Roman water law in rural Africa: the unfinished business of colonial dispossession

Abstract

This paper discusses four questions about the recent water law reforms in Sub-Saharan Africa, which strengthen permit systems. First, do permit systems continue to dispossess rural small-scale users, as intended by European colonizers who introduced principles of Roman law? Second, is it wrong to assume that one can convert one legal system (customary water rights) into another legal system (permits) in the short term? Third, do current permit systems discriminate against small-scale users? And lastly, do fiscal measures ingrained in permits foster rent seeking and strengthen water resources as a commodity for nationals and foreigners who can pay? As all the answers are positive, the paper concludes by recommending measures to recognize and protect small-scale water users and render state regulation more realistic

Jumping the water queue: changing waterscapes under water reform processes in rural Zimbabwe

“…The Nyanyadzi waterscape is quite unique in the country, with the oldest right to water belonging to a smallholder irrigation scheme rather than White settler farmers, and with land transferred to the indigenous African population before the fast-tracking of the land reform process. Disconnecting water from land by abolishing the riparian rights principle, just when the native African population finally had the legal opportunity to own land, and replacing it with an expensive and cumbersome permit system, negatively affected the access of smallholder farmers to water resources (see also Manzungu and Machiridza, 2009;Van Koppen et al, 2014). Moreover, the abolishment of water entitlements based on priority date has triggered a physical transformation of the Nyanyadzi waterscape.…”

“…This paper attempts to explain this unforeseen response to, and outcome of, the water reform process, and critically analyses the consequences for access to water in the catchment. In this way, the paper contributes to the ongoing discussion on the implications of water reform processes for rural African waterscapes (Wester et al, 2003;Zawe, 2006;Swatuk, 2008;Kemerink et al, 2011;Komakech et al, 2011;Van Koppen et al, 2014).…”

Water Governance Futures in South Asia and Southern Africa: Déjà Vu All Over Again?

“…Some critics have argued that rather than introduce a whole new set of structures, state actors should have worked with existing, already legitimate, forms of authority. Van Koppen et al ( 2014 ) suggest that the nationalisation of water resources and the introduction of formal permit systems, while probably important in principle (particularly in highly unequal societies), have in fact facilitated further resource capture by the empowered and the undermining of local systems of governance.…”

“…However, the regional relevance of the IWRM paradigm has been questioned, given both the apparent mismatch between the informal nature of the water economy and the emphasis on formal organisational structures envisaged under IWRM reforms and the lack of political edge in the way IWRM has been conceptualised (Kulkarni 2014 ;Mollinga et al 2006 ;Shah and Van Koppen 2006 ). The neo-liberal paradigm has been criticised for its exclusion of the poor (Urs and Whittel 2009 ). The discourse on gender mainstreaming has gained prominence, even as the gap between rhetoric and practice has persisted (Kulkarni 2014 ;Joshi 2014 ;Ahmed 2008 ;Prakash et al 2012 ).…”

Rights-Based Freshwater Governance for the Twenty-First Century: Beyond an Exclusionary Focus on Domestic Water Uses

“…The administrative system to implement water allocation is the licence (or permit) system. The latter system is widely applied elsewhere in the world as well (Van Koppen et al 2014b ). The issuing and monitoring of licences are the government's main tool to regulate water users, for example, by rejecting an application for a licence altogether in overallocated areas or by setting caps on volumes used and reducing the period of a licence.…”