The global conversation on "the world we want" continues. The results of the thematic discussions - including water - are expected in June. There are many hints that the goals and targets on basic services like water and sanitation - as included in the MDGs - will be enhanced with greater emphasis on equality and rights.

The Beyond 2015 campaign coalition has developed a position paper suggesting that "while the current MDGs have served to focus efforts on poverty eradication and overall development, progress has been uneven and governance and human rights have been neglected."¹ It hence calls for the foregrounding of the human rights to water and sanitation in the future post 2015 development framework.

WaterAid’s report "Everyone, everywhere" released for the World Water Day this year proposes that the post-2015 framework for development should:
1)    Target universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene by 2030
2)    Address inequalities in water, sanitation and hygiene access
3)    Embed human rights in water sanitation and hygiene provision²

The working groups of the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme’s also suggest universal coverage and the monitoring also of water, sanitation and hygiene at schools. From a rights perspective, it can be noted that the groups agree that progress towards universal coverage should not only be measured as increasing number of people with access to services, but also in terms of reducing inequalities. Such inequalities are to be monitored between:
-    Rich and poor
-    Urban and rural
-    Slums and formal settlements
-    Disadvantaged groups and the general population³

The UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, who chairs the Equality and Non-Discrimination Working Group in the JMP process, presents these ideas on monitoring in a succinct form. (Whereas this document suggests that data should also be "disaggregated according to gender, age and disability," such inequalities related to individual status are not deemed possible by the JMP to monitor as they rely largely on surveys conducted at the household level.)

The extent to whether a rights-perspective actually furthers access to water, sanitation and hygiene is debated. Is it a weakness that so few national legal frameworks include the (human) rights to water and sanitation? Clearly, without legal provisions at national level it is difficult to claim access rights through court processes. Or, human rights can be seen primarily as ethical demands⁴ to be argued as effectively outside of the courts by organized social movements.

The human rights to water and sanitation will be the topic of one of the workshops at the World Water Week in September, 2013. It will look into how research on the rights can be translated into relevant regulatory, legislative and policy instruments, and what are the benefits of using judicial processes for enhancing access to water and sanitation. And in relation to the post-2015 agenda: What are the human rights' implications for monitoring access to water, sanitation and hygiene locally, nationally and globally?

Reference
1. Beyond 2015 (2013) Water in the post-2015 development agenda. Beyond 2015. Global Thematic Consultation on Water and the Post-2015 Development Framework, page 2
2. WaterAid (2013) Everyone, everywhere: A vision for water, sanitation and hygiene post-2015. London, WaterAid. - page 35
3. JMP (2012) Proposal for consolidated drinking water, sanitation and hygiene targets, indicators and definitions. Summary of the consultations. - page 3
4. As argued in Sen, A. (2004) Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32, 315-356.

Everybody wants greener cities. It makes sense for a lot of reasons: Greenery helps infiltration and reduces flood problems, it lowers air temperatures and thus alleviates the heat island effect, reduces noise and improves air quality, and when producing food it can bring down transport needs and feed the urban poor. Above all - green is beautiful!

But how far should the greening of the city go? Is there a point when the urban becomes rural and loses its urban advantage? Will not too much greenery contribute to urban sprawl and increase the intra-urban need for transport? Is it wise to use expensively treated drinking water to irrigate plants? And is urban agriculture really feeding the poor, or is it a side-line business of the already well-off?

Urban agriculture can become acutely important in times of crisis, as noted for example in present-day Greece. Newspapers report about people growing food on their balconies, or moving to the countryside, to enjoy a more peaceful life and nutritional security, as well as finding new ways to connect producers and consumers more directly like in the ‘Potato Revolution.’  This becomes a necessity when people lose jobs and incomes, thus facing real difficulties in acquiring enough food for themselves and their dependants.

There is a long urban history of acquiring food outside of markets: Allotment gardening accompanied the early urbanization and industrialization in Europe, with local authorities, charities and industry providing land for families to garden. This was originally conceived as a way to provide supplementary food and income for the urban poor and thereby reduce malnutrition. After the World Wars, urban agriculture has mainly been associated with community and ecological movements, and more recently as a way to combat climate change and to improve quality of life. 

Urban agriculture is a prominent feature of many lower-income cities. In Cuba, the collapse of Soviet support along with US trade embargo boosted self-sufficiency and urban agriculture during the 1990s. The movement seems to sustain itself, with popular and private gardens in Havana organically producing around half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the city.  Several cities around the world are claimed to have similarly high shares of vegetable or poultry produced within city limits.

Agriculture, however, requires space. Allotment gardening and similar land uses are facing stark competition for land from commercial and residential uses. Recognizing the importance of urban agriculture for the local economy, researchers at the Ardhi University in Tanzania are calling for zoning laws to set aside land for agriculture within cities.  Allotment gardening is seen as a model in many parts of the world.

Another response to the shortage of urban land for greenery has been the green wall or vertical gardening. Swedish Gus Nilsson in Gaborone, Botswana, was behind the development of a system of intensive horticulture for dry tropical areas, based on walls with built-in containers, where tomatoes grow with roof-top harvested rain-water. The green wall trend has been taken to new heights in Mexico City where the (Nissan-sponsored) NGO VERDEMX has installed three eco-sculptures; combining art with environmental benefits like reducing particles and noise (although plants don’t always thrive in the harsh environment of Mexico City’s traffic). 

Roof-top gardening is another way to manage the competition for land, and reportedly it has significant effects on the local air temperature. On a typical day, the temperature of Chicago City Hall roof - holding a near 2000 square metre garden with some 20,000 plants - is almost 40°C cooler than neighbouring conventional (tar) roofs.  Whereas the Chicago City Hall roof-top garden is not for pedestrians, the re-entry of greenery in built-up areas may have its main value in human comfort and quality of life. (But only as long as accessibility and security can be maintained in a way as to provide a green lung for urban dwellers of all ages and genders!)

As discussed at the beginning: Urban agriculture as a fall-back during times of crisis is unquestionable. It is also claimed that where women have the main responsibility for feeding families, a family garden is crucial for making that non-market contribution to food security in the household. The extent to which it benefits the urban poor can be questioned. Gardens are often more common among the middle- or upper classes:  When I lived in Dar es Salaam during the 90s, the Prime Minister’s garden was full of cows, and chicken were traded by professionals at the university as well as UN agencies. Urban agriculture very much appeared to belong to the upper income echelons.

A major benefit of greening the cities nevertheless remains: Beauty. This was wonderfully echoed in Pablo Gutman’s study of the potential of agriculture for self-consumption as a way to improve nutrition among the urban poor in Buenos Aires: The poor woman hesitates to harvest her vegetables “because they look so pretty and smell so nice.”  Is this the chief benefit of greening our cities? I believe so!
 

Urban dwellers in general enjoy better health and higher incomes than rural inhabitants. Yet, the squalid sanitary conditions of many high-density, low-income informal settlements forfeit the urban advantage. In the urban slums where dwellings lack toilets and where water and waste management is unreliable or ineffective; daily life becomes cumbersome, inconvenient and undignified. Children suffer the consequences through debilitating diarrheal disease.

The high cost for society induced by the lack of sanitation has been diligently calculated and the corresponding social and economic benefits of investing in sanitation quantified by the WSP Economics of Sanitation Program (1).

For actually putting resources into sanitation, you however need to resolve; who is to pay? How much? For what? And how? A welcome contribution to this challenge is the recent IRC report Sanitation Financing Models for the Urban Poor (2) which sorts out the variegated institutional arrangements to finance different urban sanitation options. The report reviews the ways in which the private citizens and others (e.g. national and local government, NGOs, external donors) have (co-) financed different sanitation solutions, with their respective advantages and disadvantages. Naturally, there is not one solution, nor need there be. There are many modalities which can be made to work better, including through more systematic sharing of lessons learned in the sanitation sector.

A more specific finding worth highlighting in relation to the urban poor is that the pay-per-use, being the most common way to finance (recurrent costs of) public or communal toilets in low-income areas, will never be able to make away with open defecation. The poorest people will never be able to pay to use a toilet, and certainly not for all household members and at all times. While paying for each visit may be suitable for busy commercial areas, for low-income more residential areas, an alternative to the pay-per-use could be a monthly flat rate for the use of toilets as well as washing and laundry facilities.

The monthly subscription model is reportedly preferred by SPARC, an Indian NGO that has supported community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks serving hundreds of thousands of poor urban dwellers. Their experience also highlights the contentious issue of securing land for communal facilities (3) and the importance of working closely with communities and supporting their incremental organization - including the power of women's groups, as well as "the art of gentle negotiation" - in order to get reluctant urban governments involved (4).

In crowded slum areas, individual household toilets are often not an option because of lack of space, house ownership or sheer poverty. Shared facilities may in such situation be the most viable way forward. However, where densities are lower, household installations may be plausible for providing basic sanitation for the urban poor.

In Durban - now a renowned success story on extending sanitation and water services to all - the municipality pays parts of the cost of installing urine diverting toilets and hygiene promotion (5). With a grant from the Gates Foundation, nutrients are being extracted from the urine as a way of turning waste into a resource (6). If business plans become successful, this could provide a much-needed financial incentive to help increase sanitation coverage. In any case, there is the potential of closing the urban nutrient cycle.

Different sanitation technologies and institutional arrangements have different requirements in terms of land, money and water availability. (Urban) sanitation blogger Duncan Mara (7) is concerned about the relative costs of different solutions, and often argues for the cost-effectiveness of condominial sewerage for high-density periurban areas (Mara & Alabaster). These systems, a form of simplified sewerage based on the sharing of smaller-diameter piping at relatively flat gradients, are considerably cheaper than conventional sewers. Still, the condominial systems rely on water and sanitation cooperatives and thus the ability of communities to organize to manage shared facilities. And, all sewerage engineering needs to be correctly done.

Urban sanitation systems are complex, and without appreciating the whole, certain parts are easily neglected. The report on Sanitation Financing Models (2) found that the costs for excreta transport and final disposal were not given sufficient attention in the planning and budgeting. Needless to say, without all its parts coming together, the system will not serve its users well.

With great humility to the task, we need to mobilize funds, expertise and urban land along with the insights, engagements and priorities of low-income communities. Rather than allowing 'cholera' to be dubbed 'the best of all sanitary reformers' - governments should take a resolute lead in this collective concern for the health and dignity of its citizens. 

References

1. WSP (2012) "Economics of Sanitation Initiative" Water and Sanitation Program
2. Sijbesma, C. (2011)Sanitation financing models for the urban poor. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, The Hague.
3. Making Urban Sanitation Safe and Fair. World Water Week Side Event 2011-08-21, convened by SHARE Consortium, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Shack/Slum Dwellers International (SDI), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and WaterAid
4. Burra, S., Patel, S. and Kerr, T. (2003) Community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks in Indian cities. Environment and Urbanization. 15(2):11-32.
5. Gounden, T., B. Pfaff, et al. (2006). Provision of Free Sustainable Basic Sanitation: The Durban Experience. 32nd WEDC International Conference. Colombo, Sri Lanka, WEDC: 4.
6. Frederikse, J. (2011) "South Africa: Harvesting nutrients that are flushed away." all.Africa.com, 28 June 2011.
7. Mara, D. (2012) "S a n i t a t i o n. Personal and fairly maverick views on how international sanitation targets can be achieved."
8. Mara, D. and Alabaster, G. (2008) A new paradigm for low-cost urban water supplies and sanitation in developing countries. Water Policy. 10:119-129.

How to handle flood risk is probably a question as old as human settlements (1). Still today, most urbanization takes place along river beds or coasts and on floodplains, on historically favourable agricultural areas with navigable waterways. Being flat, these areas are typically prone to flooding. With continued urban expansion and population growth, urban flooding is destined to increase. Indeed, as concludes by a recent World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, flood impacts have grown in the recent past and are likely to grow in to the foreseeable future (2).

Increased urban flooding, however, is not only due to there being more people, activities and infrastructure in the way of excess water. Land use changes in catchment areas, where for example fewer trees make rainfall hit the ground and the clearing of ground vegetation hamper infiltration, may cause erosion and concentrate run-off from rains into flash floods. On top of this, climate change may already be inducing increased concentration of rainfall itself into heavier downpours in many areas.

Moreover, land use changes forming part of the urbanisation process itself often exacerbate the risk for flooding. Through paving and construction, increased permeability of the ground disrupts natural drainable systems, as do encroachment into water detention areas such as ponds or wetlands within or around the urban areas. Many cities are also outgrowing their originally constructed drainage systems, which may also suffer from poor maintenance as well as clogging by household and construction wastes.

The impacts of urban floods, however, are not shared equally. Low-income citizens living in informal settlements tend to be the hardest hit. The commonly poor standard of houses is directly linked to the insufficient incomes of its owners or occupants. The lack of infrastructure, such as drainage, roads or water & sanitation infrastructure is produced by combinations of issues like the lack of political influence by dwellers, unclear legal status of settlements, as well as by the sheer fact that the area is prone to flooding.

That flood-prone areas have poorly developed infrastructure is usually justified by that the area is not suitable for residential use. And since they are flood-prone, such settlements cannot be legalised, which is yet another inconvenience for services such as water or solid waste collection. The alternative – relocation – has unfortunately a very poor track record. As commented by Alfredo Stein (Lecturer in Urban Planning at University of Manchester – Global Urban Research Centre) in relation to possible relocation of people away from the capital in Haiti: “You are only going to be constructing ghettos that are far away from where people will need to restore their economic lives” (3).

As an alternative to relocation plans, there are development plans. Whereas there may be cases where there is a lack of awareness about flooding risks, settling on flood-prone areas is generally driven by other priorities that take precedence over flood risks. (Proximity to labour markets is often a top priority, particularly where public transport is insufficiently developed.) Partly, in the aftermath of an event, there needs to be a coordinated partnership between humanitarian and development actors in order to reconcile demands of quickly restoring basic infrastructure and services, and the more time consuming aspiration of ‘building back better’ (4).

Looking forward, extending services and infrastructure investments also to flood-prone urban areas should be seen as a ‘no-regret policy.’ Higher-quality infrastructure is more likely to withstand flood events. This is sorely needed in precisely the generally affected areas. Further, housing structures may be planned to be more resilient. There are many community-level construction strategies including elevated housing (e.g. on stilts) or the more costly concrete bottom floor, potentially augmented with a second floor of less sturdy materials. Even very simple measures such as shelves can help reduce inconveniences and loss of property during flooding events. All such investments are helped by affording legality or at least the sense of permanence, also greatly helped by the provision of services and infrastructure.

In last year’s World Disasters Report 2010, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) proposed “Ten essentials for making cities resilient:” a) organisation and coordination to understand and reduce disaster risk, in collaboration with citizen groups; b) assign a budget and provide incentives to invest in disaster risk reduction; c) prepare risk assessments, which are to be readily available and discussed with the public; d) invest in critical infrastructure; e) assess safety of schools and health facilities; f) apply and enforce realistic building regulations; g) ensure education and training; h) protect ecosystems and natural buffers; i) install early warning systems and emergency management capacities, and last but not least; and j) ensure that the needs of survivors are placed at the centre of reconstruction.

I want to emphasise the last two; the focus on the people that are actually affected, and the issue of information. After all, floods are often cyclical or seasonal and generally predictable. Knowing what to do – in preparation as well as in emergency situations – can greatly reduce the problem presented by urban flooding. Fortunately, the basics seem to move in the right direction, as even though the number of flooding events and their economic impacts are steadily increasing; the immediate loss of life in relation to these events is not. This is attributed to more successful warning, evacuation and other emergency action, as well as investments in flood defences (5).

References:
(1) Associated Programame on Flood Management (2008) Urban Flood Risk Management. A Tool for Integrated Flood Management. Flood Management Tools Series. World Meteorological Organization and Global Water Partnership.
(2) Jha, A., Lamond, J., Bloch, R., Bhattacharya, N., Lopez, A., Papachristodoulou, N., Bird, A., Proverbs, D., Davies, J. and Barker, R. (2011)Five foot high and rising. Cities and Flooding in the 21st Century. The World Bank.
(3) Cited in International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2010) World Disasters Report: Focus on Urban Risk, Geneva, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Page 54.
(4) United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2007) Enhancing Urban Safety and Security. Global Report on Human Settlements 2007. Earthscan, London.
(5) Jha, A. et al (2011), page 14

The relation between water users and service providers has received too little attention and is underdeveloped: The rights and obligations of both users and providers of water services are poorly defined and the mutual understanding between the parties is often lacking. Further, many urban water users get their water through intermediate suppliers, also lacking agreements with customers as well as bulk suppliers.

The service relationships are often pictured as a triangle, with the state on the top, where politicians/policy makers institute utility regulation or develop contracts or compacts with service providers. This relationship has received long and persistent attention in the privatisation debate and the ensuing call for improved regulation of public as well as private service providers. On the other side, the state has a relationship with the citizens, expressing their voice through elections or other ways of contacting or influencing the various levels of government and state authorities. This relationship has received heightened attention in the definition of water (services) as a human right.

At the bottom of the triangle, then, is the more or less direct relationship between water users and the providers that physically make water available for human consumption. The 2004 World Development Report focussing on ‘Making Services Available for Poor People’ labelled this relationship, or exchange of services and ‘client power’ as ‘the short route of accountability.’ In contrast, ‘the long route of accountability’ went via the state machinery. The point made here was the influence the customers could have over the supplier through their commercial relationship.

Still, this potential commercial power of the client has been more conducive to generate informal and most often inadequate service provision, and has not been sufficient to bring sustainable services to urban dwellers, and certainly not to the poorer slum dwellers. The missing link for sustainable and equitable services is the lack of arrangements that are sufficiently awarding for providers, yet affordable and accessible for the communities.

In Albania, the Water Regulatory Authority and the MDG-F-sponsored programme for Economic Governance, Regulatory Reform, Public Participation and Pro-Poor Development have taken note of the wide disparity and the often poor conditions offered to households by the water system operators. This situation impelled them to develop a ‘model contract’ in consultation with all stakeholders, including consumer rights organisations and associations of water system operators. Opting for a long and detailed contract, it serves also as an educational tool for water services users and providers to learn about their rights as well as obligations towards one another. This ‘model contract’ is being implemented progressively by water operators throughout Albania.

In the Philippines, the National Water Resources Board and the MDG-F-sponsored programme for Enhancing Access to and Provision of Water Services with the Active Participation of the Poor found that many of the smaller water supply schemes were unsustainable as those in charge of operations and maintenance were often lacking the necessary capacity. It was found that when the customers were involved in determining the appropriate level of service as well as the appropriate tariff. Developing realistic levels of services and tariffs, water service providers were able to operate successfully. This mutual agreement and understanding of each others rights and obligations to one another were formalised and signed by representatives of the customers and the service providers, and witnessed by local leaders and other customers.

This work on the mutual understanding of rights and obligations of both water consumers and water service providers is being presented at a Side Event at the World Water Week (Interests of Water Users and Service Providers: Mutual Understanding of Rights and Obligations - Sunday, 2011-08-21 at 17:45 to 18:45 in Room K24). It is proposed as a practical way of working towards the realisation of the human right to water, and it addresses the too poorly developed – too often even missing – link in the urban water supply chain.

Discussions about urban water management have during the past two decades been dominated by the privatization debate. There seems to be no conclusive evidence regarding any absolute advantages or disadvantages of either public or private operation and even ownership of the urban water infrastructure. A lasting outcome from the debate is instead the recognition of the plurality of actors on the urban water scene. We have public and private water utility companies. We also have small-scale often informal providers, which operate more or less efficiently, but nevertheless have a role to play.

With the plurality of actors, and sometimes even multiple physical systems within the same urban area, the need for governance and appropriate regulation of urban water activities have come to the fore. Water utility regulation, of both private and public service providers, is generally seen as a government prerogative. How well regulators in different parts of the world will be able to enhance the urban water service efficiency and equity, by monitoring and providing incentives for correction and improvement, remains to be seen.

In a review of utility performance in the United States and elsewhere, it was found that the debate over privatization had overshadowed influential drivers of success, such as "effective staffing, consistent community support for adequate funding, detailed asset management, performance measurements and rewards aligned to organizational objectives, and processes that are transparent and open to the public."

Some of these drivers have been well addressed by the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority (PPWSA), which under the leadership of Mr. Ek Sonn Chan has been recognized for its remarkable trajectory from a corrupt and inefficient utility to one of world class performance, and bestowed with Stockholm Industry Water Award in 2010. In 1993 Mr. Ek Sonn Chan was appointed as General Director of PPWSA. Together with his team, he managed to refurbish the whole supply system, introduce cost-effective billing and creative payment collection methods, as well as to provide clean water to almost all of the city’s residents.

While remaining in public hands, PPWSA has put tremendous effort into 'effective staffing' and 'performance measurements and rewards aligned to organizational objectives'. Also, in the quest to raise tariffs to cover costs of operations, maintenance and future expansions, PPWSA managed to secure community support by turning to those having been excluded from services in the previous inequitable system. Moreover, by subsidizing connections, and transparently explaining the cost and procedure for getting one; service coverage has gone up, and petty corruption down.

The issue of utility management - where the PPWSA is an outstanding success story - along with the appropriate policy and regulatory environment remains as challenges at the global level. Also, the long term financing of urban infrastructure still requires much more attention - and priority! That is, money!

Still, with more money, the need for well-focused and balanced investment increases. An increasing proportion of available funding needs to target enhanced service coverage and quality by investing in water distribution and sanitation systems that serve also low-income groups. (Too large a proportion of investments go to high-visibility objects like treatment plants. These are needed but cannot be optimally utilized if the rest of the infrastructure is lacking or is out of reach for the people it should serve.)

The upcoming World Water Week in August 2011 addresses the overarching challenge of Responding to Global Changes: Water in an Urbanizing World. One of the workshops looks into the pertinent topic of 'Financing of Urban Infrastructure'. It will examine examples of instruments and incentives that are deemed to be successful cases of financial arrangements. While the announcement points to the urgent challenge of matching realities of affordability and population growth with the need for cost-efficient, equitable and sustainable services, it claims there are bold ways to scale up and maintain infrastructure and also address challenges of resource management. This promises to be an interesting event!

The other workshops announced for the World Water Week raise the perspective and address some of the future challenges for urban water services and infrastructure. Where are we heading in terms of the long-term water management and catchment-related changes and risks in urban areas? What are the consequences for ecosystems and adjacent rural areas? What kind of responses is needed to adapt cities to climate variability and change? And what new approaches, technologies and infrastructures are required to sustainably manage the resource fluxes in our increasingly urban world? 

Some workshops keep present-day inequities in focus and explore issues like: How do we promote the efficient service delivery to the disfavored urban populations that currently stand without? What are the opportunities for forging closer links between the formal and informal service providers? And what regulatory frameworks are there to foster socially just service provision?

With basic water and sanitation services being recognized as human rights (by most states), urban water managers have additional impetus for actually focusing on those not previously privileged beneficiaries of subsidized services. With additional legal weight behind their claims, low-income urban populations hopefully stand a better chance ahead of duly benefitting from existing and future urban infrastructure systems. Can water sector regulators also find incentives and ways to monitor the equity as well as efficiency in the urban water service delivery - then we can hope for truly pro-poor water governance seeing the light of day!

by Marianne Kjellén,
Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm University and WGF (UNDP Water Governance Facility at SIWI)