Library

Language:

Type:

Topic:

Countries:

1
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WATER MANAGEMENT IN FEDERAL
AND FEDERAL-TYPE COUNTRIES
CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL SOBRE GESTIÓN DEL AGUA EN
PAÍSES FEDERALES Y SEMEJANTES A LOS FEDERALES.
Policy and Legal Framework for Water Resources Management in Ethiopia
Imeru Tamrat
Managing Director, Multi-Talent Consultancy PLC
2
Abstract
Ethiopia has adopted a federal system of government under the Federal Constitution of 1995 and
has subsequently issued a Water Resources Management Policy and several laws with respect to
water resources management of the country. The Federal Constitution provides that the water
resources of the country are publicly owned and that the Federal Government has the overall
mandate to determine the administration and management of the utilisation of the waters that are
inter-regional and trans-boundary in nature while Regional States have the mandate to
administer the water resources within their respective States in accordance with federal laws. As
a result, the Federal Government has a prominent role in determining the manner in which water
resources would be managed and utilised for various development purposes in the country. The
Federal Government has also been given the mandate to delegate its powers and responsibilities
to Regional States or other bodies for the proper management of the water resources of the
country. The federal system of government itself calls for decentralised management of resources
by which Regional States play an active role in the decision-making regarding water resources
found within their respective regions. Currently, the government has adopted the river basin as a
planning unit for the development and management of the water resources of the country which is
in line with the Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy. Most of the major powers and
responsibilities of the Federal Ministry of Water Resources, which is the executive arm of the
Federal Government with respect to water resources, has now been delegated to River Basin
Organisations (RBOs) that are to be established phase-by-phase. It is expected that Regional
States will play a prominent role in decision-making in the RBOs to be established although this
is yet to be seen.
The objective of this paper is to provide an analysis of the policy and legal framework put in
place for water resources management in the country and to point out some of the drawbacks in
the current legal framework and challenges that might be faced by the RBOs. One of the major
issues that this paper attempts to show is that it is highly critical that Regional States and other
major stakeholders at both the federal and regional level play an active role in the RBOs to be
established and that the legal framework should create this enabling environment for them to
successfully manage the water resources of the country.
Keywords: integrated water resources management; river basin organisation;
decentralisation; stakeholder participation
Formatted: Font: Italic
Deleted: F
Deleted: S
Deleted: w
Deleted: r
Deleted: m
Deleted: p
Deleted: .
Deleted: is
Deleted: g
Deleted: z
Deleted: Federal
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: z
3
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Hydrology of Ethiopia
Ethiopia is located between 30 and 150 North latitude and 330 and 480 East longitude in
what is commonly called the “Horn of Africa”. The country has a land area of
approximately 1.13 million km2 and is bordered by Somalia and Djibouti in the East, the
Sudan in the West, Eritrea to the North and Kenya to the South. The total population of
the country is currently estimated to be 79.2 million (Central Statistical Agency, 1999)
out of which 85% lives in the rural areas
The total estimated annual renewable surface water resources from 12 major river basins
and lakes are estimated at 122 billion m3 (Table 1) with per capita freshwater resources
estimated at 1,924 m3 (Ministry of Water Resources, 2002). This figure indicates that the
country has abundant freshwater resources. However, the water resource of the country
is highly variable both temporally and spatially.
In terms of spatial distribution of surface water resources, 90% of the water resources of
the country are found in four river basins (Abbay [Blue Nile], Baro-Akobo [Sobat], Omo-
Ghibe and Tekezze [Atbara]) with a population of only 40% while 60% of the population
inhabits the high lands of the Eastern and central river basins and depend on less than
20% of the country’s water resources (World Bank, 2006). The large runoff of the three
river basins (Abbay, Baro-Akobo and Omo-Ghibe) is explained by the fact that the latter
river basins occupy the Western and Southwestern parts of Ethiopia where the highest
concentration of rainfall occurs. On the other hand, one should also note the fact that the
three Eastern river basins (Afar-Danakil, Aysha and Ogaden) are virtually dry (refer to
Table 1).
Rainfall in Ethiopia also shows a high spatial and temporal variability. The highest mean
annual rainfall, which is more than 2,700 mm, occurs in the Southwestern highlands of
the country and gradually decreases in the North to less than 200 mm., Northeast to less
than 100 mm and Southeast to less than 200 mm. In addition to this, arid and semi-arid
Formatted: Font: Bold
Deleted: 1.
Deleted: .
Deleted: e
Deleted: w
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: per cent
Deleted: per cent
Deleted: e
Deleted: .
Deleted: w
Deleted: s
Deleted: .
Deleted: of
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: s
Deleted: n
Deleted: n
Deleted: s
Deleted: .
4
as well as drought prone areas also exhibit significantly larger inter-annual rainfall
variability. Consequently, drought has been a common feature especially in the Eastern
part of the country (World Bank, 2006).
Moreover, most of the major river basins of Ethiopia cut across more than one Regional
State or are trans-boundary in nature. Ethiopia is upstream of all its trans-boundary rivers
with more than 75% of the water resources flowing into neighboring countries. The
Baro-Akobo, Abbay and Tekezze drain into the Nile system; Wabi-Shebelle and Genale-
Dawa discharge into the Indian Ocean after cutting through Somalia; part of the Dawa
River forms a border with Kenya. The Omo-Ghibe flows into Lake Rudolf or Turkana.
This in itself is a major constraint on water resources development of the country since it
requires negotiations with those countries sharing the water resources regarding water
allocation and management of such trans-boundary rivers.
With respect to groundwater resources, the information currently available is limited.
However, it is estimated that the groundwater potential is approximately 2.6 billion m3.
According to the water resources policy only a minority of Ethiopians – 42% – have
access to potable water services and some 11% have access to improved sanitation.
Urban areas have the highest coverage, where about 83% of the population has access to
improved water supply and 55% to improved sanitation facilities.
The estimated irrigation potential in Ethiopia is 3.7 million hectares. However, less than
5% (approximately 200, 000 hectares) is currently under irrigation. Out of the current
irrigated area 38% is under traditional irrigation; another 38% public; 20% modern
communal and only 4% is under private commercial farming (World Bank, 2006).
The gross hydropower potential of Ethiopia is estimated at 650 TWh per year of which
25% could be exploited for power. However, the annual per capita electricity
consumption (25 kWh) is among the lowest in the world. Of Ethiopia’s total energy
production, 95% comes from traditional resources such as fuel, wood, dung, crop
residues and human and animal power. Ethiopia currently has 731 MW of dependable
power, most of it hydropower (World Bank, 2006).
Formatted: Superscript
Deleted: .
Deleted: e
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: r
Deleted: ;.
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: cubic meters.
Deleted: –
Deleted: percent
Deleted: –
Deleted: s
Deleted: percent
Deleted: .
Deleted: percent
Deleted: percent
Deleted: a.
Deleted: percent
Deleted: ha
Deleted: .
Deleted: percent
Deleted: percent
Deleted: percent
Deleted: percent
Deleted: .
Deleted: percent
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: per cent
Deleted: such
Deleted: ,
Deleted: .
5
Table 1: Surface Water Resources of Major River Basins
No River Basin Catchment Area (km2) Annual runoff (bm3)
1 Abbay 199, 912 52.6
2 Awash 112, 700 4.6
3 Baro-Akobo 74, 100 23.6
4 Genale Dawa 171, 050 5.80
5 Mereb 5, 700 0.26
6 Omo-Ghibe 78, 200 17.90
7 Rift Valley Lakes 52, 740 5.60
8 Tekezze 89, 000 7.63
9 Wabe Shebelle 200, 214 3.15
10 Afar-Danakil 74, 000 0.86
11 Ogaden 77, 100 0
12 Aysha 2, 200 0
Total 1, 136, 816 122 00
Source: Ministry of Water Resources (2002)
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
6
2. Federal Administrative Structure of Ethiopia
Ethiopia has been established as a Federal Democratic Republic with a parliamentary
form of government under the 1995 Constitution (Proclamation No. 1/1995). The
country comprises of nine Regional States, namely, Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromia,
Somalia, Benishangul-Gumuz, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples, Gambella
and Harari, delimited on the basis of the settlement patterns, language, identity and
consent of the peoples (Articles 45, 46, 47 of the Federal Constitution). The capital city
of the Federal Government, Addis Ababa, and Dire Dawa city enjoy full measure of selfadministration,
and are accountable to the Federal Government.
Both the Federal Government and Regional States have their respective legislative,
executive and judicial powers. The highest body at the federal level is the House of
Peoples’ Representative whereas the State Council is the highest organ of State authority
at the Regional level (Article 50). All powers not given expressly to the Federal
Government alone or concurrently to the Federal Government and Regional States are
reserved to the Regional States (Article 52.1). Accordingly, the Regional States have the
power to enact and execute their own constitutions and other laws as well as formulate
and execute their economic, social and development policies, strategies and plans. Both
the Federal Government and Regional States are required to respect each other’s powers
and mandates and, when necessary, the Federal Government may delegate the powers
given to it under the Constitution to Regional States (Articles 50.8 and 50.9).
The powers and duties of the Federal Government include: the duty to protect and defend
the Constitution, formulate and implement the country’s policies, strategies and plans
with respect to overall economic, social and development matters, formulate and
implement foreign policy and negotiate and ratify international agreements; formulate
and execute the country’s financial, monetary and foreign investment policies and
strategies; and regulate inter-state and foreign commerce. The powers of Regional
Governments, on the other hand, include establishment of a Regional State administration
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: regional state
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: C
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: etc.
Deleted: r
Deleted: g
7
that advances self-government and democratic order, protection of the Federal
Constitution, enactment of the Regional State constitutions and subordinate laws;
formulation and execution of economic, social and development policies, strategies and
plans of the State; administration of land and other natural resources in accordance with
federal laws and establishment and administration of the state police force; and
maintaining public order and peace within the Regional State. The Federal Government
and the Regional States have concurrent power on matters of taxation.
Local government entities consist of Regional States, Zonal and Woreda Governments.
The Federal Government is responsible for drawing up general policies pertaining to
common interests and benefits while Regional Governments are usually implementers of
these policies. Each of the nine Regional States has its own parliamentary assembly,
which elects representatives to the upper chamber of the Federal Parliament, the House of
the Federation. Each has taxing powers and administers its own budget, but in practice
the assemblies have had to rely on the central government for funding.
This decentralised system of government is expected to facilitate management of natural
resources including the water resources of the country since it creates a federal structure
with a number of highly autonomous Regional States as well as structures of selfgovernance
within the lower levels of the States such as the Woreda (Districts, Kebelle
(which is the smallest unit of administration) and sub-Kebelle levels). This devolution of
power is designed to ensure that citizens at all levels, particularly at community and
village levels, are empowered in political, economic and social aspects as the prime
movers of development in their areas.
Deleted: Federal
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: g
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: s
Deleted: f
Deleted: p
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: s
Deleted: s
Deleted: .
8
II. LEGAL BASIS FOR WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
1. The Constitution
As the supreme law of Ethiopia, all subsidiary laws or implementing legislation issued
subsequently must be consistent with the Federal Constitution. To this effect, Article 9 of
the Federal Constitution provides that “…any law, customary practice or a decision of an
organ of state or a public official which contravenes this Constitution shall be of no
effect.” The latter provision indicates that all subsequent legislation pertaining to water
resources management should be in line with the provisions provided in the Federal
Constitution.
The Constitution has several provisions which have direct policy, legal and institutional
significance for the management of the water resources of the country.
Article 40(3) of the Constitution provides for the public ownership of both rural and
urban land as well as all natural resources. Thus, the water resources of the country –
both surface and underground waters – are part of the public domain and are therefore
vested in the State.
The Constitution defines the powers and functions of the Federal Government and
Regional States respectively with respect to the country’s water resources management
and administration. Accordingly, it is the Federal Government that has the mandate to
enact laws for the utilisation and conservation of land and other natural resources
including water resources of the country (Article 51.5) while the Regional States have the
mandate to administer land and other natural resources in accordance with federal laws
(Article 52.2d). This means that Regions have to abide by the laws of the Federal
Government in administering and managing the water resources within their Regions.
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: 3.
Deleted: 3.1
Deleted:
Deleted: al provisions of the Federal
Government.
Deleted: A
Deleted: s
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: –
Deleted: –
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: Regional state
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: Federal
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
9
More specifically, the Constitution stipulates that the Federal Government shall
determine and administer the utilisation of the waters or rivers or lakes linking two or
more States or crossing the boundaries of the national territorial jurisdiction (Article
51(11)). This provision gives the Federal Government very broad powers as regards
water resources management since almost all the major water resources in the country are
shared by two or more Regional States and therefore “link” the Regional States. On the
basis of this provision of the Constitution, the determination and regulation of the use,
allocation and protection of the water resources of the country as well as its
administration largely rests with the Federal Government. Moreover, most of the river
basins in Ethiopia are trans-boundary in nature and therefore the mandate to determine
the administration and utilisation of these basins also rests with the Federal Government.
In strict legal terms, it may be argued that the exception to the above general rule would
be those water resources of the country which remain confined within the boundaries of
the respective Regional States such as groundwaters or some lakes which do not “link”
Regional States. Since powers not given expressly to the Federal Government are
reserved to the Regional States (Article 52.1), this indicates that water resources which
are confined within a certain region will be administered by the respective Regional
States subject to the laws issued by the Federal Government. However, the reading of the
Constitution in such manner may not have been intended by those who drafted it. It
would also be contrary to the principles of Integrated Water Resources Management
(IWRM) and the river basin approach that are both pillars of the Ethiopian Water
Resources Management Policy (WRM Policy) as we shall see later.
One other important provision of the Federal Constitution is that the Federal Government
may delegate its powers and functions granted to it under Article 51 of the Constitution to
Regional States (Article 50.9 of the Constitution). In other words, the executive arm of
the Federal Government responsible for water resources (currently the Ministry of Water
Resources (MoWR)) may delegate some of it powers and responsibilities given to it by
law to Regions when it deems it necessary for the effective management and
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: regional State
Deleted: ‘
Deleted: ’
Deleted: regional State
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: since
Deleted: ,
Deleted: z
Deleted: trans-boundary river
Deleted: of the country
Deleted: .
Deleted: regional state
Deleted: ‘
Deleted: ’
Deleted: regional State
Deleted: .
Deleted: regional state
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: the Constitution
Deleted: .
Deleted: i
Deleted: w
Deleted: r
Deleted: m
Deleted: R
Deleted: B
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
10
administration of the water resources of the country. Thus, the MoWR may, for example,
delegate the power to issue permits for water resources use to Regional States by law if it
deems it necessary. It is only through delegation, therefore, that Regional States may
exercise the functions given to the Federal Government under the Constitution.
The above discussion of the constitutional provisions regarding the management and
administration of water resources in Ethiopia indicates that it is the Federal Government
that is given a more or less centralised authority for water resources planning and
management in Ethiopia. Regional States have limited powers with respect to issuing
laws and decision-making regarding the allocation and use of the water resources of the
country, unless they are specifically delegated some of the mandates given to the Federal
Government by subsidiary laws.
On the other hand, the federal system of government, which is an important basis of the
Constitution, recognises the importance of decentralised management and adequate
decision-making of the Regional States, in the political, economic and social affairs of
the country. Moreover, the Federal Government cannot effectively discharge the
mandates given to it under the Constitution unless it decentralises its powers and
functions given to it under the Constitution. This calls for the Regional States to have an
adequate role and participate in decision-making regarding the management of water
resources within their respective regions. In light of this, it is necessary to define the
degree to which decentralisation of powers and functions from the Federal Government
to Regions or other water resources management bodies (e.g. River Basin Authorities)
can be realised for effective management of the water resources of the country. What
powers of the Federal Government are to be delegated to the Regions and in what manner
and to whom are issues that are expected to be defined in subsequent laws of the
executive arm of the Federal Government responsible for water resources.
An important conclusion that one can reach from the reading of the Constitution, and the
federal structure that underlies the basis for Regional States to play an increasing role in
decision-making regarding the resources within their respective territory, is that it is not
Deleted: .
Deleted: Ministry of Water Resources (
Deleted: )
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: C
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal
Deleted: z
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: ion
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: r
Deleted: b
Deleted: a
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: to be issued
Deleted: by
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal
11
only the Federal Government that would be solely in charge of determining the
management and administration of the water resources of the country but rather a
division of roles between the Federal Government and Regional States needs to be set-up
and clearly articulated.
The central question that needs to be posed is therefore: how best should the Federal
Government and Regional States coordinate and cooperate to achieve the purpose of
IWRM in the country. In this regard, the Constitution clearly states the possibility of
delegating the powers and functions given to the Federal Government to Regional States
as and when necessary or relevant. Although the Constitution does not explicitly call for
the possibility of delegation to other bodies such as River Basin Organisations (RBOs), it
does not have any provision that negates this possibility as long as Regional States are on
board in this kind of institutional arrangement. As we shall see subsequently, the WRM
Policy clearly adopts the river basin as the basic unit for water resources management of
the country and the subsequent laws provide for delegation to relevant organs although
RBOs are not specifically mentioned.
2.2 The Federal Water Resources Management Policy
The federal WRM Policy was issued in June 1999 (MoWR, 1999). As with any policy, it
is essentially an instrument for achieving the intended goals and objectives in a given
sector. The policy recognises that it is based on the constitutional provisions for water
resources management and the overall macro-economic, social policies and development
policies of Ethiopia.
With respect to the fundamental principles that should inform water resources
management, the Policy states, among other things:
• water is a natural endowment commonly owned by all the peoples of Ethiopia;
• water resources development shall be underpinned by rural-centred, decentralised
management, and a participatory approach as well as an integrated framework;
and
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: water resources management
policy
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal
Deleted: Water Resources Management
policy (
Deleted: p
Deleted: )
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: C
Deleted: p
Deleted: W
Deleted: .
Deleted: W
Deleted: on
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
12
• focus must be on the promotion of the participation of all stakeholders, user
communities (particularly women’s participation) in the relevant aspects of water
resources management.
The above policy provisions indicates that the State holds water resources in public trust
and the water resources development and management should be underpinned by a
decentralised approach ensuring the participation of all stakeholders in decision-making
in all aspects of water resources management.
In the part of the WRM Policy dealing with general water resources management, the
relevant provisions provide it will:
• enhance integrated and comprehensive management of water resources that
avoids a fragmented approach;
• recognise water as a scarce and vital socio-economic resource and to manage
water resources on a strategic planning basis with long-term visions and
sustainable objectives;
• ensure that water resources management is compatible and integrated with other
natural resources as well as river basin development plans and with the goals of
other sectoral developments in health, mines, energy, agriculture etc;
• recognise and adopt the hydrologic boundary or “basin” as the fundamental
planning unit and water resources management domain; and
• promote and advocate institutional stability and continuity in water resources
management and ensure smooth transition during times of change.
These policy provisions emphasise the necessity of an IWRM approach and that all
aspects of water resources management including the management of surface and
groundwater resources, water quantity and quality issues should not be treated in a
fragmented manner. It also recognises the need for water resources management to be
integrated with other aspects of natural resources management and the need for intersectoral
coordination at all levels. It emphasises the need to ensure institutional stability
Deleted: P
Deleted: ,
Deleted: z
Deleted:
Deleted: WRM policy
Deleted: policy
Deleted: d are
Deleted: E
Deleted: .
Deleted: R
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: E
Deleted: .
Deleted: R
Deleted: z
Deleted: ‘
Deleted: ’
Deleted: .
Deleted: P
Deleted: z
Deleted: integrated water resources
management (
Deleted: )
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
13
and continuity while at the same time ensuring a smooth transition in times of change.
What seems to be pointed out here is that existing institutions which are operating more
or less effectively at different levels should continue to operate with the least possible
disruption and that it is essential to clearly define the roles and responsibilities that ought
to be given to the federal and regional agencies as well as other stakeholders responsible
for different aspects of water resources management.
The Policy also underlines that the law should ensure the meaningful participation of all
stakeholders in water resources management. In light of this proviso, the water resources
management legislation needs to incorporate provisions that ensure an effective
mechanism for the participation of all stakeholders in various aspects of water resources
management – the government, private sector and the civil society at large.
In the discussion of the constitutional provisions relevant to water resources management
and administration, we have seen that the Federal Government has been given a more or
less exclusive mandate with respect to water resources management in Ethiopia although
there are also provisions reflecting the need for decentralised management. The WRM
Policy, on the other hand, while endorsing the principle of IWRM, calls for decentralised
management whereby different functions of water resources management can be
devolved to regions and the participation of stakeholders at all levels. How decentralised
management of water resources is to take place as well as defining the roles of the
different stakeholders needs to be carefully thought out in subsequent legislation. It may
be particularly difficult in the Ethiopian context to set up appropriate institutional
arrangements where all stakeholders will be involved in different aspects of water
resources management due to the relative lack of experience in setting up such
mechanisms. However, the Policy clearly provides for this.
The Policy articulates the need to establish RBOs on a phase-by-phase basis for the
sustainable and integrated management of the water resources of the country. As we
shall later on, the approach currently being taken in Ethiopia is to establish RBOs by
delegating some of the powers and responsibilities given to the Federal Government to
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: p
Deleted: .
Deleted: –
Deleted: – which have a stake in
various aspects of water resources
management
Deleted: C
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: water resources policy
Deleted: integrated water resources
management
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: p
Deleted: p
Deleted: river basin organizations
Deleted: .
Deleted: River Basin Organizations (
Deleted: )
Deleted: federal government
14
such RBOs. The phase-phase approach of establishing RBOs seems to be taken in order
to learn lessons from established RBOs before replicating such organisations in other
river basins. One of the crucial issues in this regard is whether or not the Regional States
will have an adequate decision-making role in the RBOs to be established in order to
avoid tensions between the RBOs and Regional States represented in the RBOs.
The WRM Policy contains very relevant provisions that need to be considered for
effective management of the water resources of the country including the establishment
of RBOs. It clarifies and articulates the general provisions that are provided in the
Federal Constitution setting the scene for spelling out the policy provisions in subsequent
laws and regulations for water resources management. It should be noted that the WRM
Policy is, by its nature, a guideline or framework document that needs to be translated
into specific laws, regulations, plans and strategies as well as appropriate administrative
arrangements for its proper implementation. Moreover, it is not the province of the
policy to address in detail the specific roles and functions of the different water resources
management institutions both at the federal and regional levels since this is left to
subsequent legislation on water resources management. In the following sections, we
shall examine the legal framework set up for water resources management in Ethiopia.
Deleted: river basin organizations
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: would
Deleted: regional state
Deleted: water resources management
policy
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: water resources policy
Deleted: set ups
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: .
15
III. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. The Ethiopian Water Resources Management Proclamation
The Ethiopian Water Resources Management Proclamation, issued in March 2000
(Proclamation No.197/2000), is currently the basic legal instrument governing the
management, planning, utilisation and protection of water resources in Ethiopia.
The Proclamation provides the fundamental principles that need to be taken into account
for the management and administration of the water resources in the country (Article 6).
The basic thrust of these fundamental principles is that water resources management and
administration in the country should be based on the Ethiopian WRM Policy, the
Integrated Basin Master Plan Studies and the water resources laws of the country. It also
stipulates that the management of water resources of Ethiopia shall be based on a permit
system (Article 6).
The MoWR is designated as the “Supervising Body” at the federal level where it pertains
to water resources at the central level, or any organ delegated by the Ministry. The latter
is further elaborated in Article 8.2 of the Proclamation which says, “the Supervising
Body may, where necessary, delegate its powers and duties to the appropriate body for
efficient execution of its duties.” It is not quite clear what the phrase “water resources at
the central level” refers to. Again, as with the Constitution, this provision seems to imply
that the management of water resources that do not “hydrologically link” Regional States
or are not trans-boundary in nature (i.e confined groundwaters and lakes) are under the
jurisdiction of Regional States. This duality of approach to water resources management
(federal and regional levels) has to be clearly addressed in subsequent laws if a unified
management and regulatory approach is to be adopted for IWRM in the country.
Overall, the Proclamation gives the MoWR the predominant jurisdiction over the
management, utilisation and administration of the water resources of the country since
the bulk of the water resources are either trans-regional or trans-boundary, the exception
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: 4.
Deleted: 4.1
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: water resources policy
Deleted: i
Deleted: b
Deleted: m
Deleted: p
Deleted: s
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: ‘
Deleted:
Deleted: b
Deleted: ’
Deleted: Federal
Deleted: .
Deleted: ‘
Deleted:
Deleted: b
Deleted: ’
Deleted: ‘
Deleted: ’
Deleted: .
Deleted: ‘
Deleted: ‘
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
16
being confined to groundwaters and lakes confined within Regional States’ boundaries.
This has significant implications for the management and planning of the water sector as
a whole because of its highly centralised approach. However, it is clearly provided that
the MoWR may delegate its powers and duties given to it under the Proclamation to an
appropriate body for the effective execution of its responsibilities (Articles 2.7 and 8.2).
Accordingly, the MoWR may delegate all or some of its powers and duties to Regions or
RBOs as and when it deems it necessary.
The Supervising Body has been given broad powers under the Proclamation which
include the establishment of an inventory of water resources and registry of actions;
issuing permits of professional competence as well as for water use and construction;
allocation of water resources; establishing required standards for the design and
construction of waterworks and monitoring same; and issuing guidelines and directives
for the prevention of pollution of water resources as well as for water quality and health
standards in consultation with other concerned public bodies (Article 8.1) .
A major aspect of the Water Resources Proclamation is that most water resources use and
construction works are to be based on a permit system. The Proclamation has several
provisions regarding the application, issuance, duration, suspension and revocation of
permits. It also provides for the payment of fees and water charges for use to the
Supervising Body. The amount and criteria for determining fees and charges is left to
subsequent regulations. The establishment of water users associations in a voluntary
manner is also envisaged. Details of their establishment and organisation will also be
specified in the regulations. There are also provisions relating to settlement of disputes
and adjudication the procedures of which are to be specified in regulations. Generally,
the Proclamation has laid down the broad conditions that need to be fulfilled for anyone
wishing to use water resources for different purposes. The details of most of the
provisions of the Proclamation are expected to be provided in subsequent laws to be
issued for its proper implementation. The Proclamation provides that detailed regulations
and directives will be issued for its implementation by the Council of Ministers and the
MoWR respectively.
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: river basin organisations
Deleted: .
Deleted: b
Deleted: e
Deleted: w
Deleted: r
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: b
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: general
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
17
The Proclamation is generally consistent with the relevant provisions of the Federal
Constitution. More importantly, it provides for the first time a clear set of provisions for
the management, utilisation, protection and administration of the water resources of the
country through a permit system. It has also stipulated provisions laying down the
general requirements for the issuance of permits for those wishing to develop water
resources for different purposes.
The Proclamation gives the MoWR extensive mandates with respect to the management
and administration of the water resources of the country. As the Proclamation now
stands, the management and administration of water resources seem to be too centralised.
However, the Proclamation provides for the delegation of the powers and duties given to
the MoWR to the appropriate body whenever it deems it essential for the efficient
management of the water resources of the country. This provides the basis for the
MoWR to delegate some or most of the powers and duties it holds under the
Proclamation to the respective Regional States or to RBOs.
One important issue that has to be addressed in subsequent legislation is to what extent
the powers and duties that the MoWR is currently given under the Proclamation should
be decentralised to Regions or other appropriate bodies such as RBOs. Clearly, most of
the water resources development and management activities are going to be implemented
in the respective Regional States. Accordingly, the Regional States will have to play a
greater role and feel a sense of ownership in water resources management activities in
their respective regions. This would call for some of the mandates given to the MoWR
by law to be delegated to the Regional States, or to a body in which the Regional State
have a voice in decision-making in order to put in place an effective water resources
management in the country. This is not addressed in the Proclamation except the
provision in the Proclamation giving the MoWR the power to delegate some of its
functions. For instance, the MoWR has the mandate to issue permits for water use, waste
water discharge and water works. In order for the MoWR to carry out the latter function
effectively, it would seem that this function should be delegated to the respective
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: river basin organizations
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: river basin organizations
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
18
Regional States or alternatively to the RBOs to be established. The question to be
addressed in this should be: which agency or body – be it at the Regional or at the basin
level – can best carry out a given function currently under the mandate of the MoWR and
which should be retained by the Ministry itself?
There are also some issues that the Proclamation does not clearly address although
articulated in the WRM Policy. For instance, it does not provide for the need of intersectoral
coordination at both the federal and regional levels. The effective
implementation of the Proclamation is largely dependent on such coordination because
water resources development is largely related with the appropriate management of land
and other natural resources. This issue might not have been addressed in the
Proclamation with the expectation that it will be dealt with in other laws or subsidiary
legislation. However, as the basic legal instrument for water resources management of
Ethiopia, it is believed that a provision in the Proclamation providing for inter-sectoral
coordination would have provided the legal basis for more articulation in subsequent laws
such as the establishment of RBOs.
The Proclamation also does not provide for the establishment of RBOs by subsequent
legislation except for the provision that the MoWR may delegate some of its
responsibilities to appropriate bodies to effectively discharge its responsibilities. The
latter provision is the only legal basis that enables the MoWR to establish RBOs although
the Policy clearly mentions this.
2. The Ethiopian Water Resources Management Regulation
The Ethiopian Water Resources Management Regulation was issued by the Council of
Ministers in March 2005 (Regulation No. 115/2005). The objective of the Regulation is
to provide detailed provisions for the effective implementation of its parent legislationthe
Water Resources Management Proclamation. A review of the Regulation shows that
it is mainly a further elaboration of the Proclamation providing in detail the main
requirements for the issuance of permits for different uses of water; construction works;
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: .
Deleted: –
Deleted: B
Deleted: –
Deleted: water resource policy
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: river basin organisations
Deleted: .
Deleted: also
Deleted: .
Deleted: p
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 4.
Deleted:
Deleted: s
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
19
waste water discharge as well as providing the conditions for the issuance, renewal,
revocation etc of such permits. It also provides provisions for fees for application for
permits as well as the requirements of water charges to be paid for different uses of water
although the amount of charges payable are left to be determined by the Council of
Ministers and issued in a subsequent regulation (Article 31.4).
The Regulation gives the mandate to the “Supervising Body” or to an organ delegated by
it to receive applications for permits and make the necessary decisions accordingly
(Article 3). Accordingly, the MoWR or an organ delegated by it shall issue permits.
However, it is not realistic, for instance, for the Ministry to issue water use/wastewater
discharge permits throughout the country. Such day-to-day operations could be
effectively done by the Regions or the RBOs that are expected to be established instead
of the MoWR. In fact, the practice to date indicates that, since the issuance both the
Proclamation and Regulation, the MoWR has not yet started to implement the permit
system that is required under the law although various water resources projects are
currently being undertaken in the respective Regions.
The above discussions regarding both the Ethiopian Water Resources Management
Proclamation and regulation reveal that, as they stand, the Federal Government retains
most of the mandates regarding water resources management but has the power to
delegate such mandates to appropriate bodies – be it to Regional States or other organs
such as RBOs – in order to effectively manage the water resources of the country. The
rationale behind the whole policy and legal framework seems to be that the country’s
water resources should be held in public trust and its management coordinated and
integrated with the Federal Government playing a prominent role in the decision-making
regarding determination and allocation of water resources of the country for different
development purposes and delegate such powers to appropriate bodies when it deems it
necessary.
As we shall see in the subsequent section, the approach taken in Ethiopia currently is to
decentralise water resources planning and management functions to RBOs at the basin
Deleted: .
Deleted: to be
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: According to the Regulation,
the Ministry holds the mandate to issue
permits for water resources unless
delegated to other organs.
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: w
Deleted: r
Deleted: m
Deleted: p
Deleted: –
Deleted: river basin organizations
Deleted: .
Deleted: federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
20
level. Accordingly, RBOs are to be established phase-by-phase in each of the river
basins of the country and most of the functions of the Federal Government delegated to
such RBOs. This is basically in line with the WRM Policy discussed earlier, although the
subsequent water resources management laws discussed earlier have not clearly
articulated the river basin approach.
IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF RIVER BASIN ORGANISATIONS
As mentioned earlier, the WRM Policy of Ethiopia has adopted the river basin as a
planning unit for IWRM of the country. It is the first time that the policy has been
translated into a legal framework for the establishment of RBOs for each of the river
basins of the country on a phase-by-phase basis by delegating some of the mandates of
the Federal Government (MoWR) to such RBOs. Following will be a discussion of the
law issued for the establishment of RBOs.
1. River Basin Councils and Authorities Proclamation
The River Basin Councils and Authorities Proclamation was issued in July 2007
(Proclamation No. 534/2007). The Proclamation seems to be envisaged as a framework
or enabling legislation for the establishment of RBOs for each river basin of the country
by subsequent subsidiary legislation. To this effect, the Proclamation provides that River
Basin High Councils and Authorities shall be established by Regulations to be issued by
the Council of Ministers (Article 3.1). In other words, the Council of Ministers is given
the mandate to create specific RBOs through more detailed regulations which presumably
will further elaborate the powers and responsibilities of the RBOs to be established in the
respective basins of the country. The Proclamation also provides for the possibility of
merging two or more river basins under the jurisdiction of a single RBO (Article 3.2).
Although the justification for issuing an enabling law for the establishment of RBOs is
not provided in the preamble of the Proclamation, the justification for this seems to be
based on the WRM Policy which states that RBOs would be established on a phase-by-
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: river basin organizations
Deleted: .
Deleted: water resources policy
Deleted: did
Deleted: .
Deleted: Page Break
Deleted: 5.
Deleted: z
Deleted: water resources management
policy
Deleted: integrated water resources
management
Deleted: .
Deleted: for
Deleted: Ministry of Water Resources
Deleted: .
Deleted: 4.1
Deleted:
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: water resources management
policy
21
phase basis. The phase-by-phase approach to establish RBOs may have been adopted in
the Ethiopian context due to the fact that there is as yet no significant water resources
development projects/activities in most of the river basins of the country at present except
for a few basins where there are on-going and planned water resources projects (e.g. the
sub-basins of the Nile such as Abbay, Tekezze and Baro-Akobo) which would result
increasing pressures on the water resources of the basin and potential conflicts among the
Regional States found within the basins which calls for coordinated planning and
allocation of water resources for different uses.
The Proclamation provides for a two-tier organisational set-up for the RBOs to be
established, namely, River Basin High Councils being the highest policy and strategic
decision-making body and River Basin Authorities, which will be the
administrative/technical arm of the Basin High Councils.
The members of the Basin High Councils (BHCs) are to be designated by the government
and their accountability is also to be determined by regulations issued by the Council of
Ministers (Article 5). It is not clear why the membership of the Council is left to the
designation of the government instead of specifically providing by law the composition
of the BHC. In the Regulation establishing the Abbay Basin Authority, which will be
briefly discussed in the next section, it is provided that the members of the Abbay Basin
High Council will be designated by the government upon the recommendations of the
MoWR. The present writer believes that stating the members of the BHC by law would
have created legal certainty as to which stakeholders are to participate in the decisionmaking
at the highest level than leaving it to the discretion of the government
(presumably the Council of Ministers) to designate the members of the BHC. This would
have clearly ensured that major stakeholders in the river basin have been included and
legally recognised as the main decision-makers in the basin.
According to the discussion this writer had with an expert involved in drafting the
Proclamation,2 it is expected that the BHC will be chaired by the Prime Minister or his
2 Head of the Legal Services of the MoWR. Formatted: English Australia
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: r
Deleted: b
Deleted: h
Deleted: c
Deleted: r
Deleted: b
Deleted: a
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: Ministry of Water resources
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: 1
Deleted: would
22
Deputy and composed of political representatives and representatives from the relevant
Ministries engaged directly or indirectly in decision-making regarding the management
and development of the water resources of the country at the federal and regional levels.
Representatives of other stakeholders such as water users associations, the private sector,
civil society etc, are also to be included as non-voting members. Ensuring the
participation of the major stakeholders in decision-making within each RBO to be
established such as the Regional States within the basin and other sectors involved in
planning and development of the water resources in the respective basins is critical in
order to create a sense of ownership among the Regional States involved and to enhance
a sustainable and collaborative IWRM approach.
Article 6 of the Proclamation gives the following powers and responsibilities to the
BHCs:
• to provide policy guidance and planning oversight to ensure high level
coordination among stakeholders for the implementation of IWRM in the basin;
• to direct the preparation of the river basin plans and submit the same for approval
to the Government;
• to propose to the Government the rate of water charges to be paid by water users
in the basin;
• to examine and decide on the appropriateness and prioritisation of constructing
major water works in the basin;
• to examine and decide on water allocation rules and principles in normal times
and in times of water shortage as well as in times of drought or flooding;
• to manage water use disputes between Regional States in the basin;
• to provide information and advisory support to the body in charge of negotiating
with neighboring countries with respect to the basin where the basin is part of a
trans-boundary basin; and
• to establish standing or ad-hoc committees necessary for discharging specific
activities.
Deleted: the
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: P
Deleted: D
Deleted: P
Deleted: E
Deleted: z
Deleted: E
Deleted: M
Deleted: P
Deleted: E
23
It is not the objective of this paper to specifically discuss each of the mandates given to
the BHC under the Proclamation and their relevance since this would require another
lengthy paper. However, some general comments with respect to the given mandates are
called for at this juncture. The above mandates given to the BHCs indicates that the
BHCs will be involved in the deliberations and decision-making on some of the major
issues that are required for IWRM in a specific river basin. The BHC is envisaged to be
the highest policy decision-making body for a specific river basin and to be the forum
where decision-making involves all major stakeholders at the federal and regional level.
It is usually at the level of the BHC that different interests, which may be in conflict with
each other, may arise because of different stakeholder groups represented in this body
ranging from politicians at the federal and regional level, different sectoral agencies,
public utilities, the private sector etc. In light of the political and sectoral representation
at this level and the technical nature of some of the decisions to be made, the BHC
requires a strong technical support in order for it to play an adequate role in harmonising
the different interests involved in the process of decision-making. The BHC is expected
to give policy guidance and examine basin specific policy issues and strategies, plans,
programs and projects as well as decide on water allocation principles and rules that
would apply among water users and Regional States. It is also envisaged that it will
mediate disputes that may arise among Regional States (e.g. on water allocation or
prioritisation of projects among Regions). The provision that the BHC can establish
standing or ad-hoc committees for discharging specific activities may have been provided
to render this technical support. Unless the BHC has adequate technical support, it is
highly questionable that it will be an independent decision-making body for most of the
matters submitted to it by the Basin Authority due to their technical nature. It may
simply end up as a body that endorses what is presented to it.
Moreover, as we shall see subsequently, most of the matters to be deliberated upon and/or
decided by the BHC are to be submitted to it by the Basin Authority which is to serve as
the secretariat (administrative and technical arm) of the BHC. It is therefore highly
important for the Basin Authority to have from the outset involved the relevant
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: f
Deleted: integrated water resources
management
Deleted: .
Deleted:
Deleted:
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: ,.
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
24
stakeholders within the Regional States of the basin in the preparation of basin specific
policies, plans, identification of priority projects, determination of water charges etc so
that such matters will not be unduly contentious when it is submitted to the BHC thereby
avoiding potential conflicts that may arise at this level.
The other mandate given to the BHC is that of resolving conflicts that may arise among
Regional States (Article 6.6). Potential conflict among Regional States may arise, for
instance, with respect to water allocation and prioritisation of projects within the basin.
In this respect, it is appropriate that such mandate is given to the BHC since it is expected
to be composed of representatives at the highest political level both from the Federal
Government and Regional States able to deal with such kind of conflicts. However, the
possibility that potential conflict of interests may arise between Federal Ministries and
Regional Bureaus or between the Basin Authority and Regional Administrations with
respect to mandates over water resources and other natural resources management and
who is to resolve such kinds of potential conflicts seems to have been overlooked. It is
believed that the BHC is best able to handle this issue because of the reasons given
above.
Finally, the BHC is given the responsibility to provide information and give advisory
support to the body in charge of negotiations with neighboring countries when the basin
is trans-boundary. The mandate to negotiate with riparian countries is that of the Federal
Government. The role of the BHC in this respect would be important since there needs to
be adequate coordination and consistency between basin plans prepared by the RBOs and
those that are planned and agreed upon among the riparian countries in a specific transboundary
river basin.
As mentioned before, the Basin Authorities are envisaged to be the technical arm of the
RBOs. The Proclamation provides that the Basin Authority shall serve as a secretariat of
the BHC (Article 8).
Deleted: would
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: s
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
25
The Basin Authorities will have dual accountability, first, to the BHC on matters that fall
within the mandate of the latter as provided in Article 6 discussed above. Secondly, it is
accountable to the MoWR on matters falling under its jurisdiction (Article 10).
Article 9 of the Proclamation provides for the powers and responsibilities of the Basin
Authorities which are inter alia as follows:
• To initiate policy measures for implementation of IWRM in the basin and submit
same to the BHC for approval and subsequent follow-up;
• to prepare and submit the basin plan to the BHC and monitor its implementation
upon approval;
• without prejudice to the power given to Regional States by law, to issue permits
applicable to the basin’s water use and water works and ensure that the terms of
the permits are complied with;
• to collect, compile, analyse and disseminate information for proper planning,
administration and management of water resources in the basin;
• to develop and use a river basin model in order to guide and support its basin
water resources strategic planning and water administration functions;
• to give advice and technical support to the BHC and the Ministry on dispute
resolution in relation to the allocation and use of water resources of the basin;
• to set up a forum for effective networking among stakeholders;
• to collect water charges from users; and
• on the basis of instructions from the BHC, to prepare and provide necessary
information for the concerned body in charge of negotiations with other countries
concerning trans-boundary river basins.
As we can see from the above powers and responsibilities given to the Basin Authority,
several important mandates that were under the Federal MoWR have now been delegated
to the Basin Authority. Similar to what was pointed out earlier, it requires another paper
to deal with all the issues related to each and every power and responsibility that has been
given to the Basin Authority. However, this paper will attempt to raise some of the major
issues that need particular attention.
Deleted: ly
Deleted: .
Deleted: Ministry of Water Resources
Deleted: .
Deleted: I
Deleted: integrated water resources
management
Deleted: P
Deleted: W
Deleted: …
Deleted: .
Deleted: C
Deleted: z
Deleted: D
Deleted: G
Deleted: S
Deleted: C
Deleted: O
Deleted: of
Deleted: .
Deleted: s
Deleted: ies
Deleted: is
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
26
The basic issue that may arise at this point is: will the Basin Authority have the capacity
to effectively carry out some of the functions delegated to it by itself or will some of the
delegated functions be best carried out by existing institutions responsible for water
resources management at the federal and regional level, or by the Authority in strong
collaboration with such institutions?
For instance, the Basin Authority has been given the mandate to prepare river basin plans.
The Proclamation itself provides several elements that should be incorporated in the basin
plans such as available water resources of the basin; watershed management (in the
basin); quantification of the current and future level of water use in the basin; trend
analysis depicting possible future uses; means of implementing the plan, including
implementing actors, action plans and budget requirements; and water activities of
stakeholders in the basin etc (Article 18).
Although it is important for the Basin Authority to have this mandate in order to promote
IWRM in the basin, most of the activities required for the preparation of the basin plan
needs to be supported by substantial information that it can gather both from the Federal
MoWR which has the experience and most of the information and resources necessary
(e.g. hydrology data) for the preparation of such plans.
More importantly, the Authority will require the strong collaboration and active
involvement of the relevant bureaus and other stakeholders in the respective Regional
States that share the basin which are actually undertaking water related development
activities that are required for the preparation of such plans. There is also a need to
reconcile the preparation of basin plans with that of natural resources based Regional
plans (e.g. land, watershed management). The active involvement of all stakeholders at
the federal and regional levels is therefore vitally important for the Basin Authority to
effectively discharge this function.
Deleted: would
Deleted: should
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: b
Deleted: a
Deleted: .
Deleted: .,
Deleted: .
Deleted: integrated water resources
management
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: a
Deleted: would
Deleted: a
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: .
27
The Proclamation provides that all persons have a duty to cooperate with the Basin
Authority for the implementation of its mandates (Article 19). However, this general
obligation may not give the Authority adequate clout to get the cooperation of all
stakeholders at both the federal and regional levels unless a clear mechanism is
established that creates a strong functional linkage between the Basin Authority vis-à-vis
the relevant federal and regional agencies involved in water and other natural resources
management. There may likely be some tensions concerning mandates between Regional
States and the Authority especially at the early stages of its establishment. Therefore, it
may be necessary for the Authority to devise a clear mechanism that enables it to actively
engage all stakeholders particularly at the Regional level by playing a coordinating role
in the preparation of the basin plans so that all stakeholders feel that their interests are
adequately incorporated in such plans. It should be clear that the development of river
basins cannot be effectively managed without the full participation of the concerned
Regional States. Moreover, the Basin Authority may not have the necessary resources at
the early stage of its establishment, both in terms of manpower and finance, to undertake
such activities unless its gets strong support and cooperation from the relevant federal
and regional authorities who already have most of the resources that enable the Authority
to stand on its feet. The support of the BHC, which represents decision-makers at the
highest political level, is also essential.
Another point that may require particular attention is the administration and enforcement
of the permit system which is the mandate of the Authority under the Proclamation.
Clearly, the Basin Authority needs to have this mandate for it to properly administer and
allocate water resources in the basin, gather information on water quantity and water
quality in the basin etc. The issue here is: will the Basin Authority have sufficient
resources (both manpower and financial) to adequately implement and enforce the permit
system, particularly if it applies to all water uses (except for domestic use which has been
defined and excluded by law) within the basin? Even currently, the MoWR has not been
able to actually implement the permit system. It is believed that Regional States
(including those at the district level) should actively participate in the issuance and
enforcement of the permit system. In this respect, it may be necessary to consider which
Deleted: b
Deleted: a
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: is
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: A
Deleted: .
Deleted: given as
Deleted: .
Deleted: ;
Deleted: .
Deleted: would
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
28
type of permit issuance functions should be given to the Regional States. It might be
appropriate for Regional States to be given the mandate to administer permits with regard
to small scale water uses and groundwater abstraction while leaving the mandate for the
issuance of permits for large and medium scale water uses (e.g., large and medium scale
irrigation and hydropower schemes) for the Basin Authority rather than bog down the
Authority with this huge administrative matter. In any event, it would be important that
this issue be carefully considered during the initial phase of establishing the Basin
Authority so that means could be found to involve Regional States in such functions. The
enforcement of the permit system may be particularly challenging and this may be better
given to the Regional States especially at the initial stage. The problem however that
might arise in this case is whether the Regional States have to be specifically delegated to
carry out this mandate since the law provides that mandates given to the Federal
Government have to be specifically delegated by law. Therefore, the Federal
Government (basically, the Council of Ministers) may need to issue a regulation
delegating this function to the Regional States.
An interesting issue that also relates to the issuance of permits is the provision in the
Proclamation related to the mandate given to the Basin Authority. It says “without
prejudice to the power given to Regional States by law, issue permits applicable to the
basin’s water use….” (Article 9.5). The italicised phrase implies that Regional States
have certain mandates to issue permits which are not that of the Federal Government.
Again this issue comes back in the Proclamation. Does this mean that Regional States
have the mandate to issue permits for those water resources that do not “link” Regional
States as provided in the Constitution? This ambiguity may prove to be contentious as
regards the mandates given to the Basin Authority vis-à-vis Regional States. It should
have been clearly stated that the Authority has the mandate over all water resources
within the basin to avoid this contention. It is not clear what inspired the lawmaker to
provide such an exception if a unified and integrated basin approach is the objective
sought.
Deleted: .
Deleted: probably
Deleted: that
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: particularly
Deleted: .
Deleted: ,
Deleted: ,
Deleted: ,
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: s
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted:
29
The Basin Authority has also been given the mandate to establish a basin wide
information system and to develop river basin models (Articles 9.6 and 9.7). There is no
question that establishing such knowledge base and analytical methods at the basin level
are important as a planning tool and for decision-making as well as for effective water
resources management and development. However, huge investment is required for the
collection and processing of hydrological data and for monitoring the impact of water
resources developing in the basin. Currently, most of this function is done at the federal
level by the MoWR (more specifically the Hydrology Department) which has a central
database for most of the river basins of Ethiopia. It is questionable that the newly
established Basin Authorities can take over this function easily due to the high
investment requirements and human power needed to establish an effective and
functional basin information system. In light of this, there seems to be a clear need for
the MoWR to continue with this function, at least for some period of time and gradually
transfer such mandates to the Basin Authority while at the same time building the
capacity of the Basin Authority to adequately discharge such functions. Accordingly, it
may have been necessary to clearly provide by law that this function be carried out by the
Basin Authority with adequate assistance and cooperation of the MoWR.
The Basin Authority has been given responsibility to give advice and technical support to
the BHC and the MoWR on dispute resolution in relation to the allocation and use of
water resources of the basin (Article 9.8). As was discussed earlier, the BHC is given the
mandate to resolve disputes that may arise among Regional States. So this provision
seems to imply that the Authority would give advice and support to the BHC on disputes
that arise between Regional States. However, it is not clear on what kind of disputes the
Basin Authority is to give advice to the MoWR. Presumably, this provision implies that
the Authority would give advice to the MoWR in case of disputes that may arise among
water users in the basin. Such disputes among water users may usually arise as a result of
violations of the conditions provided in the water use permits that are to be administered
by the Authority. In such cases, the Water Resources Management Proclamation gives
the responsibility to the MoWR to decide on such disputes in the first instance unless this
is delegated by it (Article 18). It seems to be absurd and impractical to submit disputes
Deleted: –
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: w
Deleted: r
Deleted: m
Deleted: .
30
among water users in the basin to the MoWR. This mandate should have been delegated
to the Basin Authority which administers the permit system in the basin and is closely
familiar with the disputes that may arise among water users in the basin.
One final issue that ought to be addressed regarding the mandates given to the Basin
Authority is the issue of collection of water use charges and the financial sustainability
the Authority. The Proclamation provides that the Basin Authority has the mandate to
collect water charges from users (Article 9.10) and also stipulates that the source of the
budget of the Authority will be from funds allocated by the Federal Government and the
water charges to be collected by the Authority. As mentioned earlier during the
discussion of the Water Resources Management Regulation, the determination of water
use charges for different purposes is left to be determined by the Council of Ministers by
subsequent Regulation. The amount of water charges to be paid by water users has not
yet been issued as law. Two types of water charges are envisaged in the Water Resources
Management Proclamation, namely, charges for water use payable annually (Article 31)
and charges for the discharge of treated wastes which are allowed by permits (Article 22).
However, what type of water users shall pay such water charges is not yet clear and is
expected to be clearly defined in the regulation to be issued by the Council of Ministers.
The Authority requires a substantial source of income for it to function sustainably and
independently in the future. It is questionable whether the water use and waste discharge
charges that it can levy would provide it with an income for it to operate effectively in the
near future since there are as yet no significant water resources projects in most of the
river basins. Thus, most of the budget to be allocated to the Authority will have to come
from the coffers of the Federal Government for some time to come.
2. Regulation for the Establishment the Abbay (Blue Nile) Basin High Council
and Authority
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
Deleted: water
Deleted: r
Deleted: r
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: w
Deleted: r
Deleted: m
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: would
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: 4.
31
At the time of writing this paper, a Regulation had been approved by the Council of
Ministers for the establishment of the Abbay (Blue Nile) Basin High Council and
Authority. However, this regulation had not yet been issued in the official gazette.4
There may be several reasons why the Abbay Basin was selected as a priority for the
establishment of a River Basin Authority. The Abbay Basin has the greatest runoff (52
billion m3) as compared to other rivers basins of Ethiopia. The basin is shared by three
Regional States, namely, the Amhara, Oromia and Benishangul-Gumuz Regional States.
There are also several water resources development projects currently under construction
and planned within the basin. These factors may lead to competition and increase
pressures over water resources in the basin both in quantitative and qualitative terms and
therefore call for the need to plan water resources development in an integrated manner
with the Regional States sharing the basin actively involved in all aspects of decisionmaking.
Moreover, the Abbay Basin is the major contributor to the entire Nile Basin flowing
westwards towards Sudan and Egypt downstream. In 1999, the Nile Basin countries have
established a cooperative framework under the auspices of the Nile Basin Initiative
(NBI). One component of the NBI, is known as the Subsidiary Action Program (SAP).
The Eastern Nile Subsidiary Action Program (ENSAP) is one sub-component of SAP
whose members are Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan. ENSAP focuses on identifying and
preparing water related investment projects to be implemented in the member countries.
Currently, there are several projects being implemented or at the planning stage.5 It is
therefore essential to coordinate the plans and projects identified within the NBI with that
to be prepared and identified by the Abbay RBO.
The Regulation does not add much to what is provided in the Proclamation except
providing for the establishment of the Abbay Basin High Council and Authority. The
4 This writer got hold of the approved draft from the MoWR.
5 For more information on NBI and its programs, please refer to its website: http://www.nilebasin.org.
Formatted: English Australia
Deleted: has
Deleted: Establishment
Deleted: .
Deleted: s
Deleted: 3.
Deleted: .
Deleted: b
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: n
Deleted: of
Deleted: b
Deleted: .
Deleted: b
Deleted: b
Deleted: i
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
32
Head Office of the Authority is to be the capital of the Amhara Regional State which is
one of the Regions in which the basin found.
The composition of the Basin High Council is to be determined by the Government upon
the recommendation of the MoWR. As was mentioned earlier, it is not clear why the
designation of the Council members is left to the Government as it would create
uncertainty as to which stakeholders are to be members of the Council particularly with
respect to Regional States. The powers and responsibilities of the BHCs and the
Authority are those provided in the Proclamation. So the comments given earlier when
discussing the Proclamation are equally applicable here.
In the view of this author, it would have been better for the Regulation to have provided
further provisions that further define the responsibilities of the Basin Authority vis-à-vis
the Regional States (including sectoral bureaus) as well the Federal MoWR with respect
to some of the functions given to the Authority.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The current approach taken in Ethiopia is clearly in the direction of managing the water
resources of the country at the river basin level by establishing RBOs for each river basin
in phases. This generally seems to be in line with the trend of adopting IWRM that is at
present lauded universally.
Most of the important functions that were given by law to the MoWR have now been
delegated to the RBOs that are yet to be formally established. Although it is too early to
pass judgment on the effectiveness of the current legal regime and the performance of the
RBOs, there are several issues that one can foresee as being some of the major challenges
that may be faced by the RBOs and may need to be addressed by subsequent legislation
(although some of the issues may not be addressed by law).
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: .
Deleted: Ministry of Water Resources
Deleted: .
Deleted: c
Deleted: g
Deleted: c
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: ed
Deleted: .
Deleted:
Deleted: .
Deleted: integrated water resources
management
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
33
The RBOs need to ensure a strong coordination between the various stakeholders at the
regional level and actively promote their participation in decision-making in order to
discharge their functions effectively. The river basins cannot be effectively managed
without the full participation of the concerned Regional States sharing the basin.
Moreover, they will require a strong technical support from both the MoWR and the
Regions for the preparation of basin plans, establishing an adequate data and information
system etc. Due to the lack of experience, particularly at the initial stages, it is crucial
that they maintain a strong link at all levels with all stakeholders in order to create a sense
of ownership by all stakeholders of what is being performed by the RBOs. Creating a
strong forum for stakeholders’ participation from the outset is therefore essential. This
would presumably reduce tensions between the RBOs vis-à-vis Regional States and the
MoWR.
Some of the functions given to the RBOs would be better performed by the Regional
States and the MoWR especially during the transition period until the RBOs are well
established. As was mentioned earlier, administration and enforcement of the permit
system within the basin is an arduous task that the RBOs cannot perform effectively by
themselves. The respective Regions within the basin may well perform this task more
effectively and some aspects of the administration and enforcement of the permit system,
especially for small scale irrigation and groundwater abstraction should be delegated to
Regions by law.
There are likely to be tensions and potential conflicts between the RBOs vis-à-vis the
Regional States and MoWR with respect to their respective mandates and identifying
priority water resources. Already, there is a loophole in the law which seems to make a
distinction between water resources under federal jurisdiction and those under regional
jurisdiction (confined groundwater and lakes within Regions). This would be a
superficial distinction and, in the view of this author, all water resources found within the
basin should be managed in an integrated manner. Thus, the law should further clarify
the mandates between the RBOs, Regional States and the MoWR.
Deleted: R
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: would
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: F
Deleted: R
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
34
Another potential source of conflict that may arise is that concerning resource and water
allocation among Regions and the financing of major projects. Regional States are not on
an equal footing in terms of water resources development and capacity and this may
result in potential conflict over allocation of resources and prioritising projects. The
Basin High Council, which is the highest policy making body in the respective RBOs to
be established is given the mandate to resolve such potential conflicts. As the BHC will
be composed of representatives at the highest political level from both the Federal
Government and Regional States found within the basin, it will be best placed to resolve
such potential conflicts.
One of the most challenging aspects for the RBOs will be to ensure their financial
stability and independence by having their own source of income. One of the major
sources of their income is from the water charges they levy from water users in the basin.
However, this is unlikely to be significant in the short term since there is as yet no
significant water resources development in the respective basins. Thus, the RBOs may
have to depend on the budget that will be allocated from the Federal Government for
some time in order to operate effectively. This in itself may prove to be a constraint to
the effective performance of the RBOs and may lead to decision-making on water
resources management reverting back to the Federal Government.
Deleted: r
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: would
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: Federal government
Deleted: .
35
References
Central Statistical Agency (1999), 1994 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia:
Results at a Country Level, Analytical Report Vol. II, Addis Ababa.
Abbay Basin High Council and Authority Regulation, Council of Ministers Regulation
(Draft).
FDRE (2000), Ethiopian Water Resources Management Proclamation, Proclamation No.
197/2000.
FDRE (2005), Ethiopian Water Resources Management Regulations, Council of Minister
Regulation No. 115/2005
FDRE (2007), River Basin Councils and Authorities Proclamation, Proclamation No.
534/2007
Ministry of Water Resources (2002), Water Sector Development Program: Main Report,
Addis Ababa
World Bank (2006), Ethiopia: Managing Water Resources to Maximise Sustainable
Growth, Washington D.C.
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: .
Deleted: z
Deleted: ¶
¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
¶
¶
¶¶¶
¶