Integrated water management in the South Pacific: policy, institutional and socio-cultural dimensions

Abstract

As scarce water supplies in urban environments come under increasing pressure, water managers are forced to widen technical analyses to incorporate issues related to water governance. The concept of integrated water management has been developed to highlight that social, institutional and economic issues, in addition to technical and ecological considerations, need to be considered concurrently. In this paper, the integrated water management framework is used to highlight some of the social and institutional issues of concern to water management in the South Pacific. A case study of Suva, the rapidly growing capital of Fiji, is used to illustrate the complexity of the management issues facing Pacific Island countries. It is argued that the trend toward more systemic management of water resources is a positive one, but in the case of the Pacific Island countries much better accounts of inter-agency communication, community education, public engagement, institutional coordination, water pricing and water monitoring are needed.

Temporal and thematic trends in water, sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) research in Pacific Island Countries: a systematic review

“…For example, Keen (2003) used the integrated water management framework to guide a critique of policy, institutional and socio-cultural dimensions of water, sanitation and water resources management in Suva, Fiji. Wutich et al (2014) concluded that there is a general willingness to engage in 'soft pathway' solutions (water conservation, efficiency and allocations)…”

“…The first was the importance of considering context, also mentioned in the Emergency WaSH and intervention strategies section. This included the need to harmonize governance and management approaches with local socio-cultural factors (Carden 2003;White et al 2008;Wutich et al 2012), the importance of understanding water and resources ownership customs and conflicts (Keen 2003;Storey & Hunter 2010;Wutich et al 2012), the value of integrating indigenous knowledge and values with best practices (Smith Jr 2008), and the need for locally-appropriate sustainable technologies (South et al 2004;Smith Jr 2008).…”

“…Challenges with institutions and policy are also highlighted, with papers detailing fragmented and uncoordinated governance arrangements (Keen 2003;van der Velde et al 2007;Kumar 2010), failures in policy and planning implementation (South et al 2004;Storey & Hunter 2010) and inadequate legislation (Keen 2003;White et al 2008;Storey & Hunter 2010). Finance was cited as a challenge by several papers, with some describing inadequate financing of WaSH (Carden 2003) and need for cost recovery, water pricing and issues of willingness to pay (Keen 2003;Kumar 2010;Storey & Hunter 2010), as well as insufficient investment in maintenance of facilities (Wohlfahrt & Kukyuwa 1982;Keen 2003).…”

“…Finance was cited as a challenge by several papers, with some describing inadequate financing of WaSH (Carden 2003) and need for cost recovery, water pricing and issues of willingness to pay (Keen 2003;Kumar 2010;Storey & Hunter 2010), as well as insufficient investment in maintenance of facilities (Wohlfahrt & Kukyuwa 1982;Keen 2003).…”

“…Various authors described a need for improved stakeholder participation in governance (South et al 2004;Kumar 2010) and specifically community participation in projects and governance generally (Keen 2003;White et al 2008;Storey & Hunter 2010). Community awareness and education may have facilitated participation (Keen 2003;South et al 2004;Smith Jr 2008) and community institutions had a role in supporting this (Schoeffel 1984).…”