Community water governance for urban water security in the Global South: Status, lessons, and prospects

Abstract

As public and private water policies fail to address urban water insecurity in the Global South, community‐based water governance (CWG) has emerged as an alternative. However, systematic understanding of the current state, performance, and future opportunities of urban CWG remains lacking. We critically review literature (75 case studies from 1990 to 2019) on urban CWG in the Global South, focusing on the current scope and status of knowledge; importance, challenges, innovations, and opportunities; and prospects for scaling up CWG to enhance water security in urban areas. Institutional arrangements, scope and complexity, capacity, and outcomes of CWG varied widely. Most case studies showed improvements in water quantity, supply reliability, pricing, community empowerment, employment, reduced nonrevenue water, and financial viability. Community partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, private‐sector agents, public utilities, and donors; technological innovations; and community autonomy were important for financial sustainability, asset security, and service improvements. Many CWG interventions however remained fragmented, limited in geographic scope, and were undermined by poor funding, weak infrastructure and capacity, political interference, overburdening of poor communities, and collective‐action challenges surrounding elite capture, marginalization, and unequal benefit sharing. We argue that these challenges notwithstanding, CWG interventions offer more benefits than failures and remain critical alternatives for urban water security in the Global South. New research is needed to understand the impact of CWG under diverse settings, the role of incentives and financing mechanisms, and how persistent collective‐action challenges including gendered participation and marginalization undermine CWG. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance Engineering Water > Planning Water

MAD water: Integrating modular, adaptive, and decentralized approaches for water security in the climate change era

“…The water literature is rife with examples of systems that are neither centralized nor networked, but still meet water needs of local communities in important ways. Examples are documented in literatures including, but not limited to, water and informality (Kooy, 2014; Schwartz et al, 2015; Truelove, 2019), community‐based water management (Adams et al, 2020; Cox et al, 2010; Mansuri & Rao, 2004), small‐scale water vendors (Kariuki & Schwartz, 2005; Solo, 1999; Whittington et al, 1991), small drinking water systems (Klasic et al, 2022; McFarlane & Harris, 2018), hybrid water systems and regimes (Storey, 2021; Wahby, 2021; Yates & Harris, 2018), decentralized water provision (Arora et al, 2015), green infrastructures for water and wastewater management (Green et al, 2021; Sharma & Malaviya, 2021), and packaged water (Gleick, 2010; Morinville, 2017; Pacheco‐Vega, 2019; Stoler, 2012, 2017; Wilk, 2006). Our work builds on this literature by proposing a framework that can bring these contributions into closer, more integrated (and convergent) conversation.…”

Construcción de co-gobernanza: desafíos del largamente esperado proyecto regional de agua potable Pesillo-Imbabura en Ecuador

“…Co-governance is internationally recognized as an appropriate solution to failing public and community provision of water services (Adams et al, 2020;. Ackerman (2004, p. 447) has recapped the main idea very clearly: "Co-governance involves inviting social actors to participate in the core activities of public institutions, this allows tapping into the energy of society".…”

“…Different forms of institutional arrangements between the state and community were mapped for the management of drinking water systems by Adams et al (2020). The forms of co-governance they identified differ in the composition of the parties involved: besides community and government organizations at distinct levels, private companies also can be involved in the partnerships.…”

“…However, also many problems and challenges have been identified in co-governance arrangements, such as weak leadership, unconnected governance structures, poor funding, political interference, overburdening of poor communities, and collective-action challenges surrounding elite capture, marginalization, and unequal benefit sharing (Adams et al, 2020;Dill, 2010). Other authors mention specific challenges based on their case studies: poor infrastructure and limited community capacity (Adams and Boateng, 2018); lack of trust in government organizations in decisions made by users and communities (Bovaird, 2007); the need for a trust of communities in government organizations (Fledderus, Brandsen and Honingh, 2014); reluctance of government to give up control (Johnson and Osborne, 2003); and discontinuation of government support for community water initiatives (Walnycki, 2017).…”

“…Not much happened in the years that followed, but president Lucio Gutiérrez was pressured by the Indigenous communities to start a project that would bring water to the With no project design nor financing in place nothing happened, and in 2005 people from 162 communities marched to Quito to demand water for their communities (Diario Hoy, 2005) 4 . In 2006, during his presidential campaign, Rafael Correa promised water projects in the region.…”