Memorandum submitted by the Social, Technical
and Ecological Pathways to Sustainability (STEPS) Centre at the
University of Sussex
1. Despite some success, significant challenges
exist to enhance equitable access to water and sanitation in large
parts of Africa and Asia. Progress towards the MDG targets on
drinking water access is encouraging. Still, behind the aggregate
data, there still remain substantial questions concerning how
to improve the access of the poorest, how to sustain, maintain
and improve the quality of access and, most importantly, how to
go to scale. Similar issues confront attempts to expand sanitation
access, where efforts are much less promising, even based on the
aggregate data. Furthermore, many hurdles exist regarding appropriate
water resources development. Based on past and present research,
we ask:
— What are we getting wrong about
water scarcity?
— What are the appropriate financial
mechanisms to achieve the MDGs on water and sanitation?
— What can be learnt from potential
success stories like community-led total sanitation and system
for rice intensification to achieve the MDGs?
— How can the challenges of water
for food and agriculture be met?
— How can the growing challenges
arising out of rapid urbanisation be addressed?
We argue that:
— Water and sanitation crises
arise due to a combination of institutional, ecological and socio-political
factors. Solutions therefore cannot be simplistic;
— Financing mechanisms should
aim at enhancing poor people's entitlements and rights to water
and sanitation, rather than emphasising profit or bureaucratic
drives for disbursement. Reformed public water systems can be
made to work for the poor. Financing for sanitation in rural areas
may mean re-thinking conventional approaches to hardware subsidies.
— There is a need to learn what
works and what doesn't in successful initiatives like community-led
total sanitation and system for rice intensification.
— Rather than all attention to
irrigation and infrastructure development, donors must also focus
on upgrading the productivity of rainfed agriculture
— To address the urban challenge,
the role of informal settlements must be re-conceptualised along
with addressing issues such as legal tenure, credit etc.
A. WATER SCARCITY
AND THE
CRISIS OF
ACCESS
2. IDS research highlights how most global
and conventional portrayals of water scarcity tend to take physical
(and finite) supplies as a starting point. Largely, the terms
water "crisis", water shortage, scarcity and stress
are used very loosely in global and national water debates. These
definitions also lead to crises narratives. They have many problems
since they fail to distinguish adequately between the scarcity
or limitedness of water in the hydrological cycle and the scarcity
of access of the poor and marginalised due to the lack of water,
its poor quality or their exclusion due to prevailing social and
power relations. Finally, most global portrayals of water scarcity
see it as something, natural, and instead of something that is
either exacerbated or caused by poor management or due to caste,
race or gender issues.
3. Water scarcity, thus, has emerged as
a concept that can provide meta-level explanations for a wide
range of phenomena over which humans ostensibly have no control.
Science, technology and ideological positions are often used to
justify diverse solutions. For example, economic theory is used
to justify demand-oriented solutions that enhance "efficiency"'
such as privatisation and water markets. Other solutions are supply-oriented
and call for need to build more water infrastructure to provide
water to "all". But these assumptions mask different
issues regarding power and politics. They do not always lead to
enhancing access to water. Instead, in the case of certain technologies
such as large dams, they have had high social and environmental
costs. Certain patterns of agrarian development also have promoted
water scarcity. These include: the introduction of water-hungry
seed varieties of crops (that have created ground water desertification
in various parts of India, for instance) and the lack of institutional
and market support for dry crops.
4. Rarely are questions of equity and access
upfront in policy debates. (South Africa is perhaps an exception
but here too there are serious implementation problems and risks
that the poor and historically excluded may not benefit from redistribution
for a variety of reasons). In sum, conventional visions of scarcity
that focus on aggregate numbers and physical quantities are privileged
over local knowledges and experiences of scarcity that identify
problems in very different ways. These feed into often inappropriate
solutions which can aggravate the scarcity problem. Usually, water
shortages are the result of a combination of institutional, ecological
and socio-political factors. Solutions therefore cannot be simplistic
and water management policies and practices to be more attuned
to local need, interests and social and power relations.
For more information see: Mehta L. 2006. The Politics
and Poetics of Water: Naturalising Scarcity in Western India.
Orient Longman: New Delhi
B. FINANCING
THE MDG TARGETS
ON WATER
AND SANITATION
5. The infrastructure for water and sanitation
in urban and high-income areas has promoted a centralized distribution
system and piped water supply and wastewater discharge that need
heavy investment in infrastructure creation. The centralized methods
have overlooked other alternative methods for water and sanitation.
Low income urban and rural areas have in comparison received considerably
less state support. Therefore the UK government must investigate
low cost and innovative techniques and approaches for safe water
supply and sanitation, especially in rural, peri urban and poor
areas.
6. Calls by multilateral and bilateral donors
(including the UK) to enhance the role of the international private
sector in providing water to the poor have turned out to be misplaced.
IDS research shows that where big global utilities have been involved
with the provision of water, price hikes have often led to disconnections
for the poorest of the poor. Regulatory frameworks are usually
absent. Global water utilities are also pulling out from poor
countries due to the protests of local people and the high financial
risks involved. But public systems, which make up the bulk of
water provision, still suffer from inadequate financing and poor
maintenance, and unregulated vendors continue to charge exorbitant
rates in poor areas. While the private sector can help in some
areas, the poorest of the poor need revitalised and reformed public
systems which do not emphasise profits, but instead focus on enhancing
poor people's entitlements and rights to water.
7. The IFIs and bilaterals (including the
UK) must avoid requiring private investment in public services
as a condition of aid. The various organs of the Bank and IMF
that provide guarantees to the private sector could perhaps begin
to engage in a similar way to overhaul currently problematic public
systems. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), the main vehicle
through which donor spending is directed rarely focuses on or
prioritizes water and sanitation issues. National governments
could be encouraged to prioritize spending on water and sanitation.
Debt cancellation in return for enhancing public services could
go a long way in both reducing poverty and creating the much needed
finances required for public systems.
8. There is the need for bilateral and multilateral
donors to take the human right to water and sanitation seriously.
This means building local and national institutions that have
the institutional capacity to deliver this right. A mere 1% off
military budgets would easily match the additional US$9-15 billion
estimated by the Water Supply Sanitation and Collaborative Council
for achieving the MDGs on water and sanitation through low cost
technology and locally appropriate solutions. It is a lot of money
but one cruise missile deployed in Iraq costs US$2.5 million and
this is what the US government spends on defense every 10-15 days.
See, Mehta, L 2005. 2004. Financing Water for
All. Beyond Border Convergence in Water Management. IDS working
paper 233. IDS: Brighton
C. LEARNING FROM
SUCCESS STORIES
New approaches for sanitation—the potential
of community-led total sanitation
9. The total elimination of open defecation
holds the promise of major gains in enhancing the wellbeing of
women, children and men and in achieving the MDGs. Community-Led
Total Sanitation (CLTS) is close to becoming a self-spreading
movement, having started in Bangladesh and having been spread
to India, Indonesia, Nepal, Cambodia and elsewhere. With CLTS,
facilitation of communities' own analysis and action leads to
total sanitation from which all gain.
10. CLTS differs from earlier and more conventional
approaches to sanitation which prescribe high initial standards
in order to reduce the costs of operation and maintenance later,
and involve hardware subsidies as an inducement and to make adoption
easier. Earlier approaches led to problems of affordability, uneven
adoption, high reliance on the initial quality of construction,
only partial use of facilities, and their use for other purposes.
With the partial sanitation that results, open defecation continues
its adverse effects on all members of communities. In contrast,
CLTS lays down no standards or designs for latrines but leaves
these to local improvisation and ingenuity, leading to greater
ownership, affordability and so in principle sustainability. The
approach emphasizes total sanitation—the aim is for all
in a village to have access to and to use safe disposal. Targets
are not numbers of latrines constructed but numbers of communities
free of open defecation. The key in the CLTS approach is behavioural
change. Total sanitation is based on self help not subsidies.
Despite initial successes, major challenges remain. They include:
— Hardware subsidy programmes
which are slow and prevent self-help sanitation.
— Professional engineering and
its top-down designs and standards v/s people designing and constructing
for themselves.
— Large budgets and bureaucratic
drives for disbursement. Big budgets inhibit participation.
— Attempts to direct hardware
subsidies to the poorest people. These are almost always captured
by others. But do no subsides at all exclude the poorest?
11. More understanding of what works and
what does not is vital, and is being addressed by IDS research
supported by DFID. The stakes are high. The potential gains to
almost all the MDGs from CLTS becoming a successful widespread
movement are very large indeed.
For more information see: www.livelihoods.org/hot—topics/CLTS.html
Lessons from the System of Rice Intensification
12. Rice feeds more than half the people
in the world; but not well and not for much longer. The Green
Revolution boosted rice production in Asia substantially during
the 1960s and 70s through the widespread use of irrigation and
agricultural inputs, but no amount of fanfare can alter the disheartening
conclusion drawn by a growing number of agronomists that rice
yields are approaching their limit. Rice is also a thirsty crop.
Finding ways to reduce the agricultural (and particularly rice)
demand for irrigation water will be crucial for the sustainability
of production in the future.
13. The System of Rice Intensification (known
as SRI—le systéme de riziculture intensive in French)
is a methodology developed in Madagascar for increasing the productivity
of irrigated rice by changing the management of plants, soil,
nutrients—and water. SRI concepts and practices have been
successfully adapted to upland rice and the approach is now being
tested in 22 countries, mainly in Asia and Africa. SRI does not
require the purchase of new seeds or the use of new high-yielding
varieties. Neither does SRI require the application of chemical
fertiliser or pesticides. With SRI there can be water savings
of around 50%, thus it is likely to become more attractive as
water scarcity becomes a more pervasive agricultural constraint.
14. Some eminent rice agronomists have dismissed
such achievements as the result of poor record keeping and unscientific
thinking. Moreover, despite these promising results, few would
dispute that SRI requires skilful management of the factors of
production and, at least initially, additional labour input—between
25 and 50%, particularly for transplanting and weeding. These
high labour demands have led to disadoption of the SRI approach
by farmers in a number of countries, including Madagascar where
it was developed. The British Government should fund rigorous
research into the system of rice intensification in a variety
of locations to determine the conditions under which SRI can contribute
to improving water conservation, increasing productivity and enhancing
future food security.
D. WATER AND
AGRICULTURE
15. Agriculture is the main user of water.
Food demand is projected to rise dramatically, nearly doubling
in the coming 50 years. This is due to population growth and changes
in dietary choices. Meeting the water gap of up to 5,000 additional
cubic kilometres of water (or 100 times the volume of water stored
behind the Aswan dam) to produce enough food by 2050 will require:
— Using more "blue water"
from rivers, streams and aquifers through intensification on existing
irrigated lands or expanding to new lands using new water.
— Using more marginal quality
water for agriculture, and desalinating seawater.
— Using more "green water"
from rain and the soil by upgrading existing rainfed systems or
expanding rainfed areas.
16. Today, 55% of total gross value of our
food is produced under rainfed conditions on 70% of the world's
cropland, much of which is located in developing countries. Traditionally
most investments in water management went into large-scale irrigation
development while neglecting rainfed areas. Improving water use
in complex, risk-prone regions will open up new pathways to sustainability
for some of the world's most vulnerable populations. There are
compelling reasons to shift investments to improving the productivity
of water and land in rainfed areas. These include:
— Investment costs to upgrade
rainfed systems are typically lower than those of large-scale
irrigation. The systems can be quickly implemented and can yield
fast and high marginal returns.
— Large-scale irrigation development
has high environmental (river and groundwater depletion and salinization)
and social costs (people displaced by large reservoirs).
— At the global level, the potential
of rainfed agriculture is great enough to meet additional food
requirements, through increased productivity. Upgrading rainfed
involves adding irrigation on smaller scale.
17. There are also success stories such
as Working for Water (south Africa) and waterharvesting in India
that should be investigated. In sum, upgrading rainfed areas has
high potential both for food production and for poverty alleviation,
for this reason we believe the British Government should make
it a priority.
For more information see:
Movik, S, Mehta, L, Mitsi, S and Nicol, A "A
blue revolution for African agriculture?" IDS Bulletin.
Institute of Development Studies 36(2): 41-+.
Thompson, J, J B Aune, A Mossige, M Rabenasalo
and M M Rabenasolo. 2006. Scoping Study of the Agricultural
Sector in Madagascar: Prospects for Norwegian Support. Prepared
for the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD).
London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
E. WASTEWATER
USE FOR
AGRICULTURE—THE
PERI-URBAN
CHALLENGE
18. The volume of wastewater available is
significantly increasing due to urbanisation and industrialisation,
and with high treatment costs. Using wastewater for agriculture
presents an obvious opportunity for waste recycling. In India
for example, over 70% of urban wastewater in currently untreated.
Wastewater reuse is a low cost alternative to traditional irrigation
water. The high nutrient content of wastewater can reduce or eliminate
the need for chemical fertilisers. Thus rapid urbanisation, falling
groundwater levels, and growing waste generation will probably
lead to an increase in the extent of wastewater irrigated area.
The use of wastewater may present widespread threats to human
health, which are partly recognised, but are not yet addressed
on the ground (e.g. food safety of crops grown in urban and peri-urban
areas). Whilst farmers are concerned about the negative impacts,
there is no mechanism to involve them in the decision-making process
of irrigation water supply.
19. Thus there needs to be effective means
of supporting farmers to manage the safe use of wastewater for
agriculture, in a manner which recognises both the opportunities
and threats associated with its use. Global policy discussions
are marked by a broad consensus on the need for more effective
management of wastewater use for irrigation. The UK government
should investigate integrated pro poor management practices that
are suited to local concerns regarding wastewater for agricultural
use in peri urban areas.
(For more information see DFID funded research
led by Fiona Marshall on "Contaminated irrigation water and
food safety for the peri-urban poor: appropriate measure for monitoring
and control in India and Zambia" and "The impacts and
policy implications of pollution effects on urban and peri-urban
agriculture in India").
F. IMPROVING
WATER AND
SANITATION SERVICES
FOR POOR
PEOPLE IN
URBAN AREAS
20. Around 800 million urban dwellers lack
sustainable access to safe drinking water that the Millennium
Development Goals prioritise, and close to 1 billion lack adequate
sanitation. This helps explain why infant and child mortality
rates for poor urban populations can be as high as those for poor
rural populations. In many towns and cities of the developing
world, the formal sector has been unable to keep up with the water
requirements of the growing population. Informal small water enterprises
(SWEs) are often the main suppliers of water to people, particularly
those living in informal urban settlements, who are unserved or
under-served by water utilities. Findings from recent research
in Africa by IDS researchers and our partners show that SWEs provide
valued water services to up to 50% of the (mostly poor) urban
population, and even higher percentages in cities with higher
proportions of the population living in informal settlements.
Their role is unlikely to diminish in the foreseeable future.
At present, many SWEs operate outside the law.
21. IDS research in Africa and Asia suggests
that instead of assuming they are criminal exploiters of their
poor urban customers, they may be helped to provide a better service—for
example, by improving their operating environment, upgrading technologies,
legitimising their role and building their relationship with water
utilities and authorities. The UK government should find ways
to work together with SWEs and consider ways to link water and
sanitation projects with other critical issues that concern the
urban poor. These include:
— housing credit programmes that
help low-income households afford better provision for water and
sanitation;
— programmes providing the inhabitants
of informal settlements with legal tenure, which allows utilities
to extend provision for piped water and sewer connections;
— slum and squatter" upgrading,
which includes improved provision for water and sanitation, although
these are not classified as water and sanitation projects; and
— local democratic reforms that
allow poorer groups more influence and get more local resources
devoted to water and sanitation.
See: Thompson, J, I Porras, J K Tumwine, M R
Mujwahuzi, M Katui-Katua, N Johnstone and L Wood. 2001. Drawers
of Water II: 30 Years of Change in Domestic Water Use and Environmental
Health in East Africa. London: International Institute for
Environment and Development. http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/docs/sarl/drofwater.pdf
Thompson, J 2001. Private Sector Participation
in the Water Sector: Can it meet social and environmental Needs?
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) London:
International Institute for Environment and Development. http://www.ring-alliance.org/ring—pdf/bp—water.pdf
October 2006
| 
