Glossary of Terms
Chapter 2: Context review
2.4 Frameworks for urban water management
37
38
• Programs, projects and policies need to be considered over long time frames by a common vision; and
• An interdisciplinary approach is required.
Based on interviews with water professionals in Australia, a suggested definition of sustainability in the urban water sector is:
For a water utility, sustainability is practically achieved when all its activities, both internal to the business and across its supply chain, achieve net added value when assessed across each of the triple bottom line outcomes (financial, social and environmental) over the medium to long timescales, considering all costs and benefits, including externalities (Marlow and Humphries 2009: 120).
In terms of activity in the area of Sustainable Urban Water Management research, for instance, (Makropoulos et al. 2008) explore future scenarios towards sustainable urban water management. Falkenmark and Chapman (1989) integrate sustainability issues into comparative hydrology for both urban and rural settings. Pahl-Wostl (2002a) discusses the importance of social learning in order to reach sustainability in the water sector. Rogers and colleagues (2002) describe pricing mechanisms for reaching sustainability goals. A number of authors (Krebs and Larsen 1997; Lundin and Morrison 2002; Bracken et al. 2004) describe the requirements and criteria for sustainability in various technical components, such as drainage and sanitation systems. Berndtsson and Jinno (2008) describe a case study in Fukuoka City, Japan, in terms of sustainability in the urban water sector and draw conclusions that the system is functional, but in terms of ecological performance it is inadequate. They suggest that a number of improvements could be made, such as the merging of the water and wastewater departments in the local municipality, as well as investments in new technologies that are both technically feasible and economically viable.
There is also an increased shift internationally towards Integrated Urban Water Management and Water Sensitive Urban Design (Mitchell 2006) which attempts to combine environmental
39 goals with efficiency goals. However, it is worth mentioning that there are considerable difficulties in the application of, for example, Water Sensitive Urban Design (Nancarrow et al.
2004) and Integrated Urban Water Management (Brown 2005), which seem to indicate a social dilemma. It is however noted that almost all of this work has been carried out in developed country contexts, which probably reflects the lack of priority given to environmental issues in the developing world. However, it also raises questions regarding how useful and functional the current knowledge in sustainable urban water management is in the context of developing nations.
At least some of the reasons for difficulties in applying Integrated Urban Water Management and Water Sensitive Urban Design are that such attempts to consider social and environmental dimensions, at least in the Australian context, are strongly related to institutional inertia as these new practices often challenge existing decision making structures and institutions (Brown 2005) and because they fail to consider needs and preferences of the community (Nancarrow et al.
2004).
2.4.2 Governance
Governance, or the act of governing, has been the topic of many researchers and professionals interested in the management of natural resources. These include those proposing adaptive management (Folke et al. 2005; Fazey et al. 2005; Olsson et al. 2006); greater public involvement in decision making (Crase et al. 2005; Blackstock et al. 2006); local or distributed management of common pool resources (Ostrom 1990, 2004); appropriate water pricing (Dinar 2000); or institutional reform (Saleth and Dinar 2005) or the transaction cost of reform (North 1990).
Water governance in general refers to the allocation of water; or in other words as to who gets what water, when and how (Water Governance Facility 2009). This is inherently linked to expansion of water supplies, which typically relies on a combination of infrastructure and technology and/or removing water from the environment. Other inherently linked issues relate
40 to equity, efficiency, institutions, roles of government and the community, water quality and economics (Water Governance Facility 2009).
In water contexts, institutions of governance involve primarily water law, water policy and the water organisation (Saleth and Dinar 2004). In the urban water sector the sustainability paradigm is largely supported but Harpham and Boateng (1997) argue that the paradigm of
‘good governance’ in urban water is a strong alternative and that environmental damage tends to occur only when there is inadequate governance. Hugely influential organisations such as the World Bank or IMF have policies to promote good governance that include water privatisation (Grusky 2001). Swyngedouw (2004) however argues that privatisation is problematic because modern governance of cities has brought water squarely into the sphere of money and a complex set of power relations; and notes that in many cases urbanisation leads many marginalised groups to have to struggle to access water and sanitation.
Harpham and Boateng (1997) have reviewed the notion of good governance amongst various actors and found that the focus varies greatly. For instance, the World Bank has a strong focus on Public Sector management and accountability whilst the Organisation for Economic Co- Operation and Development prioritises democratisation. Others again focus on issues such as equity, economic liberalism, legal framework and efficiency. These factors can, taking a systems perspective, are important boundary conditions for urban water management that impact indirectly on the solution space that is feasible in a given location.
2.4.3 Regulation
Regulation is another common theme within urban water management, and the Human Development Report lists features of successful regulatory bodies in a number of countries, of which the political independence, information sharing with the public, and public participation, as well as the regulatory bodies’ investigative authority and penalty power are crucial (UNDP 2006). Makropoulos and colleagues (2008) also list regulation as a common and cross-cutting driver for urban water management; in particular when it comes to widening the scope to include environmental and social concerns.
41 This is reinforced by experiences in Fukuoka, Japan, where regulation has been critical for the introduction of new environmentally friendly technologies (Berndtsson and Jinno 2008); and in Australia for the increased application of ‘smart-water design’ (Crase et al. 2008). In a developing context, in China, regulation is used to protect urban groundwater supplies (Zaisheng 1998). In another developing context, in Nairobi, Kenya, regulation has been strengthened in terms of increasing the consideration of conditions in informal settlements where there was previously no clear mandate (Gerlach 2008).
2.4.4 Public participation and institutional decentralisation
A recurring theme so far has been about public participation and as can be seen, public participation and sharing information with the public is seen as a critical component within good governance (Harpham and Boateng 1997) and regulation (UNDP 2006), for dealing with gender issues (Ivens 2008), supporting sustainable urban water management (Brown et al. 2007) as well as for developing contextually sensitive urban water solutions (South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission 2004; White et al. 2008). The usefulness of public participation has been acknowledged by funding agencies, as indicated by the Dublin statement (ICWE 1992:
xx): ‘Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels’. While many handbooks on public participation have been written, particular mention ought to be given to the handbook funded through the European Commission on participation in water management (HarmoniCop 2005), albeit not specifically written with urban water issues in mind. A word of warning is however given by Botchway (2001) that participation is sometimes seen as a kind of magical ’missing ingredient’ that would ensure sustainability and success, irrespective of structural, administrative and political pre-conditions necessary for the participation to function.
Another common and related theme in the literature is about institutional decentralisation, such as distribution of responsibility, which is thought to increase public participation and improve good governance (Parker and Serrano 2000). Reforms to increase institutional decentralisation have happened in a number of locations, such as in Morocco (Doukkali 2005), South Africa (Backeberg 2005), Ghana (Botchway 2001) and Sri Lanka (Samad 2005). Case studies of
42 decentralised responsibility are discussed by Botchway (2001) concerning a rural region in Northern Ghana and by Gwebu (2002), who describes a case study in a large city, Bulawayo, in Zimbabwe. These two case studies are described in more detail in Appendix 3.
Gwebu (2002) makes a number of points, such as the fact that local authorities tend to have better information and greater incentives to act to ensure continuity of adequate water services and that grass root initiatives can be very powerful in appealing to national and international opinion and gaining wide support.
In the case study described by Botchway (2001), institutional decentralisation was motivated by a belief that it would increase participation, which was in line with funding agency rhetoric.
However, Botchway states that the project’s concept of participation was managerial and technocratic and this may be the core reason for the project’s failure. Also, the term community and village were loosely defined in the project and insufficient consideration was given to the fact that communities and villages are not homogeneous but there are existing power structures and varying levels of wealth. Therefore, this term directs attention away from the internal politics of the village and the critical issue of distribution of the wealth. Botchway argues that communities may have entered into a new kind of dependency, due to diluted responsibilities, and are having to rely on external assistance for maintaining their pumps. Finally, Botchway suggests that participation under the banner of decentralisation should not lead to the state avoiding its responsibility to provide essential services.