７５：CWRMの続き

先月１２月の半ば、スリランカのコロンボで南アジア水資源政策の関わる国際会議が開かれた。インドのSaciWATERsが主催していた。

CWRMがまだ使われている事例が登場している。

Developing water policy in a multi-party system
Rajindra de S Ariyabandu

Over a decade of efforts to develop a holistic Water Resource Management (WRM) policy have failed. Sri Lanka is a classic case of attempting to develop policy, nationally demanded but designed by external actors without adequate attention to
context and consultation. Thus, the policy process generated intense controversy and became both the tool and victim of national policies.

Due to inherent tradition of paddy cultivation, water has a powerful social, cultural and a political role. Although water scarcity is not an immediate problem, increase urbanizations and industrialization, demands a rational system of water allocation. Water resources management in Sri Lanka faces a number of challenges including multiplicity of institutions dealing with water, inadequate laws and lack of a comprehensive data base. Consensus emerged in early 1990s to formulate a comprehensive water resources policy. Subsequently, number of donor agencies including the Asian Development Bank played a key role in investing to establish a comprehensive policy. Despite over a decade of investments and efforts, these initiatives were never implemented largely due to poor understanding of the country context with its multiparty system of government, strong cultural values, vocal civil society and a politicized media willing to exploit controversies.

The Comprehensive Water Resources Management Project (1992) which assessed the institutional capacity of WRM recommended a single overarching policy, law and an apex body to manage water resources. In the years to follow these efforts were supported by donor agencies, culminating in the Water Resources Management project (2001), which attempted capacity development of the new institutional arrangement for Comprehensive Water Resources Management (CWRM). Although the guiding principles of CWRM was institutionalizing Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) through an overarching policy, the new policy attempted to introduce several unfamiliar approaches like, entitlements ( ownership rights) to water, transferability and water pricing. Following controversial land reforms and cases of water privatization elsewhere in the world, these measures were strongly opposed by civil society as commodification of water. Institutional arrangement proposed under the new policy also caused controversy and confusion among traditional institutions. Besides, the policy was used as a political tool both by politicians and media. Further, the policy development process was always piecemeal subject to political interruptions. Finally, the process was never underpinned by strong stakeholder consultation or effective communication to solicit support. In the face of mounting difficulties and lack of political commitment, policy development process effectively collapsed with the withdrawal of financial support for CWRM in 2006.

こういう正直な記述が出来るのがインド系なのかなーと思う。IWRMの問題点から出発して初めて成功という事実が評価できるのではないだろうか。良識ある発想という姿勢がほしいよな。CWRMがなぜ突然消えて、IWRMがプロモートされたのか？