Water Demand Management, Natural Resource Reconstruction and Traditional Value Systems: a Case Study from Yemen
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT, NATURAL RESOURCE RECONSTRUCTION AND TRADITIONAL VALUE SYSTEMS: A CASE STUDY FROM YEMEN Occasional Paper No. 14 Water Issues Study Group School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) University of London By G. LichtenthŠler & A.R. Turton gl3&soas.ac.uk & [email protected] INTRODUCTION: Previous research has shown that under conditions of extreme water scarcity, such as in the Middle East, natural resource reconstruction can take place (Allen & Karshenas, 1996). This may not always be the case however, as certain societies seem better able to cope with this process than others. This phenomenon has been linked to the adaptive capacity of a society (Turton, 1999) where it has been shown that all social entities are not equally endowed. A shortage of adaptive capacity has been redefined as a second- order scarcity (Ohlsson, 1998; 1999). What is currently being regarded by most researchers as a manifestation of resource scarcity is in fact probably the result of a second-order scarcity of social resources, which impacts in turn on the way that social entities deal with the first order scarcity of a natural resource such as water. In terms of this thinking, a shift in emphasis to second-order scarcities would be appropriate. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that in a society where resource capture is being actively pursued, natural resource reconstruction is unlikely to occur because it reduces the overall legitimacy of the political system (Turton, 1999). A study of these aspects in Yemen (LichtenthŠler, 1999) is therefore considered to be extremely fruitful because of four fundamental reasons. Firstly, parts of Yemen are extremely water scarce. Secondly, Yemen has a number of critical socio-political cleavage lines, which makes the water sector a politicised environment. Thirdly, all of the elements for resource capture to take place, are in evidence. Fourthly, there is a vibrant indigenous culture embracing a traditional value system, which seems to tentatively suggest that adaptive capacity is present in a form which may be capable of resisting this resource capture if correctly harnessed. This may be instructive to other water-scarce states facing similar problems. DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this paper, the following definitions will apply: Adaptive capacity is the sum of social resources that are available within a society that can be mustered in order to effectively counter an increasing natural resource scarcity (Ohlsson, 1998; 1999). There are at least two distinct components to adaptive capacity (Turton, 1999: 25). The structural component comprises the sum of institutional capacity (including financial capacity) and intellectual capital which allows for the generation of alternative solutions such as water demand management strategies by technocratic elites. The social component is defined as the willingness and ability of the social entity to accept these technocratic solutions (such as water demand management strategies) as being both reasonable and legitimate. Allocative efficiency is the second method available to increase the return to water, which is based on the notion of a rational choice as to which activity would bring the highest return to water (Allan, 1998: 3). Allocative efficiency is economically rational but can be politically stressful, so it tends to be avoided by politicians and can be understood as being the Òmore jobs per dropÓ option (Turton, 1999: 23). There are two distinct types of allocative efficiency in existence that need to be clarified however, as each represent a different level of political risk. Inter-sectoral allocative efficiency can be defined as allocating water away from one economic sector (usually agriculture) because of an inherent low return to water, to another (usually industry) because of an inherently higher return to water. This is politically very risky (Turton, 1999:17) as was discovered by President Jimmy Carter when he tried to introduce a new policy called Òrealistic water pricingÓ in the USA (Reisner, 1993: 323). Intra-sectoral allocative efficiency can be defined as allocating water within a given sector, usually at the level of a production unit (farm or factory), away from production that has a low return to water to production with a higher return to water. This is usually politically less risky. Ecological marginalization is one of the end-products of resource capture, whereby those to whom access is denied become marginalized socially, politically and economically (Homer-Dixon & Percival, 1996:7). This becomes significant within the context of a developing state where either the economy or the government usually lacks the capacity to provide for those people who are marginalized. A first-order scarcity is a scarcity of a natural resource such as water or land (Ohlsson, 1998; 1999). Natural resource reconstruction exists when a social entity can effectively introduce water demand management, specifically by re-allocating water from one economic sector to another (Allan & Karshenas, 1996: 127-8). Thus, natural resource reconstruction needs principles of allocative efficiency to be applied in order to become a reality. For this to take place effectively, the second (social) component of adaptive capacity must be present (Turton, 1999: 29) and functioning however. Productive efficiency is one of the two methods available to increase the return to water, usually involving improvements to the efficiency of water delivery in irrigation systems (Allan, 1998: 3) or to other consumers. The important aspect in this regard is that it does not involve a change in the overall water-use paradigm by allocating water to alternative 2 economic sectors. This makes it a politically favoured but sometimes ineffective option as it fails to take advantage of the gearing ratios with respect to return to water that alternative economic sectors offer. This can be thought of as the Òmore crop per dropÓ option (IIMI, 1996) and is sometimes referred to as Òend user efficiencyÓ (Turton, 1999: 22). Resource capture is the process by which powerful social groups shift resource distribution in their favour (Homer-Dixon & Percival, 1996:6) over time. This is particularly relevant under conditions of extreme water scarcity where access to a critical natural resource like water gives considerable advantage to those who control the access and allocation of that resource. This serves to politicize water further by decreasing the level of legitimacy, introducing elements of mistrust which undermine the water demand management strategies being proposed by technocratic elites (Turton, 1999: 13). Return to water refers to the value of the product being produced from a given quantity of water. This implies that there are at least three fundamental aspects concerning the notion of ÒvalueÓ, which need to be recognised. Firstly, the concept can be understood in terms of an economically rational approach, naturally favouring the production of goods with the highest economic yield. This may be economically rational, but socially or politically irrational, and consequently not implemented. Secondly, the concept can be understood in terms of a culturally rational approach, which would favour water allocation to an economically nonviable but culturally essential activity. Water as a status symbol can be seen in this regard. Thirdly, the concept can be understood in terms of a politically rational approach, which may be economically irrational but politically necessary and feasible. The concept of return to water is thus highly complex and effectively defies a simple definition, which is probably why other authors seem to have avoided the task. A second-order scarcity is a scarcity of adaptive capacity (Ohlsson, 1998; 1999). This is manifest as the inability of a society to muster sufficient social resources to effectively counter the increasing natural resource scarcity. The operative word here is ÒeffectivelyÓ. Sustainable development can be operationally defined as taking a long-term view on water-use patterns; not compromising the future in pursuit of the present; recognising the need to involve people; and emphasising the quality of life and living systems in the definition of development (Morris, 1996: 230). Sustainable development therefore involves a switch in emphasis from supply-management (which attempts to meet rising demands by abstracting more water from a depleted resource base) to demand management (which attempts to reduce consumption by increasing efficiencies and developing alternatives) over time. Water demand management (WDM) is a policy for the water sector that stresses making better use of existing supplies, rather than developing new ones (Winpenny; 1997: 297). WDM can be managed in many different ways (Westerlund, 1996: 155) so there is no given strategy that is universally applicable. This means that local factors such as culture need to be considered by technocratic elites when developing solutions. 3 THE PROBLEM IN THE SAÕDAH BASIN OF YEMEN: There are distinct phases to the development of groundwater in the SaÕdah Basin of Yemen (LichtenthŠler, 1999). Until the mid-1970s groundwater irrigated agriculture was not possible in the SaÕdah basin. Most land was communally owned and managed. This meant that members of a tribal community shared the right to collect firewood, graze their flocks and collect fruit from trees. However, the communities were not permitted to use their grazing land agriculturally since the run-off collected from its surface