal map with the overall governance system. We also, need to think about the institutional environments or arrangements which are most suited to local conditions and off course to be compatible within dual (community based and conventional) legal frameworks. Thus, one of the main tasks is to provide legal provisions for the LWGS. These provisions will require certain criteria: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

equitable access to justice; (fostering collaborative management (co-management); recognising nformal/ indeginous/ traditional/legal systems; and Identifying and supporting legitimate institutions for conflict resolution.

In other words, identifying various instituions which manage or are involved with natural (land and water) resources managemnt, land disputes (e.g. committee of experts), local adminstrations (formal and informal), regional governments and local knowlege systems. The multilevel and institutional diversity need to to be recognised. The challenge is how to incorporate local knowlege systems in the tecnocratic world of natiral resources management.

Cross custting issues In order to improve the credibility of formal legal and regulatoty systems and vice versa, it is paramount to evaluate the steps in establishing legal pluralism in local zones(areas). The advantages of keeping communty-based appraoch and opportuniteis for enhancing the rule of law has to be assessed. Therefore, certain aspects have to be considered: 

 

Identification of key differences between the two systems: the formal legal and community-based governance systems; conversely, examples of good corrlation/agrrements/cooperations between trantional and modern legal sytstems in local water governance systems need to be recognised. The feasiabilty of he two systems work together and complement each other and the implication of dual legal systems to be assessed Understanding how formal legal mechanisms would allow the recognition of conflict resolution under community based local legal framework.

C





Understanding the role of capacity development (training/ education) to improve conflict resolution mechanisms in local water governance systems.

Understanding socio-political dynamics: dealing with political culture In order to establish local water governance system , political challenges such as lack of political will, government mistrust of citizens (and vice versa), legal empowerment of people, lack of awareness in government of the opportunities and therefore lack of adequate policies have to be evaluated (Hashemi et al, 2012). A new political culture should be encouraged to accept local democratic participation and public policy should cater for balancing political power distribution between local and national actors. Thus, decentralization policy should be translated into regulatory framework allowing decisions to be made at local level. Indeed a river basin approach is in direct conflict with local water governance; at local level, there are far many actors with varying and usually conflicting interests and so balancing the interests of all local stakeholders is a complicated process. Therefore, the new political culture should embrace participatory governance

Bridging tradition and modern day approaches We need to understand that the aspect of renewal is not only about going back to the old – it is about blending the old with the new. Challenges of the new generations with new aspirations have to be considered (Hashemi et al, 2012).

Implications for policy reform Policies that could support local water governance approach, are scattered thus, there is a need for combined policies that can support to recognize and encourage community-based participatory governance. As there is low enforcement and implementation of policies, Environmental Auditing may be established. . Institutional strengthening has to deal with challenges of corruption (transparency); thus regulatory frameworks are needed. Market based incentives to promote private sector engagement and community engagements in conservation are needed. Local water governance approach also can promote green growth as well as water-energy- food security. It can be considered as Sustainable Development System and should be defined and be part of a global initiative such as UN’s sustainable development programme. As there is a need for local governance pilot projects, regional and global donors can be approached to develop regional projects on trans-boundary regional initiative to enhance community based natural resource management, reinstated land to the communities. It is necessary to encourage philanthropy through the community based system.

Way forwards Local water governance does not imply independence from central rule or political chaos. It entails recognizing informal and local institutions within regulatory framework by considering three components of cultural and ethical approaches to water and land management practices: (1) providing social cohesion and sustainable livelihood for local communities;

C



(2) offering criteria for water ownership/rights and use based on carrying capacity and regeneration of the resources and (3) fostering conservation of the environment and adaptive management. It is argued that In addition to socio-economic and political realities, cultural and ethical discourses need to be considered in a strategy based on multi-stakeholder participation for successful implementation of public policies on water and land.

Cited References Allan, J.A. (2005). Water in the environment/socio-economic development discourse: sustainability, changing management paradigms and policy responses in a global system. Government and Opposition, 40 (2), 181-199. Colding, J., Folke, C. and Elmqvist, T. (2003). Social institutions in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation. Tropical Ecology, 44(1): 25-41 Hashemi, M. (2012). A Socio-Technical Assessment Framework for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) In Lake Urmia Basin, Iran Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England. MoAJ (2008). Transcript: Forum on water for food at the Ministry of Agricultural Jihad (MoAJ). Meeting held in July 2008 at the Water and Land Office, MOAJ, Karaj, Iran Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. USA: Princeton University Press.

ULRP, Urumia Lake Restoration Program (2017). Updating and Assessing Lake Urmia Restoration roadmap. Paper presented at the 7th policy Committee of ULRP. 14 August 2017, Tehran.