Community based water management: 2 case studies
Rural Community Based Water Management
Our first case study is in Uchira, a relatively large rural village in Tanzania, where they developed a gravity fed water supply for both public and private taps. Community management was really successful in some respects, vastly improving water quality and ensuring year-round supply. However, this case study also exemplifies the often-contested reality of community-based management. Despite improvements in water supply, the level of community participation and perceived ownership remained low. External consultants were brought in, ‘re-enforcing the perception that the scheme is not owned by the community at large’ (Cleaver & Toner, 2006: 211). Despite being ‘hailed as an alternative to professional bureaucratic management,’ this case of community management still resulted in a shift towards ‘professionalisation’, excluding local people. (Cleaver & Toner, 2006: 211).
The Community Board was largely in control, often at the expense of the poorest villagers, who found the price for water too high. Clearly, ‘representational participation it itself is not enough to ensure that the needs of the poor and marginalised are met’, (Cleaver & Toner, 2006: 215). The pre-existing social fabric meant the poorest villagers did the majority of the communal labour, as wealthier members paid to be excused. Similarily, water provision in this region evolved to favour private taps, further ‘benefitting wealthier members of the village and deepening the dependency of the poor on their wealthier neighbours’ (Cleaver & Toner, 2006: 216). From a water improvement perspective, Uchari was a success. From a community empowerment perspective, the impact was limited. The exclusion of poorer villagers led to a low level of perceived ownership, potentially impacting the willingness of local people to maintain these water structures over time. 500km to the south, in the face of ‘diminishing state resources,’ (Kyessi, 2003: 1) and an uncoordinated, leaking ‘spaghetti like network of pipes’, fringe neighbourhoods in Dar es Salaam also turned to a community-based management scheme. In Tungi and Yombo Dovya, only 30% of the population had access to water supplies by the DAWASA (Dar es Salaam Water and Sewage Authority). These two informal fringe settlements can trace the roots of their infrastructural challenges to colonial urban policy. The ‘seeds for uncontrolled urbanism were sown early,’ with segregation pushing Africans to the fringe of the city (Dill & Crow, 2014: 192). Today, segregation no longer operates along racial lines, instead manifesting as a class-based division.
Urban Community Based Water Management
Tungi and Yombo Dovya are each classed as a Mtaa, or urban sub-wards, the smallest units of administration in local government. Acting under the broader umbrella of city administration, Mtaa link the government and its residents, managing some socio-economic activities within these localities. To try and deal with a lack of government structures connecting the Mtaa to upper central government, informal subcommittees, each dealing with specific issues were created ‘bridging the wide gap between the legitimate structures and its functions’ (Kyessi, 2003:7) and helping to solidify local government. This decentralised administrative and organisation system ‘strongly resembles that of a community-based organisation’ (Kyessi, 2003:12) The organisation of the Mtaa with the creation of sub-committees legitimised this form of governance, despite the informality of housing tenure in the area.
The key thing to note is that despite little existing political infrastructure, the informal sector could utilise the ward system to create a political network. Local citizens were elected. Committees worked closely with cell leaders who could pass information on to residents, and deal with inter-household conflicts. When asked, 2/3 of respondents in Tungi and Yombo Dovya were very satisfied with Mtaa leadership (Kyessi,2003:7). To deal with a lack of resources, the private sector then incorporated itself into this community model via water vendors, who would then sell water back to the community. To regulate prices, free entry into water selling ensures competition among vendors remains high. Vendors are expected to then use profits to develop new infrastructure, building deeper wells in response to local criticism of the poor quality of salty water coming from shallow wells.
So, what do these two examples show us?
Deep community participation is difficult to cultivate. The somewhat elitist, hierarchical version of community-based development in Uchari left some residents despondent. However, the effectiveness of the gravity-fed pumping system has reduced the price of water and made it easier to access. Conversely, although in terms of water quality, a work in progress, the management system in Dar es Salaam ensured members of the community were involved at every level, electing their Mtaa leaders, or choosing to buy their water from the vendors who provide the best service.
These two examples water management do not afford direct comparison as they operate in very different areas. However, politically, they show the importance of perceived ownership and participation. In Dar es Salaam, the capital of Tanzania, political organisation, supported by existing political infrastructure, worked towards the democratisation of the water provisions in these two settlements. However, as we will discover next week, community-based water schemes in Dar es Salaam are part of a much broader web of public and private political networks. Despite their successes, they play a small part in a much bigger system.
Comments
Post a Comment