Chapter
10:
Findings
10.4
C:
Dispute
regulation
mechanisms
Water
conflicts
are
addressed
in
a
variety
of
mechanisms.
In
general,
conflicting
parties
used
to
approach
the
local
tribal
leadership
(sheikhs
or
akhils)
for
their
dispute
settlement,
but
nowadays
other
third
parties
are
approached
for
conflict
mediation
(i.e.,
a
new
form
of
forum
shopping),
such
as
mutually
trusted
persons,
NWRA
engineers,
or
judges
who
act
as
advisors
(source:
stakeholder
meeting).
In
the
latter
situation,
a
judge
can
provide
advice
when
a
case
(such
as
deep
well
drilling)
is
new
for
the
tribal
system,
but
can
also
be
solved
by
the
judge
with
reference
to
Shari’ah.
From
the
start,
it
is
important
to
make
a
distinction
between
conflicts
that
started
over
the
access
and
use
of
water,
and
conflicts
in
which
people
were
killed;
‘water’
conflicts
are
approached
differently
under
traditional
and
formal
law
as
conflicts
over
‘blood’.
According
to
a
participant
of
the
consultation
workshop,
conflicts
over
water
alone
are
not
considered
to
be
important
enough
to
unite
a
tribe
and
organize
a
response
against
the
perpetrator.
Only
if
people
are
killed
in
the
conflict,
does
it
become
an
issue
for
the
whole
tribe.
There
are
customary
rules
that
regulate
cases
involving
mutual
killing,
although
the
application
of
customary
rules
is
difficult.
Revenge
killing
is
the
only
single
problem
that
is
very
difficult
for
Urf
to
resolve.
There
are
no
specific
rules
except
blood
money,
which
is,
rejected
most
of
the
time
because
it
is
a
big
shame
for
a
tribe
to
take
blood
money
for
their
killed
member
from
the
perpetrator
or
his
tribe.
Revenge
killing
continues
even
if
the
original
cause
of
the
conflict,
e.g.,
land,
is
resolved.
There
are
only
two
rules
through
which
revenge
killing
cases
were
resolved
in
the
past:
(1)
the
victims’
family
forgiving
the
perpetrators
tribe;
(2)
when
the
number
of
people
killed
is
equal,
which
according
to
the
Urf
should
resolve
the
conflict.
Many
tribes
take
advantage
of
this
rule,
but
of
course
it
does
not
happen
all
the
time.
Where
governmental
organizations
are
called
in
to
mediate
in
disputes,
it
is
oftentimes
the
municipal
or
district
authorities
or
the
NWRA.
The
roles
are,
however,
sometimes
contradictory
and
never
decisive.
The
authorities
for
that
matter
are
only
indirect
stakeholders.
They
play
an
advisory
role
in
the
water
conflict,
but
have
limited
capacity
(i.e.,
financially,
in
terms
of
staff,
knowledge,
policy
instruments,
authority
and
legitimacy)
restricts
their
impact.
As
the
Ta'izz
case
shows,
the
NWRA
is
not
a
uniform
organization
providing
a
coherent
perspective
on
a
case.
Water
conflicts
are
seldom
brought
to
civil
court
for
a
number
of
reasons.
In
almost
all
cases
in
this
study,
the
conflict
settlement
mechanism
in
the
first
instance
is
not
to
seek
formal
legal
institutions
for
settlement.
There
is
in
general
limited
faith
in
the
fairness
of
the
court,
as
demonstrated
in
the
cases
in
Ta’izz
where
courts
are
neither
trusted
by
the
accusing
party
nor
by
the
accused
parties
(due
to
corruption
and/or
political
networks).
99
Furthermore,
although
the
traditional
arbitration
is
already
expensive
to
quarreling
parties,
the
costs
of
settling
a
conflict
in
legal
courts
is
in
many
cases
considered
to
be
too
expensive,
which
prevents
people
from
seeking
justice
in
the
legal
system.
Consequently,
most
of
the
cases
are
solved
within
the
local
communities
according
to
local
traditions,
as
these
are
familiar
to
a
large
group
of
people.
Almost
all
of
the
water
related
civil
court
cas W0