Legal Pluralism and Water Resources Governance in Ghana – Outcomes of Formal and Customary Management Frameworks

The global call for effective water resources governance is anchored on the integration into the governance framework all systems and actors who in any way take decisions on water resources. This has been one of the main areas of focus of the MDG Goal 6. The call for integration points to the globally accepted Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) principles, which among others requires states to ensure the participation of all actors in the water sector. In many post-colonial countries, water resources are nationalized with full state control of these resources. This creates state control in the face of pre-colonial legal system, which still exists and creates some non-state actor controls. Institutional multiplicity then becomes a feature of governance. For modernist state water governance, however, the call for integration often focuses on state actors. Practically, integration in itself requires a careful consideration of varied actors, state and non-state, and the many legal/social fields (legal pluralism) from where they draw their power and legitimacy to act. Full participation of all actors is problematic in the face of nationalization. Additionally, ensuring full participation, especially of water users at the local level, means that there is the need to have a proper understanding of how all actors and local level water users are engaged in the water governance processes in the face of state controls. The nature of water resources itself means that water governance is enmeshed in land governance dynamics of ownership, use and control. Using a plural legal state such as Ghana as the focus, this study looks at two areas; the Weija Lake and the Lake Bosomtwe catchment areas, (the former having state control and the latter non-state dominance), to understand participatory water governance in a plural legal state. In unravelling the main tools of governance, which is decision making, actor roles, mandates and legitimacies are examined. A better appreciation of community level understanding and engagement in water governance leads this study to determine how knowledge and attitudes influence practices. Implications and outcomes of decision making and community practices is also focused upon. A study of law and governance focusing on community involvement leads this study to a pragmatic multidisciplinary methodological approach. Qualitative in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were carried out with purposively selected actors from state institutions, traditional authorities, NGOs and community members. A network map methodology was used to assess power, authority, influence and legitimacy of actors. Political ecology and the common pool resources theories were the framework that guides the study of power and control over the water resources found in the study communities. Data analysis for the qualitative aspect of this study was done through thematic analysis. For the quantitative component of the study, heads of households were randomly selected from sampled communities at both study sites. Chi square and Probit regression models were used to test and estimate the relationships between the dependent knowledge, attitudes and practices variables and some selected independent variables. Descriptive statistics were also used to explain some findings on knowledge, attitudes, practices and outcomes. This study has found that by law and practice, there is the divisions and overlaps of roles, mandates, power and legitimacy of water governance actors in Ghana. State actors have the legal rational power and legitimacy to control both water and land in the Weija Lake catchment area but only control water resources in the Lake Bosomtwe catchment area. Traditional authority non-state actors control land in the latter area but have traditional and spiritual authority and legitimacy in both sites. Supra state actors with pseudo legal rational legitimacy mimic state actions and have politico-administrative roles. Actors for governance of land resources differ from that of water resources. However, traditional perceptions that water and land are to be governed together as a unitary whole still exist. The state’s governance framework that splits water and land governance, therefore, creates conflicts because land ownership and use embody water resources control considerations. Power and control over land translates into power and control over water. The separation of governance brings about weakened legitimacies for water governance actors. Additionally, even where attempts existed for coordinated or integrated water governance decision making, state driven decision making occurred at one level while at the community level actors take decisions independently. The presence of authority figures and decision makers in the community contributes to the determination of legitimacy. Community member practices were found to be driven by their knowledge and attitudes. Additionally, attitudes and practices were shaped to a large extent by benefits received from water use and decision-making actors engagement of community members allowing them to participate in decision making. Overall, implications and outcomes of water governance tend to be negative for areas where the state controls water and land resources. Where non-state actors control land, water governance outcomes tend to be better. Also, the inability of an actor to implement and enforce decisions undermine their legitimacy and results in poorer outcomes. Non-state traditional authority actors commanded economic allegiances such as payment of fees and levies for the spiritual roles they played. Where there are a mix of strong actors acting in a coordinated manner, outcomes were more positive. This study recommends a focus on power and legitimacy as the basis for designation of roles in water governance, especially where multiple actors exist and have separate powers and controls over water and over land. A precursor to the introduction of governance systems at the community level should be a social science study to understand how community members view decision makers who can effectively carry out governance roles. The knowledge, attitudes and practices of community members are key considerations as it interfaces with decision making creating implications for water resources governance outcomes. This study has contributed to knowledge by focusing on actor roles in the framework of their power and legitimacies and also providing methodological input on the use of mixed methods in the study of legal pluralism in water governance. It has also established the water and land nexus as a key consideration for water resources governance in a plural legal system.