Jump to content

Community based NRM

Where community-based water resource management has gone too far: poverty and disempowerment in southern Madagascar

When ‘local empowerment’ translates to ‘you’re on your own’: decentralisation of water management in Madagascar



Authors: R., R. Marcus
Publisher: Conservation and Society, 2007

Madagascar has struggled with the question of decentralisation for more than three decades. Since coming to power in 2002, President Ravalomanana has both reformed and accelerated this process, granting new roles and responsibilities to regional and community leadership.
This paper explores the impact of increased responsibility for water management and decision making in the poor, water-short southern district of Ambovombe- Androy.

While the assumption is often that this sort of decentralisation leads to empowerment at the local level and improves accountability, civic engagement and equity, the author asserts that in the case of Ambovombe, ‘local empowerment’ quickly translates to ‘you’re on your own’. Findings to note include:

  • the state functions poorly at the community level
  • community-based resource management institutions have benefited some people at the local level, but they have served to divide the community at the same time as individuals gain power through decentralisation
  • the institutions across scales that are seeking sustainable water resource use have undermined equity in accessing the commons while undermining existing social norms, classes and kinship relations

It is argued that the answer is not a return to centralised management; instead, the author believes that the answer lies in better understanding the state-local nexus. In the current scheme, responsibility is decentralised while funding is kept centralised or deconcentrated. This, it is asserted, needs to be rationalised.

The author concludes that the decentralisation process would be more successful if the state sought to determine what it can do best (presumably with international assistance), and what the community can do best. Only once the state accepts the diversity and power inherent in the community and engages it, can it hope to see a completed decentralisation process with net local gains.