坦桑尼亚水资源综合管理的赢家和输家

IF 2.4 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
B. Koppen, A. Tarimo, A. V. Eeden, E. Manzungu, P. M. Sumuni
{"title":"坦桑尼亚水资源综合管理的赢家和输家","authors":"B. Koppen, A. Tarimo, A. V. Eeden, E. Manzungu, P. M. Sumuni","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvh8r2qk.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the application of the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in Tanzania. It asks: how did IWRM affect the rural and fast-growing majority of smallholder farmersʼ access to water which contributes directly to poverty alleviation and employment creation in a country where poverty and joblessness are high? Around 1990, there were both a strong government-led infrastructure development agenda and IWRM ingredients in place, including cost-recovery of state services aligning with the Structural Adjustment Programmes, water management according to basin boundaries and the dormant colonial water rights (permits) system. After the 1990s, the World Bank and other donors promoted IWRM with a strong focus on hydroelectric power development, River Basin Water Boards, transformation of the water right system into a taxation tool, and assessment of environmental flows. These practices became formalised in the National Water Policy (2002) and in the Water Resources Management Act (2009). Activities in the name of IWRM came to be closely associated with the post-2008 surge in large-scale land and water deals. Analysing 25 years of IWRM, the paper identifies the processes and identities of the losers (smallholders and – at least partially – the government) and the winners (large-scale water users, including recent investors). We conclude that, overall, IWRM harmed smallholdersʼ access to water and rendered them more vulnerable to poverty and unemployment.","PeriodicalId":54334,"journal":{"name":"Water Alternatives-An Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development","volume":"9 1","pages":"588-607"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Winners and losers of IWRM in Tanzania\",\"authors\":\"B. Koppen, A. Tarimo, A. V. Eeden, E. Manzungu, P. M. Sumuni\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctvh8r2qk.14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper focuses on the application of the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in Tanzania. It asks: how did IWRM affect the rural and fast-growing majority of smallholder farmersʼ access to water which contributes directly to poverty alleviation and employment creation in a country where poverty and joblessness are high? Around 1990, there were both a strong government-led infrastructure development agenda and IWRM ingredients in place, including cost-recovery of state services aligning with the Structural Adjustment Programmes, water management according to basin boundaries and the dormant colonial water rights (permits) system. After the 1990s, the World Bank and other donors promoted IWRM with a strong focus on hydroelectric power development, River Basin Water Boards, transformation of the water right system into a taxation tool, and assessment of environmental flows. These practices became formalised in the National Water Policy (2002) and in the Water Resources Management Act (2009). Activities in the name of IWRM came to be closely associated with the post-2008 surge in large-scale land and water deals. Analysing 25 years of IWRM, the paper identifies the processes and identities of the losers (smallholders and – at least partially – the government) and the winners (large-scale water users, including recent investors). We conclude that, overall, IWRM harmed smallholdersʼ access to water and rendered them more vulnerable to poverty and unemployment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Water Alternatives-An Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"588-607\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Water Alternatives-An Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh8r2qk.14\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water Alternatives-An Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh8r2qk.14","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

摘要

本文主要研究水资源综合管理(IWRM)概念在坦桑尼亚的应用。它的问题是:在一个贫困和失业率高的国家,水资源综合管理如何影响农村和快速增长的大多数小农获得水的机会,而这直接有助于减轻贫困和创造就业机会?1990年前后,政府主导的基础设施发展议程和水资源综合管理的组成部分都已到位,包括与结构调整方案相一致的国家服务的成本回收、根据流域边界进行水管理和休眠的殖民地水权(许可证)制度。20世纪90年代以后,世界银行和其他捐助者大力推动水资源综合管理,重点放在水电开发、流域水务局、将水权制度转变为税收工具以及评估环境流量等方面。这些做法在《国家水资源政策》(2002年)和《水资源管理法》(2009年)中得到正式规定。以水资源综合管理为名的活动与2008年后大规模土地和水资源交易的激增密切相关。这篇论文分析了25年的水资源综合管理,确定了输家(小农和——至少部分地——政府)和赢家(包括最近的投资者在内的大规模用水者)的过程和身份。我们得出的结论是,总体而言,综合水资源管理损害了小农获得水的机会,使他们更容易陷入贫困和失业。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Winners and losers of IWRM in Tanzania
This paper focuses on the application of the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in Tanzania. It asks: how did IWRM affect the rural and fast-growing majority of smallholder farmersʼ access to water which contributes directly to poverty alleviation and employment creation in a country where poverty and joblessness are high? Around 1990, there were both a strong government-led infrastructure development agenda and IWRM ingredients in place, including cost-recovery of state services aligning with the Structural Adjustment Programmes, water management according to basin boundaries and the dormant colonial water rights (permits) system. After the 1990s, the World Bank and other donors promoted IWRM with a strong focus on hydroelectric power development, River Basin Water Boards, transformation of the water right system into a taxation tool, and assessment of environmental flows. These practices became formalised in the National Water Policy (2002) and in the Water Resources Management Act (2009). Activities in the name of IWRM came to be closely associated with the post-2008 surge in large-scale land and water deals. Analysing 25 years of IWRM, the paper identifies the processes and identities of the losers (smallholders and – at least partially – the government) and the winners (large-scale water users, including recent investors). We conclude that, overall, IWRM harmed smallholdersʼ access to water and rendered them more vulnerable to poverty and unemployment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Water Alternatives-An Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development
Water Alternatives-An Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: Water permeates all realms of life and many scientific disciplines. Water problems are often taken as technical issues, subject to rationalization, optimization and best addressed by expert knowledge. Yet, in the past three decades water issues have proved to be highly divisive and have generated heated debates. Engineer-centered approaches have been challenged or paralleled by concerns for the role of social organization, institutions, power structures and, more generally, politics; economists have assumed an increasingly prominent role in stressing the significance of demand management and economic efficiency; environmentalists have been active in introducing a more holistic view of ecosystems, underlining the importance of water for the environment and human health; social activists have vied for framing access to water as a human right.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信