Water Governance in a Falling Metropolis

One of the non-development, but still nerdy, blogs I follow is Ecoconomics, which discusses economic issues within the context of all our favourite comic book heroes and villains.  As someone who has not been trained in economics, following this blog is a fun way to learn about basic econ theory.

Last week I read a post about water in Metropolis, the home of superman.  To sum up the water and sanitation system in Metropolis is destroyed and its citizens are extremely dehydrated, lack adequate sewerage, and are paying ridiculous amounts of money for water sold to them by 'thugs'.  The entry poster, ShadowBanker, thinks that the comic exaggerates the level of suffering because there would be decent humanitarian response from the government and the private sector, thus ensuring the security of the citizens of Metropolis.

I can see what ShadowBanker is saying....in theory a city with resources that Metropolis has should deal relatively well with disasters.  However if we can compare this to a real life example such as New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we can see that the depiction of post-attack Metropolis in the comics might actually be more accurate than what ShadowBanker imagines.  Granted New Orleans is not one of the richest cities in the world, but the US government is wealthy and did not do enough for the people of New Orleans with respect to water and sanitation.  This brings me back to the role of the government in service provision.  Governments (in the global north and south) are key in providing basic infrastructure for everyday use, but also in responding to natural or evil-villain-made disasters.  Also when looking at New Orleans we can see how politics and social issues impacted humanitarian response, but the ShadowBanker's analysis of what happened in Metropolis is presented in an apolitical or asocietal manner.  In the DC Universe, cities, states, and governments may act apolitically or altruistically, but water governance in the north and south cannot be seen as separated from its political, historical, cultural context.

Another interesting issue brought up in the post is that of informal providers.  ShadowBanker talks about 'thugs' supplying water to the city's people for high prices, but small vendors are a very important part of water supply systems.  The Asian Development Bank found that in some parts of Manila up to 50% of people rely on informal vendors for water, which means these vendors are filling a massive gap in service provision.  Water is often sold at higher prices, and this is a big problem when trying to service the poor, but in some places there may not be another option.  Instead of demonising these vendors, perhaps it would be better to discuss the issue of regulation.

Despite my qualms with this Ecocomics post, it raises some good issues with regards to water governance.

Until next time superfans...

Squatter Water

One large problem in trying to provide water and sanitation in cities is trying to reach communities in peri-urban areas and slums. People who live in these parts of cities often reside there informally, albeit rather permanently. The blog squattercity does a good job of highlighting many of the problems slum dwellers face and exposes how governments can make problems worse by trying to either ignore the existence of these communities or by neglecting the range of urban and rural problems that peri-urban communities have to deal with.

Recently squattercity has been commenting about Sodom and Gomorrah communities in Accra, which have been receiving a lot of attention from the Ghanaian government, but not in a positive way. Accra Metropolitan Assembly is currently in talks with local utilities to cut off water and electricity to these communities, beginning the process of demolition of these communities, The Daily Graphic states. In addition the government is trying to force people out of these communities, without providing adequate housing elsewhere. Here a Ghanaian academic voices frustration with the government's way of dealing with the problems in these communities.

This case brings up some interesting issues in how to deal with development in peri-urban and slum areas. Although it is relatively common for governments to tear down areas deemed to be 'slums', this causes massive problems for water and sanitation in the areas where these people move and usually ends up transferring other problems as well. Inevitably people from Sodom and Gomorrah will move to another community, or create a space to live, and these people will suffer from the same problems that used to plague them in their old communities. Failure to provide proper water and sanitation infrastructure will perpetuate the same sorts of livelihood, health, food, sewerage problems that previously existed.

Squattercity also has some interesting commentary on how the people of these communities have been labelled as "dirty" and have also been called a threat to national security. These posts highlight how squatter or informal communities suffer from social exclusion and are further marginalised because they reside in these poor areas, with no infrastructure, and very few public resources.

Governments need to find a way to deal with informal communities in a better way. Destroying homes and cutting off basic services (like water, sanitation, electricity) does not help to improve the lives of people in these communities and only creates more problems for governments to deal with in the future. This is not to target the Ghanaian government, similar situations have occurred in Brazil, Cambodia, Liberia, and elsewhere. It is more to raise the question of what are the aims of the governments in these situations? How do people get access to water in the interim period between eviction and settling, and how much do they pay? How does this affect water and sanitation in areas where people settle? And on informal settlements and water in general, can you justify charging people for water and water systems when they do not have a claim to the land they live on?