The report by Paul P Appasamy and Ruth Meinzen Dick deals with urbanization and intersectoral competition for water founded on the view that stereotypical images of “thirsty cities” that equate urban demand with “drinking water” or factories, and rural water supply with irrigation do not adequately portray the water uses in each area.
The process of urbanization that shaped the latter half of the 20th century will continue in the 21st—not only in megacities, but also in towns and secondary cities. Of all the challenges posed by the dramatic growth of cities, none will continue to have greater impact on the quality of human life or the environment than the provision of water, and the treatment of waterborne wastes.
A closer look at types of water uses shows that domestic, agricultural, and industrial demands for water are all found in both rural and urban areas although in varying concentrations. Simply appropriating water from existing rural uses for transfer to cities and industries will cause rural resentment. Negotiated approaches that allow farmers to voluntarily reduce water use and profit from water transfer to cities are likely to cause less resistance and less loss of livelihoods in rural areas.
Both economic progress and government stability depend on meeting the water needs of rural, urban, and peri-urban areas. Meeting these needs will require substantial investments in urban infrastructure for water supply, treatment, and disposal. At the same time, very few municipalities will be able to meet unchecked urban water demands.
Therefore, demand management will also be necessary. Water pricing, which has received considerable attention as a means of demand management, may not be very effective without complementary regulations, education campaigns, leak detection, retrofitting, recycling, and other technical improvements. The ad hoc and sectoral approaches of the past do not adequately address the interrelated nature of urban water use.
To meet urban water needs, water institutions must expand their vision in at least two directions: (1) to extend services to low income communities and peri-urban areas, and (2) to protect the quality of surface and ground water. But this expansion will require a move from centralized decision-making to the consistent involvement of many different types of stakeholders. If water transfers from agricultural use are to be accomplished with minimal negative impact on rural livelihoods, decision makers and administrative officials must develop negotiation processes and capacity.
Although vital and challenging, water quantity issues are also only part of the story. Much more attention must be given to water quality. This includes: (a) technical innovation in water-quality monitoring and wastewater treatment, (b) financing of municipal and industrial-water treatment plants, and (c) institutions to monitor and enforce water quality standards. As in the case of water conservation, public education can play a major role.
Finally, dealing with the water needs of the poor who constitute almost one-third of the global urban population will require far greater efforts. Such efforts must go beyond conventional engineering approaches to include a wider range of options for water supply and sanitation. Addressing these needs also requires rethinking institutional approaches to incorporate community organizations in decision-making as well as implementation.
Download the report here -
/articles/urbanization-and-intersectoral-competition-water-report-woodrow-wilson-international