Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
O
to promote rural and regional economic development through mining
or mono-culture for food, bio-fuel, and flex crops, especially in marginal
agricultural areas;
O
to meet a food or water shortage;
O
to improve hydropower, water supply to urban communities, commercial
businesses or balance of trade.
Hydrologic complexity and surface water/groundwater interactions often
make it difficult to prove the associated negative impacts on the environment
and diverse social groups (Sosa and Zwarteveen 2012). Meanwhile the
benefits are often over-exaggerated: created jobs might last less than year
and fail to build local skills, a water supply dam may be the least desirable
of other options, or a hydroelectric dam creates lower than expected output
of electricity generation. Examples abound, including dams in Laos PDR
(Matthews 2012), mining in Cajamarca Peru (Sosa and Zwarteveen 2012)
and coal seam gas development in areas around the world. Such situations are
not unique to developing countries, although poorer people and those living
within authoritarian regimes have less ability to influence a better outcome.
In some cases because of poor governmental institutional capacity, private
companies also become responsible for water allocation and safeguarding
water quality, which raises potential transparency and accountability issues
and conflict of interest (ibid).
During water resource planning processes, conflicts have to be managed,
but many involved in the water sector have little experience with managing
conflict without use of power. Poor governance practices create opportunities
for what is known as 'water grabbing' 'where powerful actors are able to take
control of, or reallocate to their own benefit, water resources already used by
local communities or feeding aquatic ecosystems on which their livelihoods
are based' (Mehta
et al.
2012: 197). Opportunities are created for influential
actors, while local livelihoods and the environment, are negatively impacted
without compensation.
Good governance practice can ensure inclusion of marginalised, disadvan-
taged and Indigenous groups in decision-making. Information needs to be
provided in user-friendly ways tailored to the local environment to foster
informed decision-making (Figure 1.12 in colour plates). The range of social,
economic as well as environmental impacts of a range of options also needs
to be considered. Good facilitation, participation, consensus building and
if necessary, conflict resolution procedures, will ensure all parties are fairly
heard. Exploring options for trade-offs should be a requisite part of the
process.
A key message is that critical decisions about water allocation should be made
within the context of a catchment water resource plan that considers sound information
on social and economic benefits and impacts, aims to minimise negative impacts, and
actively seeks and listens to the voices of all persons, not just powerful lobby groups or
