Introduction

As many other African countries, Ghana has adopted the community-based management approach in its National Community Water and Sanitation Program (NCWSP) in 1998. It is based on the assumption that the direct involvement of water users leads to more equity in access as well as better sustainability. The institutionalization of the policy included the creation of the Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) as well as a number of project laws and by-laws, a demand-driven application procedure, the payment of 5 percent capital cost towards construction, water user committees, formal membership in pump communities, water fees, and 100 percent local operation and maintenance of hand pumps. Even though rural coverage with pumps and technical sustainability were significantly increased, some contradiction to local water rights occurred as a result of the programme, inter alia, its institutional development component. Water users are challenged to balance project legislation, socio-cultural norms, and ecological circumstances, which all embody divergent priorities in management. This article asks how water rights have changed. It further elaborates on the consequences for access and water allocation practice.

The Volta River basin undergoes changes in hydrology due to global climate change. Even though the total rainfall shows no clear trend over the past decades, precipitation became more erratic, onset dates shifted, and environmental hazards, such as floods, occurred (Martin, 2006). The Upper East Region receives about 1,000 mm rain per annum concentrated in the wet period from April to October. Surface water dries up some few weeks later. Many village sections then face single-source situations and withdraw all water from hand pump-fitted boreholes. The region displays the highest borehole density in the Volta River basin but groundwater resources are sustainable with a total withdrawal rate of 5 percent groundwater recharge capacity (Martin and van de Giesen, 2005).

CIDA's drinking water programmes

CIDA, the most active donor in northern Ghana's drinking water sector, acts as forerunner in institutional development. Its drinking water delivery programmes have undergone paradigmatic changes ranging from technocratic policies in the 1970s, to the involvement of water users in the 1980s and first pilots of autonomous communal management in the 1990s, which were up-scaled to the national level at a later point in time.

Drinking water policies stress on the importance of increasing institutional access to water without making reference to existing local water right regimes or water allocation practices. Variation within a country may be enormous, given the diverse ecological zones and socio-political organizations as well as the number of legal arrangements. Ghana may serve as a good example for such diversity; despite this, a number of countrywide similarities can be stated. Typical features include the non-existence of a right to exclude others from access, public use rights for livestock watering as well as the riparian doctrine, which states that water courses that cross or tangent a land may be used by the land owner but not exclusively. This is not to say that practical exclusion from access does not occur; such incidents are eventually reported in CWSA documentation. But if such an exclusion occurs, it is not based on legal arrangements but on local power hegemonies and the population perceives such a practice as unjust or even illicit (Eguavoen and Spalthoff, 2008).

Water programmes in northern Ghana

In a rather homogenous Nankan settlement of northern Ghana (2004–2006), I investigated how far the NCWSP policy travelled to the local level and what implications it had on the local water rights (Eguavoen, 2007). The programme implementation led to a diversification in the water rights as well as to some institutional constraints to access. Institutional innovations only concern improved water facilities and had no impact on the management of unimproved water sources that were not targeted by the drinking water programme. (This was different in rather holistic colonial and post-colonial water policies until the 1960s.)

As it continues to be the case with present unimproved water sources, water rights before NCWSP were linked to the community of a village section: all settlers enjoyed equal-use rights; management decisions were taken by the legitimate community leaders, such as the elders. Minimal management was performed whenever it was required, for example, in cases when a water point was destroyed. A set of socially recognized rules supported the sustainability of the water bodies, including settling in some distance to avert danger from drinking animals or vector diseases as well as to avoid pollution. In the case of hand-dug wells, the right to own the facility continues to be linked to land ownership and the mobilization of funds and people for construction. Well owners are in charge of maintenance, holding certain decision-making rights and duties. They, however, may not exclude a person from access. Gift exchange only acknowledges their social status and role, and is not performed to attain use rights. In unbounded well user groups, people shift from well to well according to their perception of convenience, which may change in the course of the year. As in other regions of Ghana, households use multiple water sources whenever and wherever possible (Engel et al., 2005). Therefore, water user groups are dynamic and allow households flexible decision-making as well as risk minimization in the dry season.

Differently, the pump communities of the NCWSP are based on formal registration and membership of users. Boundaries are strictly drawn between those who belong and those who do not. According to project law, it is only members who attain use rights as well as decision-making rights to the pump. The pump community holds joint rights to own the facility and has to maintain it independently from external agencies and funding. For stirring a local sense of ownership, the interested water users are expected to accumulate two Mio Cedis (approx. US$210). This payment is submitted to the district to qualify for the water development project. This so-called community contribution is a pure vehicle of policy and not a financial necessity for its share in the funding of the NCWSP is very marginal (e.g. 0.03 percent in 2003). While this 5 percent rule seems to be functional in better-off regions, it turns into a constraint in northern Ghana with its high poverty level. Some water users failed to qualify for NCWSP; others spent up to three years before the required amount could be collected. Hence, water users were deprived from water only because they could not meet the institutional requirements. Of course, there are also many positive examples of communities who succeeded in money submission. Past water projects have shown that some households may rescue water projects by paying the full amount on behalf of their unable neighbours. Ownership of the pump is transferred to them (instead of the entire community) and houses have to buy in the pump community later. Entrance fees are higher than their share of the community contribution would have been. If houses say they are embraced in the pump community and enjoy equal use and decision-making rights. (Practically, committees often assemble members of the houses that paid the community contribution.) If not, they continue to use their former facility – even if it is less convenient. Owing to the high entrance cost, membership in more than one pump community is rather exceptional but an important risk-minimizing strategy. Water fees to build the maintenance funds were rather unrelated to use rights of members. As complete denial to access was impossible due to single-source situations, membership alone qualifies users to access the pump. Many pump communities completely exempt a number of most vulnerable houses from both entrance and water fees. Such houses enjoy full access. Water allocation practice within pump communities (as in water user groups) continues to depend merely on non-institutional factors, such as physical strength or available labour force within a household.

Conclusion

The flexibility in household decision-making was diminished with NCWSP. Non-improved water sources are not given political attention. The increasing lack of non-improved water sources entails a lack of options and choice. Not all household uses have to be served with high-quality water, especially productive water uses. The labour effort and time spent to fetch water at pumps may be much higher than at a small reservoir (e.g. to water animals, to mould clay bricks). Not having the choice and depending on a single pump results in high pressure on the pumps (crowds of users, 24-hour fetching) that challenges their technical sustainability perhaps earlier than necessary. Most pump communities try to establish additional water sources but often fail to do so technically. In the rainy season, some people shift to river water because they cannot reach their pump due to crosscutting streams and because they do not enjoy use rights to farther located pumps they could walk to on dry feet. Some people carry water to the market because they have no use rights to the pump over there. According to NCWSP regulation, non-resident farmers would be excluded from the use of pumps because they are registered members at their place of residence only. Therefore, many pump communities introduced a hierarchy of use rights, which limit water quantities and usage for non-members.

The implementation of NCWSP thus increased physical but not institutional access. Use rights became more regulated and more restricted.

References

1. Eguavoen, Irit (2007) '"Now, You Have a New Pump, You Have to Manage It." Household Water Management, Water Rights and Institutional Change in Northern Ghana', PhD Thesis, Philosophical Faculty, University of Cologne.
2. Eguavoen, Irit and Daniel Spalthoff (2008) 'The Right Way to Access? Human Right, Rural Water Right Regimes and Right-Based Discourses Against the Privatization of Water in Ghana', in Peter Mollinga, Anjali Bhat and Subramanian Saravanan (eds.) Water Politics and Development, Berlin: Lit.
3. Engel, Stefanie, Maria Iskandarani and Maria Del Pilar Useche (2005) 'Improved Water Supply in the Ghanaian Volta Basin: Who uses it and who participates in community decision-making?', EPT Discussion Paper 129, IFPRI.
4. Martin, Nicola (2006) 'Development of a Water Balance for the Atankwidi Catchment, West Africa – A Case Study of Groundwater Recharge in a Semi-arid Climate', Ecology and Development Series, no. 41, Goettingen: Cuvillier Verlag.
5. Martin, Nicola and Nick van de Giesen (2005) 'Spatial Distribution of Groundwater Production and Development Potential in the Volta River Basin of Ghana and Burkina Faso', Water International 30: 239–249.