Water for people.pdf - WHO Thailand Digital Repository

C I T I E S : C O M P E T I N G N E E D S I N A N U R B A N E N V I R O N M E N T / 1 7 7distant ecosystems. This makes it easier to maintain highenvironmental standards in the region and also to preserve forestsand water bodies. In addition, the goods whose fabrication involveshigh levels of water use and dirty industrial processes and dischargescan be imported. This capacity of wealthy cities to draw on theproductivity of ‘distant elsewheres’ led to the concept of cities’ecological footprints, which seek to calculate the land area on whoseproduction the inhabitants of any city depend for food, otherrenewable resources and the absorption of carbon to compensate forthe carbon dioxide emitted from fossil-fuel use (Rees, 1992).A more effective approach to water managementIt is difficult to generalize about more effective approaches to watermanagement when considering all the world’s cities. Clearly, there isa very urgent need to improve and extend provision for water,sanitation and hygiene in cities in low- and middle-income nations –but in small towns and rural areas, as well. This includes the needfor financially sound, operationally efficient, consumer-orientedwater and sanitation agencies, regardless of whether these arepublic, private (commercial or non-profit) or community-based. Formost cities, there is a need for water governance systems thatimprove watershed management, lessen the ecological disruptioncaused by water withdrawals and wastewater returns and that makebetter use of existing water resources. One interesting example isprovided by New York City (see box 7.4). Most cities also need toinvest in disaster avoidance, as well as disaster-preparedness.Achieving all of this generally includes a need for coordinated actionacross different administrative boundaries.Good governance in urban areasPerhaps the only generalization concerning improved watermanagement that is valid across all the world’s cities is the need forgood local governance, as the most appropriate solutions are alwayssite-specific. The root of the problem in low- and most middleincomenations is that, generally, governance structures have notdeveloped to efficiently and equitably address these problems andresolve the inevitable trade-offs. Good water governance implies notonly frameworks to ensure provision but also regulations (to protectwater sources and to protect and promote health) and revenueraising(to pay for the system’s functioning, maintenance andexpansion). This involves more than just effective governmentinstitutions but also more efficient relationships betweengovernment and civil society (McCarney, 1996). Better watergovernance means that all stakeholders’ water needs are consideredand that the institutions responsible for water and wastewatermanagement are accountable to them.Good water management in cities also means setting limits onwhere industries can locate and developers can build, as well as onwhat local water sources they can tap and what wastes they candispose of. A basin-wide perspective is required. This is difficult toachieve since political or administrative boundaries were never setto serve water basin management. In most large cities, there aremany different political divisions within the water basin, with localgovernments controlled by different political parties and politiciansrefusing to collaborate with their neighbours to ensure anecologically sound and fair regional water management system.Another contributing factor in some nations is the retention ofpowers and revenues that are needed for local governance.In low- and many middle-income nations, there are seriousdifficulties in raising the funds for the major investments needed.Large and fast-growing cities face particularly serious problemsgiven a large backlog of households and businesses in need ofbetter provision and the continuing rapid growth of the populationand economic base. But even here, there are many examples oflocal innovation showing how good-quality water provision andmanagement is financially feasible in low-income cities.Inadequate city governance generally has two aspects: localgovernment institutions that are weak, unaccountable to citizensand underfunded (including water and sanitation utilities with littleor no investment capacity), and higher levels of government thatare unwilling to allow local institutions sufficient resources andrevenue-raising powers. Of course, the problem is compounded bythe low incomes of hundreds of millions of urban dwellers – yet thisis not in and of itself sufficient explanation for the inadequacies. Itis common for low-income groups to be paying two to fifty timesmore per litre of water than higher-income groups because lowincomegroups have to purchase from vendors while higher-incomegroups are being undercharged for water piped to their homes(Hardoy et al., 2001; World Bank, 1988). In addition, there areexamples of low-income settlements with good-quality provision forwater and sanitation and full cost recovery from user charges – orwith users paying enough for the overall costs to be affordable toexisting local authorities. For the underserved urban population,there may be insufficient funding for conventional utilities to extendpiped water and sewer connections to each home but it is possibleto greatly improve provision through community-municipalpartnerships or support for community provision. Similarly, whereprovision for water and sanitation has been privatized, effectivedemand in lower-income areas of cities is rarely sufficient tomotivate profit-seeking companies to extend good quality provisionfor water and sanitation (although it can often support water supplyalone). Nonetheless, there are often intermediate solutions thatcombine public, private and community provision in ways thatgreatly improve provision and can recover most or all costs.The inadequacies of urban governance in low- and middle-incomenations have also meant that many issues other than those directly