BackgroundThe participatory activities in urban water provision and distribution can span from collaboration, negotiation, to confrontation. These dynamic patterns usually de�ne the relationship between three broadly categorized actors in water provision: the government or the public sector, the corporation or the private sector, and the people or the community. Civil society groups also often play an important role in the participatory process as they provide the necessary training, advisory and mobilization support to members of the community.

However, the social and power dynamics that drive these kinds of community engagements may increase the complexity of such initiatives, ultimately in�uencing both the success of the project(s) and the level of empowerment among the bene�ciaries. Therefore, far from being a static resource, the social and cultural notions of water often in�uence the sustainability of water supply and the long-term development of the community. This is greatly re�ected in the dynamics of the participatory process as multiple actors interact to resolve or manage water issues.

ObjectivesIn highlighting the importance of participatory governance, there is a need to go beyond service delivery to address power relations that stem from social inequalities. The purpose is to ensure that the socio-economic bene�ts from access to potable water can be sustained in the longer for and by the communities. There is a need to re-evaluate the literature on participatory governance, in addition to understanding how power relations among the government, private sector, civil society and the people a�ect water justice in the city. As such, the research aims to empirically document and evaluate the social implications and impacts of participatory approaches on the provision and distribution of urban water in Asia, especially among the urban poor.

Research Brief Issue 3 January 2013

Community Participation in Urban Water Management

Preliminary e�orts will focus on the cities of Jakarta (Indonesia), Surakarta (Indonesia), Manila (Philippines) and Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). In addition to identifying the social and power dynamics that drive community engagement, the research will also assess the scope, process and results of the participatory e�orts as an attempt to measure their true impact and sustainability in:

a. Ensuring consistent service delivery and good urban water management

b. Empowerment of bene�ciaries

c. The social impact (e�ects, implications) of the e�orts and its distribution across all segments of the community

Based on these �ndings, practical models and recommendations on the utilisation of participatory methods will be proposed.

Community participation has often been cited by many civil society groups and international organisations as a critical tool in improving access to basic services, especially among the urban poor. The constant cycle of inequity and the residents’ struggle for water supply has inadvertently resulted in an inter-play of actors from various backgrounds, both formal and informal, each with varying agendas and vested interests. A major challenge of participatory approaches lies in reconciling these diverse interests to form cohesive partnerships that will result in improved service delivery and meaningful empowerment for the communities involved.

Figure 1. Public consultation session in Manila with a small-scale private water provider on the construction of a community-managed water supply system

Participation as PolicyThere is a rising need to understand the real implication of participation as a catalyst for policy change leading to service improvement. Participation is widely considered as empowering, but its process also disturbs the existing status quo and more often than not creates tension or con�ict among various actors before a resolution can be reached. There is also the question of whether the participatory process is truly representative as it can be dominated by a few privileged actors/parties as opposed to the wider section of the community. In most cities, an increased level of participation is usually triggered by con�ict with existing or proposed policies, and is understandably more prevalent among the marginalised. Although the cities may appear to have similar water supply developments, each demonstrates a di�erent community engagement model. In Manila, the water concessionaire actively engages the urban poor in the resolution of water woes and bill payments, while participation among Jakarta communities is usually facilitated by local and international non - governmental organisations (NGOs). In Kuala Lumpur, although NGOs are usually the ones to initiate the participatory process, regulatory changes have also forced residents of high-rise �ats and apartments to collectively manage their water. While in Surakarta, a collective of urban planners, students and NGO workers, with the support of the local mayor, has been working closely with the communities to increase their awareness, agency and in�uence through the local participatory budgeting process.

To date, the majority of training and advocacy for improved services continue to lie with the NGOs, as the concessionaires and the government are more often than not hard-pressed for resources such as manpower and time, in addition to lacking the necessary expertise and relationship with the community. However, policymakers may want to consider formalising participation in their development initiatives as preliminary investigations indicate that participatory approaches can be a springboard towards long-term empowerment and progress of the community. Skills and con�dence obtained from knowledge of one’s rights and abilities in the struggle for water justice enhances both the community and the individual’s capacity to understand their circumstances, question the necessary, and organise and mobilise when required. This in turn may drive communities towards a process of self-improvement and long-term betterment of society. But participation can only work well provided there is a proper platform for it, including necessary training and facilitation. However, care also needs to be taken to ensure that the delegation of responsibility to the community (e.g. via community-based organisations/CBO) does not negate the duty or responsibility of the water service provider to ensure equitable access. In certain cases, this arrangement leaves the CBO saddled with the debts and the headache of collection.

Research Brief Issue 3

Metro Manila, PhilippinesMetro Manila’s water services were privatized in 1999, whereby Maynilad Water Services serves the West Zone and Manila Water serves the East Zone. As part of their strategy with the urban poor, both concessionaires have dedicated teams to deal directly with the communities. Maynilad’s programme Samahang Tubig Mayniland utilises a master meter scheme, whereby a CBO would need to be formed to manage the system. The CBO would be responsible for distributing water from the master meter to each household in addition to collecting bill payments (payments can be made immediately or on a daily basis). Members of the CBO are trained by Maynilad, and the CBO also earns from re-selling the water to the community (purchased from Maynilad at a lower rate than that of residential rates).Manila Water mobilises the kasangga or community leaders as their points of communication with the communities. A kasangga is usually an informal leader who is well respected and trusted within the neighbourhood. This system proved useful during the aftermath of Typhoon Ketsana in 2009. Through mobile phone conversations with kasanggas, Manila Water was able to �gure out in a day the areas without access to clean potable water so that necessary assistance can be dispatched immediately.

Table 1. Overview of water programmes by Maynilad and Manila Water

Maynilad Water Manila Water Programme Details Programme Details

Samahang Tubig Maynilad (master meter system)

Organise and train communities to sustain water management programs – bulk connection.

Kasangga (street leaders)

Appointment of “street leaders” as communication point between communities and Manila Water

Bayan Tubig Individual household service connections – pipe above ground, instalment plan for connection fee In 2009: 184,000 beneficiaries

Tubig Para Sa Barangay Amortization of metering cost over 12 months1998-2008: 300,000 households

Bayanihan Bayan Tubig (expansion of the Bayan Tubig programme)

Beneficiaries install the pipes for their communities; no land title needed for connection

Small Piped Water Network (ADB) (2006)

36 months instalment; 1650 households over 4 months

Lingkod Eskuwela Public schools: drinking fountains, clean-up of water tanks, regular sampling of drinking water, regular desludging of septic tanks

Global Partnership on Output-Based Aid (GPOBA) (World Bank, 2008)

36 months instalment for meter and guarantee deposits, the rest subsidized by OBA Target: 21,000 households In 1 year: 50.7%

January 2013

January 2013

Jakarta, IndonesiaWater services were privatised in 1997, whereby the West Zone was given to Suez Environment, and the East to RWE Thames, both foreign concessionaires. Subsequently PT AETRA Air Jakarta took over from Thames, while local corporation Astra bought almost half of the shares of the Suez subsidiary, PALYJA/PT PAM Lyonnaise Jaya.As part of its Water for the Poor program, PALYJA has a master meter scheme whereby community-based organisations (CBOs) would manage the master meter, including responsibilities such as maintenance and bill payment. Slum dwellers also have better access to water because with a master meter, water connection is not considered on an individual household basis (as many do not have legal status). PALYJA will usually work with a local NGO to deliver the necessary training to the CBO.

Although this collective arrangement increases ownership and ease of reporting on water problems among the community residents, it is also a potential source of con�ict as familiar faces make it di�cult to impose penalties on those who don’t pay. However, signi�cant e�ort to establish trust and relationship with the community is usually needed before initiating such collective arrangements. Under the Global Partnership on Output-Based Aid (GPOBA) program implemented by PALYJA, the residents of Muara Baru rejected the master meter scheme. One of the main reasons was a distrust of external parties partly caused by the ‘water ma�a’ that has been selling water (obtained through illegal connections or public hydrants) at a price 70% higher than those charged by the concessionaire.

Community PreparationCommunity & NGO selectionCommunity discussionsPlanning and designOutreach and awareness trainingEstablishment of CBO as the manager

Agreement: Utility & CBODetailed design and cost estimateContract between PAM Jaya and CBOProcurement of materials

Construction of the Master Meter SystemCommunity involvement in constructionSupervision

Strengthening of CBOTechnical, financial, O&M, management trainingsAssist CBO in start-up, O&M, billing, and/or outsourcing if required

Surakarta, IndonesiaSurakarta has multiple water delivery mechanisms such as public and private wells, public hydrants or taps, drinking water distributors and piped water service by Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (PDAM). However there is the question of supply versus demand as the city of Surakarta is facing rapid growth, leading to problems such as overuse of groundwater resources and water pollution.Two ways in which communities can participate in the management of their water supply are via the musrenbang (community planning meeting) process and national level block grant (PNPM). In musrenbang, communities can prioritise water supply in the annual city participatory budget. Through PNPM, residents can also propose projects for water delivery (e.g. to build a well, pre-installment of water pipes). Three localities in Surakarta will be pro�led in this research: Mojosongo, Semanggi and Sondakan. Mojosongo consists of communities resettled from various �ood-prone areas, and they have been working with PDAM on a community-managed master meter system. Semanggi has a high density slum area with a community-managed public hydrant system. Sondakan has many batik factories and riverfront communities, and faces poor groudwater quality and �ooding.

Figure 3. Urban poor settlement in Penjaringan, North Jakarta

Figure 2. Collaboration between Community-based Organisation (CBO) and the concessionaire

Research Brief Issue 3

Research Brief Issue 3

Figure 4. Community leaders in Kuala Lumpur meet the city council over water cuts (photo courtesy of PERMAS)

Figure 5. Protest at the city council by residents of Jinjang Utara in Kuala Lumpur. One of the signs read “We’re humans too. There is rain but no water.” (photo courtesy of PERMAS)

Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaAs part of the Building & Common Property (Maintenance & Management) Act 2007, collective management committees among residents of high-rise �ats must be formed to manage the maintenance. The committee, called the Joint Management Body (JMB), is subject to legal and �nancial liabilities. For �ats with a bulk meter system (i.e. master meter), the JMB is responsible for collecting the water bill payments and liaising directly with the water concessionaire, Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (SYABAS).

Many low cost �ats however have di�culties maintaining a fully-functioning JMB due to a general disinterest among residents, con�ict and lack of resources and knowledge. JMBs that face substantial water debt arrears are constantly negotiating with SYABAS for extensions or reductions. Part of the di�culty in collecting is because many of the residents are tenants only, hence the apathy. Furthermore, there is also the di�culty of locating the owners of the rental �ats as most neither live in the community nor participate in the JMB.

There are also NGOs that have been working closely with the urban poor to resolve various issues, among them access to water. In Jinjang Utara, a community-based NGO called PERMAS has been helping informal settlers to gain housing rights in addition to obtaining a regular supply of water after being moved to temporary housing by the government. PERMAS provided support in terms of capacity-building, con�ict resolution and awareness-raising. The residents eventually mobilised to request that the city council resolve their low water pressure woes. Press conferences and protests were held, memorandums delivered and petitions organised.

Figure 6. Community action among low to medium cost �ats

Community ActionIdaman (low-cost): Capable leadership, with e�orts to improve collective unity

Saujana (medium-cost): Well-organised, joint collaboration with neighboring residential areas (for better negotiating power) to discuss with SYABAS conversion to individual meters

Puncak Ara & Pelangi (low-cost): confusion about JMB procedures, internal con�ict

Residents responsible to form own committee to manage maintenance issues (including water)Issues: Accumulated water debt > bulk meter

Collective E�ort made Mandatory via Regulation: Joint Management Body

(Act 2007)

Barriers to ParticipationInsu�cient resources to properly implement the Act (Commissioner of Buildings)

Have yet to fully leverage on NGOs’ capacity to assist

Disinterested tenants/non-owners; distrust and apathy

Over-reliance on local authorities to resolve problems

Lack of knowledge on the formation and management of a JMB

The Institute of Water Policy is a research center a�iated with the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singa-pore. Our mission is to enhance understanding of the social and economic dimensions of policies and programs implemented to improve water management.For more information about this study, please contact: Rita Padawangi, ritapd@nus.edu.sg Chong Su Li , sppv419@nus.edu.sg

January 2013