A selection of newspaper headlines during the recent drought in Tanzania lay bare the many ways that economic well-being and human welfare are inextricably dependent on the availability and management of water resources. 

·    The Mtera-Kidatu HEP facility providing nearly 50% of the country’s needs could close at any time (The Guardian, 6th March 2006).
·    The government subsidizes the Tanzanian Electric Supply Company (TANESCO) by over 30 billion TSh ($27 million) per month, (just under 20% of the countries monthly tax revenue) to buy electricity from private companies using emergency diesel generators (Daily News, 6th March 2006).
·    Food shortages hit the worst effected regions as food prices spiral with rice and bean prices up by an unprecedented 25 - 50%  (The Guardian, February 20th 2006).
·    Drought ravages Maasai livestock with cattle prices plummet to less than ten percent of the pre-drought price (The Guardian, 6th March 2006).
·    The Government spends $2.2 million in February to distribute 56 774 tonnes of relief food in 20 regions (The Guardian, 6th March 2006).
·    Dar es Salaam’s population of over 3 million, faces the risk of water supply failure should the drought continue (The Citizen, 28th January 2006).
·    Longido families coping on less than 20 litres a day, sometimes walking more than 16 km in their search (The Guardian, 6th March 2006).
·    Wildlife fatalities in Selous national park due to lack of water (The Guardian, 25th February 2006).
·    Budget deficit of 2 % of GDP linked to drought (G Mgonja, Treasury, Daily News, 6th March 2006)

The security of high value irrigated crops and efforts to reduce the vulnerability of rainfed farming in Tanzania’s all-important agriculture sector are dependent on management of available water.  The country derives 73% of its energy from Hydro Electric Power  and generates a further 17% of its GDP from the tourism sector, much of it based around viewing wildlife that depends on the sustenance of environmental water features.  A fledgling manufacturing and industrial sector also relies heavily on water and processes in the mining sector are completely dependent on the availability of large quantities of water.  Meeting the country’s domestic water needs, and addressing the enormous health, socio-economic burdens associated with poor access to safe water  are co-dependent on improving service delivery and on the management of available water resources to meet demand. 

Attaching financial costs to drought may reveal the imprudence of, as one senior Ministry of Water figure put it ‘the short termism that prevents prioritisation and funding of drought planning between drought events’.  Besides funding, political will is essential to provide BWOs with the authority to impose controls on freeloaders and carry out enforcement of water use permit conditions, and so is key in deterring unsustainable abstractions. It is during extremes and uncertainty that non-compliance and the need for regulatory action is likely to be greatest, but multiple sources suggest that the authority of the BWOs is often undermined for political or financial convenience by those higher on the ladder of power.  Indeed it was during the escalation of the drought that regulatory enforcement work, which was releasing significant illegally abstracted water for downstream uses that the BWO was told to hold off.    

Funding shortfalls and political manoeuvrings resonate with the views of a number of survey respondents who suggested that the government ‘lacked seriousness’ in its efforts to deliver IWRM.  With this in mind the more pertinent question moves from capacity building and funding to ensuring government accountability. Although the government cannot be expected to make rain or hold back floods, our research suggests that extreme climate events can be expected every ten years and that unregulated use of existing resources, catchment degradation and a lack of planning or preparedness exacerbates very significant impacts on the well-being of the population.


•    At a case study site in Dar es Salaam, industrial wastewater with high pH levels and containing chromium was found to discharge untreated to a nearby river, causing pollution for at least 2.5 km downstream.

•    The pollution is estimated to have destroyed a fishery which had a value of $34 000 per year to the local community.  The effluent also poses a health risk as it flows overland through a residential area before it reaches the river.

•    The industrial site has neither an Environmental Impact Assessment nor a permit to discharge despite both being required by Tanzanian law.

•    A legal case brought by the local authority in an attempt to control the pollution was thrown out of court by the judge on technicalities. 

•    The industry continues to pollute the local river threatening health and denying local people of livelihoods and economic value despite strong laws in place to prevent the problem.


•    Villagers who have organised water user committees to install new village supplies and who have paid and applied for ‘water rights’ are still waiting for a response well over one year later.  Large companies and investors are issued water rights within a few months of applying and one gold mine was given permission to increase its abstraction by 1 million litres a day within 5 days of its request.

•    It is much easier for the wealthy and powerful to obtain water rights than it is for the poor. This inequality in service threatens pro-rich, as opposed to pro-poor growth as drought, climatic variability and growing user pressure increase demand for available water.

•    Poor practice and non-compliance with regulatory standards for borehole drilling, pumping tests and water balance assessments means that new and existing groundwater sources could rapidly dry or impact negatively on neighbouring water users.

•    Regulatory standards for siting of pit latrines are confused and rarely imposed which threatens contamination of local water supplies.

•    Large-scale donor funded irrigation development is ongoing within water scarce catchments used by a wide range of water users, including for domestic drinking water.  The environmental impact assessments and social and environment safeguards for these developments are wholly inadequate, making no calculations of the water available, the water to be used or the impacts on downstream life support needs. Neither have the projects applied for water rights.

•    Groundwater used for drinking water by poor communities across large areas of Tanzania contains high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. The Tanzanian limit for fluoride in drinking water is 8 mg/l compared to the WHO limit of 1.5 mg/l.  Although there are practical reasons for setting such a high level of acceptance, it posses a risk to the health of users because of dental or crippling fluorosis. Yet, there is no strategy or plan for dealing with fluoride, despite the availability of low cost treatment technology developed by the Ministry of Water.

•    A good standard of environmental compliance was found at the mining site with regular inspections carried out that suggest compliance with the regulations.  However, the complex nature of the site and its size makes it difficult for inspectors and not all had appropriate technical background to carry out the work.

•    Environmental problems brought by water quantity and quality changes are a legacy of poor decisions in the past, particularly during the EIA stage which paid little attention to downstream water needs.

•    The site poses a significant environmental risk to the downstream water environment, its users and the regional economy and whilst the mining company are managing the risk effectively this is because of the risks to their reputation rather than because of regulatory pressure.

•    A lack of clarity and transparency when dealing with complaints against the site and its environmental performance creates distrust amongst the community and local stakeholders and to accusations of regulatory ‘capture’.


•    Old water rights reflecting past inequalities are in places that cause resentment amongst local users and a culture of non-compliance.

•    Local political interference with the water allocation system and lack of compliance enforcement against users in the catchment resulted in chaotic and unpredictable resource availability. Demand for water sometimes exceeds the amount available in the river resulting in conflicts, with water often being taken by force in the dry season.

•    The uncertainties brought by this and the irregular flow of water that results caused multi-million pound losses for a foreign investor supporting the expansion of the horticultural export trade.

•    Instances of non-compliance went undetected or were overlooked and  ‘compliance by some and not by others’ results in inequity and inefficiency in water resource use.

•    Water quality issues and potential for pollution by pesticides, waste and fertilizers were ‘off the regulatory radar’ but were dealt with by the companies internal system of quality standards.
Hydro-electric power

•    In 2005-6 the countries GDP was severely eroded by power shortages caused by insufficient water to drive Hydro Electric Power plant and the nation spent a reported 20% of tax earnings on emergency power supply.

•    Whilst a lack of rainfall was partly to blame, better management of available resources could have eased the problem.

•    The task of managing and regulating water resources above HEP installations has been under-resourced so that inefficient and sometimes illegal use of water for irrigation and other purposes was allowed to continue at the expense of water levels at HEP sites.
 

•    Awareness of water law and compliance was found to vary with some farmers enjoying the benefit of legal recognition of their water use, others disputing the need to pay for water they’d ‘always used for free’ and others unaware of the law.

•    In some places, customary water management worked well, in others it favoured the powerful and was resented. 

•    The work of the Basin Offices and others such as TIP (Traditional Irrigation Programme- Moshi) was found to be effective at a local scale in organising water user groups who share joint water rights.

•    Over a larger scale where communication is difficult, cooperation in allocating water use fairly is poor, with upstream users neglecting the needs of those downstream.  Overall, low compliance with water right requirements and commonplace non-payment of fees meant that the basin offices didn’t receive funds to help them help the water users

•    There is significant local resentment at prohibitions on valley bottom farming and farming near to watercourses.  The ban is seen as a major cause of poverty and will be a source of mistrust in future dealings with the government over water resources.

•    The ban on river valley bottom farming is rarely enforced and the technical rationale in some areas is questionable.  In some cases the people responsible for enforcing the ‘set back distances’ for farming are the same people benefiting from the farming within these limits.  An impossible compliance scenario.