by J.P. Venot and W. Daré Presented at the Final Volta Basin Development Challenge Science Workshop, September 2013

1. Building water citizenship?
Practices of IWRM in Burkina Faso and Ghana
Jean-Philippe Venot and William’s Daré
Presentation at the VBDC Science Workshop
17-19 September, 2013
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

2. A few words about IWRM in the Volta
 Policy framework in Burkina Faso (since the mid 1990s)
and Ghana (since the early 2000s)
 Mid 2000s focused on creating new management entities
● Volta Basin Authority at international level
● Basin Boards and Agences de l’eau at basin level
● Comité Locaux de l’Eau at local level (BF)
 Guiding principles: water as a finite resource; water as
an economic good; central role of women; and a need for
participation and decentralization of decision making
CPWF V4 project focused on
understanding and enhancing participation

3. One research question...
Do practices of IWRM enhance water citizenship?
Citizenship as “bundle of rights”
Involves some form of political participation
Three inter-connected pillars
 Representativity and legitimacy of representatives
 Autonomy in decision making
 Accountability

4. Structures of representation
Civil society
CLE
BURKINA FASO
NationalRiverbasin
GHANA
NationalRiverbasin
AdministrationRegional representativeDistrict representative
‘Users’ representative
Traditional authoritiesResearch and education
Women representative
FINDINGS
• Participation beyond the
administration and local
government remains limited
• When user representatives
are present, they appear to
be legitimate in the eyes of
the decision makers
• Whether they are in a
position to voice the
concerns of water users
remains uncertain
• In Ghana, the geographical
extent of the boards is an
impediment to effective
representation

5. Autonomy in decision making
“The CLE is an entity of the basin agency;
its activities have to be aligned to those of the basin agency”
“The main objective of the White Volta Basin Board was to raise awareness regarding
IWRM among its members. As for implementation, it is up to them to decide.”
Creating/
modifying
rules
Deciding on
how to use
resources
Ensuring
compliance
Adjudicating
disputes
4 key types of decision-making powers
Decision making power limited to:
• Sensitizing about decision made by others
• Monitoring and calling upon adequate authorities
• Adjudicate disputes

6. Accountability
“We can propose but, as civil servants, our hands are tied
if our hierarchy does not give its go ahead”
 Dominance of the administration in water management
structures goes hand-in-hand with upward rather than
downward accountability
 Upward accountability undermines legitimacy of the
structures vis-à-vis the users of resources

7. Conclusions
 Setting up water management entities is a functional
rather than a political activity (the process of making
decision is secondary to the purpose of the decisions)
● Active participation by actors beyond the administration
remains limited
● Users are seen as beneficiaries rather than participants;
this weakened capacity building attempts
● Little decision making power is actually being devolved
● Upward accountability and low legitimacy of
representatives remain pervasive problems
 Such shortcomings are not limited to Burkina Faso and
Ghana but “built-in” the concept of IWRM itself

8. Thanks
jean-philippe.venot@wur.nl
williams.dare@cirad.fr