The regulatory framework adopted in managing natural resources is critical for any country seeking sustainable development. While resources are generally scarce, e.g., already over 40% of Africans and 33% of Asians live in water-scarce areas, the need for sound regional and national policies is paramount to improve allocation and enhance sustainable use (Barbier, 2019). These policies provide analytical approaches that improve cooperation and reduce conflict at all levels of management. These approaches can be risk-based, participatory, or political. Evidence shows that, indeed, policies, i.e., water and land policies, have promoted more cooperation than conflict (De Stefano et al., 2010). For example, considering evidence from diverse geographies, various water policies have had some net positive impact on water resource management and, in some instances, achieved the intended purposes. (Karen, 2008, De Stefano et all, 2010, UN, 2010, Langford and Russell, 2017, Barbier,2019).
However, does decentralization always lead to such a positive impact depicted by overall policy frameworks?
First, it is important to understand the contextual meaning of policy and decentralization. A policy may be regarded as a set of rules in a multistage decision process (Ciriancy-Wintrup, 1967). Further, public policy can also be understood as the legislation and regulation that underpins management (Pacific Institute, 2010). Land and water are naturally occurring, so their guiding policies exist within the broader public policy. Certainly, while it may be considered a straightforward concept, the policy process is quite complex.
On the other hand, decentralization is a state reform process composed of public policies that transfer responsibilities, resources, or authority from higher to lower levels of government (Falleti, 2005). Decentralization is not just a technical process but involves linking the issue of power policies. It is about who gets what and which power to access financing to implement the set objectives.
Decentralization as a policy implementation approach can be debated. While Mosse (2019) notes that land and water and their uses, such as in agriculture, have unique emotional resonance in different societies, how a policy's implementation is structured, and the institutions involved provide room for support or decent. Similarly, the concept of decentralization in this question provides the same opportunity. It provides a chance to evaluate the processes of achieving decentralization and the guiding principles that steer policy in a decentralized setup. Finally, the question is important as it pushes to evaluate the implementation of the policy by seeking to understand the impacts and outcomes.
Evidence indicates that decentralization in its different forms has positively impacted society. This can be seen in several cases.
1. This is the model of decentralization that is practiced in the United Kingdom. DEFRA and the National Assembly of Wales are the national government bodies in charge of water resource management and supply. However, instead of directly implementing the functions, these functions are delegated to DWI, OFWAT, and EA as the primary implementing government agencies. At the same time, the 34 private water providers are the water supply agencies. To enhance community safeguards, the water consumer council ensures that the consumers are represented in implementing the water policy. The EU Water Framework Direction, which came into force in the UK in 2003, has been implemented using this delegated model (EU, 2000).
2. In Kenya, for example,n 201, the Kenyan constitution was promulgated, giving way to devolution. In this arrangement, two levels of government were created- the national government and 47 County governments. Further, a total of 11 functions, including agriculture and water, were devolved to the county governments. Since then, the challenges of rural areas have received more attention since devolution than when services were centralized. With each of the 47 counties responsible, community priorities receive support and financing for local projects.
Factors leading to the decentralization of policies are documented to have huge benefits if well implemented and financed.
- Decentralization policies can result in better and closer services to people at the rural levels.
- Decentralization of water policies has led to equitable distribution of financial resources to fund water projects and manage water resources. In Nigeria, state governments are more willing to finance infrastructure to make land and water use more sustainable.
- Decentralization is expected to improve the ecological quality of resources continuously. This is because decentralization has brought about the management of resources by ecological units such as basins and aquifers, with more recognition of environmental flows to protect the resource base. This is evident in the Ebro basin in Spain and within water basins in the UK, where land use and agriculture are critical nexus.
- Finally, decentralizing policies enhances local institutions' strengthening and using instruments such as information systems to promote accountability and evaluation. As a result of decentralization, more monitoring systems at lower levels are put into place to support the generation of data on land, water resources management, and agriculture, which exploits the two critical resources.
Comments