The Power of the Community

Welcome back to this latest edition of Water, Politics and Africa!

In my last post I looked into the role of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the flag-bearers for the increased privatisation of domestic water supply in Sub-Saharan Africa. While there is increasing evidence that entities promoting both privatisation and nationalisation are moving towards a more ‘bottom-up’ and community-inclusive approach, neither of them really represent the community, and neither of them are the community. Thus, this week I would like to look at the community as a separate force in the struggle for water, specifically their interests, influence, political power and whether community-led approaches when seen as separate from market- and government-based ones might be superior in providing more affordable water for more people.

Community - A Solution where Government and Market fail?

In my previous posts I have come to the conclusion that the forces trying to steer domestic water supply into the hands of either government or private actors are wasting precious energy into a largely ideological conflict that does not help actually solving on-the-ground issues. There is, however, agreement that “neither centralised supply policies nor the market through, for example, large-scale profit making enterprises” (Allen et al., 2006) has provided a successful formula for supplying domestic water users adequately. Africa’s rapid urbanisation, to a large part “occurring in informal (unplanned) settlements where access to water and other basic services is grossly inadequate” (Dos Santos et al., 2017), is putting an overwhelming strain  on conventional suppliers to provide a water supply to urban dwellers. This has led to people meeting their needs “through a dizzying array of non-conventional and often officially unrecognised means such as informal operators, privately operated wells, gifts from neighbours, rainwater harvesting and clandestine connections.”(ibid) In addition, many community cooperation groups formed, at various different levels of coordination with government or market entities.

Source

Advantages and Issues

In the face of inadequate solutions from formal market- and state-actors, especially in the so-called ‘peri-urban’ (usually poor suburban areas, including slums) areas, various small-scale, community-led efforts have emerged to supply people with water. Apart from the obvious function of creating a supply of water where none is provided, these approaches can overcome the “rigidity of governance” (Dos Santos et al., 2017) by providing flexible and adapted solutions, creating sources of income for people within the community (possibly with more accountability and keeping money in local hands), and promoting a feeling of community and empowerment for people.

However, community-led approaches lack the financial capital that governments and corporations have at their disposal through taxpayer money, investments and loans from the World Bank or IMF. This means their ability to pay for expert knowledge and large-scale projects like drilling boreholes and laying pipes is very limited, which is also why these approaches are most commonly found “amongst poor populations” (Howard et al., 2002) rather than in areas where sophisticated water provision already exists. They may also lead to a reliance on donations, aid and NGO involvement, which in the long-run is unsustainable and does not represent a functioning self-sufficient solution. Finally, if the strain on water resources continues to increase, competition over the ownership of community water sources may become the cause of conflict within affected settlements or neighbourhoods, particularly if different religious or ethnic groups are present in one area.  

Examples in Africa

According to Dos Santos et al (2017), “it remains to be seen whether community-based approaches will be sustainable in urban and peri-urban areas”, and with outcomes so far “mixed, showing both successes and failures.”  So-called ‘delegated management’ arrangements operate with relative success in Kisumu (Kenya) and Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), where “the company in charge of the service in formal areas delegated the service of poor neighbourhoods to private small-scale providers, who bought water from vendors.” In Dar Es Salaam, “the transition from informal vendors to purchasing water from community-managed systems [has considerably lowered] the money spent on water.” However in Malawi, where “water delivery to poor urban and peri-urban areas is jointly managed by community-elected Water User Associations” (ibid), the results were “widespread mismanagement, ultimately leading to unpaid debts incurred by parastatal companies, water network disconnections, political interference, even though urban and peri-urban water demand continued to grow enormously in the face of population growth.”

Conclusion - Where does the Community fit?

Although community-led approaches by themselves may not represent a superior alternative to established market- and government-based strategies, it is obvious that communities in Sub-Saharan Africa have at least some capacity to successfully manage water resources, with useful advantages like flexibility and self-management. Allen et al. (2006) cite the example of Cairo (Egypt), where “the formal system actively obstructs informal supply efforts, with the government trying to eradicate informal water vendors without realising fully the consequences this might have on limiting access by the peri-urban poor.” Instead, in light of ever-scarcer institutional resources, community water management capacity should be harnessed to fill the supply gaps in areas not formally serviced by government or market, and the community should be encouraged to have a voice in order to help legitimise projects and encourage self-sufficiency through empowerment.

The community as a key element in modern water management has been incorporated in the concept of ‘Integrated Water Resources Management’ (IWRM), which through “reconciling basic human needs, ensuring access and equity, with economic development and the imperative of ecological integrity, while respecting transboundary commitments” (Van der Zaag, 2005) wishes to modernise and democratise the political culture of water management in many areas, including domestic water supply. Next week, I will evaluate the usefulness and practicality of the IWRM approach, and see if perhaps it is a way to unite government, market as well as community in a sustainable approach to water management.