July 10, 2009
Busting 6 myths about water governance
By Seetharam Kallidaikurichi & Eduardo Araral
A RECENT conference held at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy mulled over how the performance of the water sector might be boosted.
On the theme that water governance matters, six myths were delved into and lessons learnt.
First, water governance is not about forming another consumer association or enacting one more law. Instead, it is all about leadership that can bring change in the behaviour of people responsible for managing and operating water resources.
Second, private sector involvement is not a panacea for urban water problems. One must adopt 'best sourcing' principles and be able to manage the critical components of one's water infrastructure. Singapore's Public Utilities Board has done this remarkably well.
Third, waste water reclamation is not an option only for a few water-stressed cities in the Middle East or Singapore. It has to become an integral part of a comprehensive sanitation and river management programme to improve the overall efficiency of water use.
Fourth, in regard to drinking water, the issue is not about the price of bottled water. People will dig deep into their pockets to pay the high prices that bottlers charge for the first few litres of water needed to stay healthy.
Many woes are in fact deeply rooted in the inefficient water management practices in the irrigation sector, which consumes over 80per cent of water resources in countries like China and India.
In the management of river basins, a new model is evolving with management functions dependent on the capacity of river basin organisations. The old model had a single centre of governance.
By contrast, the new model has multiple and overlapping centres and layers of independent authority. Good examples can be found in the Yellow River and Songhua River basins in China, Brantas River basin in Indonesia, and the Murray Darling basin in Australia.
Fifth, there is a fundamental difference between the governance of delivering water as a service and managing water as a resource.
For water services, the need is to develop a sound provider-user-regulator model in contrast to the old thinking of water service as either public or private.
Experience shows that public water utilities can deliver superior performance as shown by the examples of Singapore, Phnom Penh, Hong Kong and Tokyo.
Finally, climate change adaptation for water governance is not about putting more dollars into building bigger bunds or dams to protect citizens from water-related disasters.
Instead, it is about living with water by adopting smarter, long-term land use plans that allow people to relocate to less hazardous areas within and across national borders.
The writers are on the faculty at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
Busting 6 myths about water governance
By Seetharam Kallidaikurichi & Eduardo Araral
A RECENT conference held at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy mulled over how the performance of the water sector might be boosted.
On the theme that water governance matters, six myths were delved into and lessons learnt.
First, water governance is not about forming another consumer association or enacting one more law. Instead, it is all about leadership that can bring change in the behaviour of people responsible for managing and operating water resources.
Second, private sector involvement is not a panacea for urban water problems. One must adopt 'best sourcing' principles and be able to manage the critical components of one's water infrastructure. Singapore's Public Utilities Board has done this remarkably well.
Third, waste water reclamation is not an option only for a few water-stressed cities in the Middle East or Singapore. It has to become an integral part of a comprehensive sanitation and river management programme to improve the overall efficiency of water use.
Fourth, in regard to drinking water, the issue is not about the price of bottled water. People will dig deep into their pockets to pay the high prices that bottlers charge for the first few litres of water needed to stay healthy.
Many woes are in fact deeply rooted in the inefficient water management practices in the irrigation sector, which consumes over 80per cent of water resources in countries like China and India.
In the management of river basins, a new model is evolving with management functions dependent on the capacity of river basin organisations. The old model had a single centre of governance.
By contrast, the new model has multiple and overlapping centres and layers of independent authority. Good examples can be found in the Yellow River and Songhua River basins in China, Brantas River basin in Indonesia, and the Murray Darling basin in Australia.
Fifth, there is a fundamental difference between the governance of delivering water as a service and managing water as a resource.
For water services, the need is to develop a sound provider-user-regulator model in contrast to the old thinking of water service as either public or private.
Experience shows that public water utilities can deliver superior performance as shown by the examples of Singapore, Phnom Penh, Hong Kong and Tokyo.
Finally, climate change adaptation for water governance is not about putting more dollars into building bigger bunds or dams to protect citizens from water-related disasters.
Instead, it is about living with water by adopting smarter, long-term land use plans that allow people to relocate to less hazardous areas within and across national borders.
The writers are on the faculty at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
Comments
Post a Comment