My youngest daughter and I just finished watching the BBC series on filthy cities, where the journalist Dan Snow digs deep into the historical dirt of London, Paris and New York. For someone in the sanitation business of today it is quite compelling to see how many parallels can be made between e.g. New York of the 19th century and the reality in many mega cities today on dirt and disease, corrupt politicians taking the cash and leaving the trash, slum landlords making fortunes on impoverished slum dwellers, and sewage treatment plants that are unable to cope with the sheer volume of wastewater. My only disappointment on this otherwise excellent series is that Mr Snow misses out on this very obvious link to today’s cities in e.g. South Asia.

Dan Snow also talked about the gong farmers, or muck rakers, of medieval London, who did their best to remove solid and liquid waste from the city. The equivalent of gong farmers also exists today in many cities and towns all over the world. It is easy to forget that the majority of people in African and Asian cities rely on on-site sanitation, if they have access to any sanitation at all (WHO&UNICEF 2000, kolla Chowhudry). These on-site sanitation systems usually consist of pit latrines or septic tanks, both types eventually fill up and are in need of emptying to function in a sustainable way.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has financed an excellent study on fecal sludge businesses (can be downloaded here) in thirty different cities and towns across Asia and Africa, a study in which authors found out that 34% of the over 13,000 interviewed households across the thirty cities still use manual emptiers (Chowdhry and Kone, 2012), hence the equivalent of the English gong farmers. I have seen manual pit emptying in peri-urban Dakar, and it is indeed a gory business. An indoor household septic tank was emptied by a local adolescent who had formed a sort of canal on the slightly from the loo towards the entrance sloping hallway floor, between two for the purpose built sand walls about 0.2 m high. He then scooped up the septic tank content with a bucket and sent it into the little canal, in which the sludge slowly found its way out of the house, into the street and over  into a hole the pit emptier had prepared before the onset of the operation. Incredibly messy and very unhygienic; raw fecal sludge is disease-carrying and poses health risks to today’s manual pit emptiers.

In rural Bangladesh manual pit emptiers are probably holding 100% of the market share of the pit emptying business. The organization BRAC (www.brac.net), one of the world’s largest NGOs, has engaged in pit emptying businesses after having been very successful in providing single and double pits to rural Bangladeshis (read more on their sanitation program here). The pit latrines need to be emptied in order for the access to sanitation to be sustained over time. Manual pit emptying in Bangladesh is as stigmatized, unhygienic and hard job today as it used to be in Europe in the past. It is, however, difficult to see how we can quickly move away from manual emptying in many contexts. A more productive and pragmatic solution today is probably to try and improve the situation for manual pit emptiers, which is one aim of BRAC. Fecal sludge has more characteristics than only being a smelly disease-carrier in its raw form. Treated fecal sludge, in which disease-causing microorganisms have been reduced to reasonable levels, actually represents a value as a fertilizer. This is known among farmers all over the world, and fecal sludge, unfortunately often raw, is often used as a fertilizer input in agriculture. BRAC is interested in trying to put the fecal sludge from the pit latrines they help construct into that type of good use, but without the pathogens. One line of BRAC development is therefore micro enterprises with e.g. pit emptiers working together with farmers to produce organic fertilizers out of fecal sludge. The most important nut to crack for this organic fertilizer business to work is development of cheap and simple treatment methods of raw and semi-raw fecal sludge from pit latrines to kill off the sturdiest of the sturdiest among the disease-causing organisms: helminths. BRAC has in fact launched, through IRC, an international call for proposals on this very topic, click here, so please, if you have good and simple ideas on fecal sludge treatment methods, do not hesitate, submit your proposal before Jan 11, 2013 to help sanitation development in general and Bangladeshi pit emptiers in particular!

Dan Snow ended the program on NY by highlighting how cities are tethering on the edge of destruction under their own filth and how we over the centuries have found ways to deal with the filth, not only through technical inventions but also through good governance. He said that the battle against filth will never be over, which is of course true (there is every day evidence of that in my own kitchen!). When sanitation systems break down, as in NY during the hurricane Sandy, cities are flooded with both liquid and solid waste. Other cities and towns, like e.g. Dhaka, are flooded on a daily basis with liquid and solid waste irrespective of whether a hurricane has passed by or not. There is still a long way to go to get the world as a whole up to speed on sanitation. Improvement of fecal sludge treatment is one good way of contributing to the sector development, so do check the above link and submit your ideas!

References

• Chowdhry, S. and Kone. D. 2012. Business Analysis of Fecal Sludge Management: Emptying and Transportation Services in Africa and Asia, Accessed on Dec 4, 2012.
• WHO & UNICEF. 2000. Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 report. Accessed on Dec 5, 2012.

More interesting reading material on fecal sludge management and emptying

• Eales, K. 2005. Bringing Pit Emptying out of the Darkness - A Comparison of Approaches in Durban, South Africa and Kibera, Kenya.  Accessed on Dec 5, 2012.
• Kone D., 2010. Making urban excreta and wastewater management contribute to cities' economic development: a paradigm shift. Water Policy 12 pp. 602-10.
• Kvarnström, E., Verhagen, J., Nilsson, M., Srikantaiah, V., Ramachandran, S., Singh, K. 2012. The business of the honey-suckers in Bengaluru (India): The potentials and limitations of commercial fecal sludge recycling - an explorative study. Occasional paper 48 (online). The Hague: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. Accessed on Dec 5, 2013. 
• Mbéguéré, M., Gning, J.B., Dodane, P.H. and Koné, A., 2010. Socio-economic profile and profitability of faecal sludge emptying companies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54, pp. 1288-95.
• Schaub-Jones, D., 2005. Sanitation Partnerships: Beyond Storage: On-Site Sanitation as an Urban System. [online] London: Building Partnerships for Development in Water and Sanitation. Accessed on Dec 5, 2013. 
• Seidu, R., 2010. Disentangling the risk factors and health risks associated with faecal sludge and wastewater reuse in Ghana. PhD, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology.
• WRC. 2011. What happens when the pit is full? Developments in on-site fecal sludge management. Seminar report. Accessed on Dec 5, 2012.

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 World Water Week in Stockholm this year focused on one of the increasing challenges for sanitation and water service delivery - urbanization. The global population is now more than half urban and cities are growing at a tremendous rate, especially in the developing world and in the small and medium-sized towns. This rapid urbanization process poses many challenges for those trying to provide services. First and quite simply, the increasing human density corresponds to increasing quantities of waste. This of course leads to environmental degradation, water pollution and a multitude of related health and livelihood impacts. Urbanization exacerbates the need for improved sanitation. Secondly, cities are often experiencing population growth that far exceeds their absorptive capacity in terms of shelter, water, sanitation infrastructure, public health services, employment, education, food supplies and environmental protection - a striking new challenge that has arisen within the span of a lifetime. The service backlog thus gives rise to an increasing number of slums and informal areas lacking adequate sanitation services.

There are a number of recent initiatives moving the focus of urban sanitation to the spotlight. For example, the City Sanitation Strategies in Indonesia that have developed over the last 5 years focusing on city-wide operational which transformed the sector. Increasingly investors such as the World Bank, Gates Foundation, African Water Facilities and European Union are financing urban solutions. The urban environment is challenging, but also leading to innovations in service delivery and financing, like the private entrepreneurs supported through Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WUSP).

In our attempts to come to grips with the scale of the urban challenges there is increasing recognition that the term "urban" hides a complex mix of heterogeneous contexts. There is amazing diversity in the level of service provision within cities, from high income-high water consumption areas connected to sewerage systems, to proper toilets without proper waste management, to nothing at all. Although statistics usually show urban areas as having greater access to sanitation services, this can be misleading. In the case of urban slum dwellers, proximity doesn’t mean access to improved services. At the World Water Week, sector professionals were increasing recognizing that this spatial diversity needs to be taken into account when planning, designing and monitoring for urban sanitation.

In many ways meeting the urban challenge requires a paradigm shift in how we view the urban context and how we design urban sanitation services. The heterogeneous nature of the problem means that the solutions will also have to be heterogeneous. Instead of rolling out a single standard of city-wide services, meeting the needs of ALL city dwellers will mean adapting technology, management and financing structures that are matched to the urban context in which they are living. Matching services to specific contexts and social demographics will mean looking at a multitude of solutions and integrating them along the entire chain of environmental service delivery (including solid waste and drainage). Future city-wide planning may need to allow different standards and options at different levels of the city. One way of doing this is to start looking at the functions that services provide instead of focusing on specific technologies. This will open the door for innovation and critical linkages to complementary services. We need to start thinking out of the box, adapting solutions to specific urban contexts (http://susana.org/lang-en/library?view=ccbktypeitem&type=2&id=1019), and taking action at a variety of levels within the urban context. The urban challenge is also an exciting opportunity for a paradigm shift within the sanitation sector - as long as we remember that this transition requires advocacy and our active engagement at both local and global levels (see my news stream entry from 16th July).

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.

The theme of this year’s World Water Week is 'Water in an Urbanizing World'. This is indeed a very important issue as water has become an increasingly fragile and scarce resource in rapidly growing cities. In many developing countries municipalities struggle to provide its residents with even the most basic water services. Amid the water scarcity urban agriculture has find its way to become one of the main livelihood strategies for poor city dwellers to cope with the harsh reality of city life. 

World-wide an ever growing force of urbanization is taking place as people leave their rural homes for a perceived urban life full of luxury, comfort, opportunities, and access to basic social amenities. In Kenya, as in most developing countries, the majority end up living in informal settlements (slums). In Nairobi alone there are about 150 slums with over 1.5 million inhabitants. Kibera is the largest slum in Nairobi, possibly the largest in Africa, with anywhere between 300,000 and one million people living in wood and tin shacks squeezing in an area just about half the size of Central Park in New York.

Kibera Slum in Nairobi, photo by Schreibkraft

Life in Kibera is accompanied by high levels of poverty, unemployment and food insecurity. As in so many other slums across Africa and the world a common way to deal with these challenges is to engage in urban farming. Many people in Kibera are now growing food on every piece of available land, in backyards, along stream, roads and railway, and under power lines. Often on land they don't own. Most of the farmers in Kibera are women and their efforts yield significant benefits in terms of nutrition, food security, and income for their households. In order to water their crops they use any available water source, often from local streams, roadside drains, and untreated wastewater and sewage. All likely to be heavily contaminated due to the slum's poor sanitation arrangements and unregulated municipal and industrial effluents. And even though wastewater can carry a number of risks, such as pathogens and contamination from all sorts of industrial waste, it provides a free source of fertilizer to farmers who don't have money to buy expensive fertilizers. Urban farming is believed to account for some 20% of the global food supply, with half of this food being grown using wastewater, according to a 2009 survey of 53 cities conducted by the International Water Management Institute. But in sub-Saharan Africa, urban farmers depending on wastewater for their crops are producing 70–90% of the perishable vegetables consumed in African cities. This poses severe threats to the health of both producers and consumers. Among wastewater-related infections, diarrhoea is the top cause of death among children under the age of five in the developing world.

In today's cities more and more people compete over a limited quantity of water for domestic and productive uses. The current trend of rapid urbanization and growth of urban slums outpacing urban growth by a wide margin will result in higher proportions of the urban population living in poverty. If more and more poor people turns into urban agriculture to eke out a living this can put already stretched urban water supply and wastewater systems in developing countries under increasing pressure. Urban farming can provide slum dwellers with food and income but there is a need to provide cheap ways to increase water use efficiency in production and safe ways of using wastewater if this potential solution is not to turn into a threat. The upcoming 1st Africa Agriculture and Water Dialogue in South Africa and the World Water Week with one of its workshops focusing on future challenges for urban water services and infrastructure could provide good platforms for the interesting and necessary discussions around the nexus of urban farming and water. 

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)