Claudia Campero Arena

Claudia Campero-Arena

In order to answer the questions posed in the introduction, first governance as it will be understood in this work will be defined. Subsequently the links between governance and social justice will be drawn. Then we will explore how governance systems particularly in the water sector can foster or solve social conflicts. Subsequently the roles that different agents – government, private sector and civil society – of governance play in the processes for water distribution and management in a large metropolis will be analysed.

Next the problems in the water sector concerning social justice will be addressed. For this purpose different ways in which a socially just distribution of water may be affected will be identified, referring to issues of unequal availability, quality and affordability. Finally the likelihood of a more socially just distribution as an outcome of conflict and struggle, particularly through citizens organisation to contest the authority in a variety of ways from civil disobedience to mass demonstrations or road blockages, will be discussed.

Governance

In the following paragraphs the meaning of governance will explored. This is central to the subsequent discussion on the roles different actors play in how water is allocated in a city. In turn, understanding the governance systems and the power relations within them can help to understand how social justice problems arise. Further the fact that governance systems change and how different actors – with frequently competing interests – may be involved in this process is pertinent to the discussion of conflicts around water issues.

Governance is defined in very different ways. For some, it is the articulation of different levels of government: local, regional and national. For instance, Asmal (1998) makes reference to South Africa’s constitution viewpoint of the concept – without mentioning civil society – and notes that governance ‘requires all spheres of government, national, provincial and local and all organs of State, to cooperate with each other in mutual trust and good faith by coordinating their actions and legislation with each other’ (p. 98). Yet ongoing research about how governance systems actually work shows that in addition to the traditional forms of government, governance is also the result of the articulation of the power relations among the government, the market and the civil society. This is closer to the way the term will be used in what follows.

A useful definition of governance that will be used in this work is that given by Healey (1997). According to her, ‘the systems of governance of a society or community refer to the processes through which collective affairs are managed. Governance involves the articulation of rules of behaviour with respect to the collective affairs of a political community; and of principles for allocating resources among the community members’ (p. 206).

Healey’s understanding of governance introduces several issues. To begin with, the idea of governance as a process that necessarily involves historic change in the way affairs are viewed and dealt with. Next it draws the relation between governance and institutions – commonly considered as ‘the rules of the game’ (DFID, 2003). Thus the way governance works will define how the rules will be established. More importantly it will also define who is involved in the formulation of these rules. Here the link between governance and social justice arises. As Iris Young argues, social justice is not only defined in terms of distribution but related to the realisation of two values: ‘(1) developing and exercising one’s capacities and expressing one’s experience, and (2) participating in determining one’s action and the conditions of one’s action’ (1990: 37). Thus, a necessary – though not sufficient – condition for a process to be socially just would be that the system of governance acknowledges and enables people to exercise the right to be involved in deciding those things that are important to their lives. Clearly water is an issue of primary importance for sustaining life and maintaining health, improving life quality and economic development. Indeed, 2.2 billion people lack the amount of water required to satisfy only basic domestic needs, which is estimated by Gleick in 50 litres per capita daily (cited in Schmandt, 2004), but defining what basic consumption is becomes controversial.

Thus governance refers to how different actors in a society interact to formulate the rules of behaviour that determine, among other things, resource allocation. This interaction is necessarily affected by unequal power relations among the different actors. Nevertheless it is important to bear in mind that none of the three main actors (public sector, private sector and civil society) are monolithic. There are different interests within each which make understanding governance systems ever more complex.

Considering the above discussion, how the water resources are allocated will be determined by the governance system. This system may be the result of a wide involvement of community members, but it often is the result of a few powerful interest groups that can impose what is convenient to them on other sectors of the population. Thus how socially just the process of water allocation and management is will be a result to some extent of how the system of governance works and the power balances it manifests. This is because the governance system is a result of the complex political, cultural, historical, spatial, economic and social processes in a society which involve unequal power relations.

Governance and Conflict

Another definition of governance makes us aware of the role it plays in conflict. ‘The concept of governance refers to the complex set of values, norms, processes, and institutions by which society manages its development and resolves conflict, formally and informally’ (Uitto, 1997). This means that one of the main features of a good governance system is that it should aid in conflict resolution in a society.

However there are different degrees of conflict and various manifestations of its presence. Warner (2000) mentions that a conflict may be: ‘a debate or contest; a disagreement, argument, dispute or quarrel; a struggle, battle or confrontation; or a state of unrest, turmoil or chaos’ (p. 14). Accordingly each type of conflict would then need different strategies that lead to a resolution. Furthermore if the governance system allows for adequate channels of communication for conflict resolution the likelihood of escalation and its undesirable consequences would be reduced.

Here it becomes necessary to be aware of the important role of conflict in the reconfiguration of power relations. Conflict is commonly perceived as negative, something to be avoided. Yet conflict is necessary to change the balance of power relations. As Crawley (1998) expresses in the context of participation ‘where participatory approaches do not give rise to conflict, they are failing to challenge existing power relations and therefore cannot claim to empower’ (p.31).

Different levels of governance address different scales of conflict – international, national, regional or local. This does not mean that a conflict at one scale is independent from others. Hence the articulation and interaction of the different levels of governance in order to resolve a conflict are indispensable. For instance, a conflict between two nations that share a river must be resolved through dialog between them and most likely a treaty. Simultaneously, the population affected by the dispute must have local systems of governance that allow them to participate in the debate for the resolution. Thus the need for articulation among the local and the national or international level becomes evident.

It is important to bear in mind that sometimes social conflicts do not end in fulfilling the aims of those who are in a disadvantaged situation and do bring substantial hardship. We need to learn how to transform conflict into a positive outcome. This will only be possible when the view towards conflict is changed. Warner (2000) in this sense argues ‘conflict should be seen as an expression of changing society…not something that can be avoided or suppressed. It needs to be acknowledged, managed and transformed into a force for positive social change’ (p. 14). It is only through dialog and negotiation that the different stakeholders can reach lasting and effective solutions. When mechanisms to resolve conflict that are coherent with the cultural and political context are in place and functioning, we might be getting closer to good governance.

In the case of water, due to its vital character, communities have cooperated as well as fought to manage, distribute and control it. Water conflicts have taken place at all the scales of conflict from international to local. Although much attention is given to international conflicts, Ohlsson (2000) argues ‘that the risk of conflicts within countries in fact is larger, and that the risk of international conflict is derived from the necessity to avoid what is defined as second-order conflicts within countries, caused not by water scarcity itself, but by the institutional change required to adapt to water scarcity’ (p. 213).

Conflict and Scarcity

Scarcity is now brought to our attention because it is commonly considered that the problem of availability of the resource is the root of the conflict. Bennett (1995) makes us aware of how the power issues become important at this point:

‘When there isn’t enough water for all users to consume as much as they want, then water services become an embodiment of the social structure and the social dynamic of the city. Planners and other decision makers decide who gets water and when, and their decisions may reflect the power and relationships of different groups of water users’ (p. 19)

Normally these allocations tend to favour the most politically and economically powerful, and lead to great injustices for the poor. While this remains true, the cause of scarcity is to be questioned too. Scarcity arises because water is not an endless resource, but it is constructed socially. For instance, Ohlsson (2000) talks about the scarcity of social resources to deal with water scarcity. In the specific case of Mexico City, Castro (2003) makes reference to the paradox of scarcity in the city while the provision of water is much above the international recommendations. Furthermore, Swyngedouw et al (2002) warn us how the discourse of scarcity has been instrumental for those aiming to promote the view of water as a commodity, not as a public or social good.

Water provision has become ever more difficult because of the increasing population and per capita demand (Uitto, 1997). Although some conservation progress for reducing water consumption has occurred, this has not halted the rise of per capita consumption due to increasing urbanisation and living standards that make more water consumption possible. Indeed the amount of water available, as well as the way it is available, becomes an issue of quality of life, but is highly related to habits. There is an urgent need for changing policy that tries to manage the supply side for a more sustainable policy that manages the demand, among other things this would mean to change people’s consumption habits. This may not be simple to achieve because the same policies that try to improve access to water – for instance, by increasing in-house connections – increase consumption and stress on the resource. Naturally, a person that has to walk long distances for water will be more careful when using it than a person that only needs to turn the tap. There is no easy answer to this problem.

As scarcity increases so does the competition among different actors according to the use they give to water. In the most general classification, humans use water for two main purposes: for personal use (physical survival and hygiene) and as an input to the production process. Another use of water that is more general to all living things is as part of the ecosystem. In spite of its importance, this last use is not always considered because it is not directly seen as an impact on human beings. Yet increasingly it has been made clear that water extracted from the environment, especially when great volumes are extracted, will create an impact on the flora and fauna and ultimately in the human populations living in the area probably bringing disasters and hardship.

The conflicts generated between actors that give different uses to water are naturally affected by the power they have in a system. It is not uncommon that industries and other important businesses, like hotels, have a more reliable service than households in the vicinity. Considering the competition between domestic and industrial uses, Bennett (1995) gives a detailed explanation of how this created conflict and a water crisis in Monterrey, Mexico in the 1980s.

Governance systems need to address these conflicts. This means proper channels of communication to enable dialog. In order for this dialog to take place, these channels must be trusted by people and acknowledged as adequate for achieving change. Furthermore, bearing in mind that citizens have different ways of showing their dissatisfaction for a service is also necessary. For instance, citizens may use institutional procedures to complain, but when these fail to bring the expected results, citizens often turn to civil disobedience. Governments and government officials should be prepared to expect not only those manifestations which they consider adequate as ‘good citizenship’ (Ward, 1986). Governance systems allowing for conflict manifestation, but also allowing mechanisms for conflict resolution through negotiation and, if possible, consensus building, will be more likely to arrive at more socially just distributions and management of resources than those that dismiss or even repress any kind of complaint that fails to follow institutional procedures.

Water governance: the roles of different actors

According to the UNDP, water governance ‘encompasses the political, economic and social processes and institutions by which governments, civil society, and the private sector make decisions about how best to use, develop and manage water resources’ (2004:10). Although this notion of water governance may seem consensual in the mainstream discourse, it is important to bear in mind that this definition contains concepts such as ‘civil society’ which are defined differently by opposing traditions of thought changing considerably what is understood by ‘governance’ (Castro, 2004).

During the 1980s governments around the globe had to cut spending in order to reduce their budgetary deficits. In the developed world, the combined effect of the end of the convertibility of the dollar to gold and the oil crisis brought an economic recession with high inflation (Midgley, 1997). Governments responded cutting social spending and promoting privatisation. This crisis explains the rebirth of liberal thinking aiming to reduce government interference with the market. The developing countries due to the debt crisis were forced to undertake structural adjustment policies supported by the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to secure loans. Structural adjustment policies urged governments to undertake macro-economic reforms to encourage private sector development (Wratten, 1995). These policies supported the privatisation of the publicly owned industries (Canak and Swanson, 1998), including utilities.

Contrary to the experience in the developed countries, the governments of the developing countries had not achieved universal coverage in social services (including water). Inefficiency, lack of funding and political unwillingness all combined to make basic service provision something that only some enjoyed. Increasing urbanisation made the service provision gaps more evident in the growing cities and they had to be filled somehow. The most common reaction, promoted and imposed by the international funding agencies, was to consider that the market would, with its competitiveness nature, be a better service provider for the general population than the highly centralised and bureaucratic governments. Although this is still what some believe, many are more sceptical of what the market can achieve in particular for the poor (Barlow and Clarke, 2002 and Ward, 1997). Even the WB admits that private participation has had problems in reaching the poor (WB, 2004). In this context the interrelationships – and specifically the power relations – of the three agents: government, private sector and civil society have become ever more relevant to the service provision and, in general, the development of communities.

Whether water provision should be a responsibility of the government on its own, a shared responsibility with the community, a commodity provided by the private sector or a combination of the three is an ongoing debate that is very likely to continue in the years to come. There is no one single correct answer to the question of who should do what in order to have a good water governance system. Yet it is possible to talk about the recent evolution of these roles and their consequences. Furthermore, it is necessary to be aware of what systems have failed to fulfil the water needs and to attempt to understand why.

The role of the public sector

The predominant model of water provision in western cities in the nineteenth century was of a few private companies serving the wealthiest areas. Due to the growing unsanitary conditions generated by the lack of the service in poorer areas, important health problems appeared affecting the poor as well as the wealthy. This motivated the involvement of the state. Since water provision is central for life and life quality, states eventually became concerned for giving this service while not being concerned with cost recovery. In fact subsidies in water provision became widespread.

Large and costly infrastructure was constructed in order to provide this service, especially in the urban areas where the need for water for industries, commerce and labour reproduction was most evident. Although many of these projects were not without problems, particularly of environmental sustainability and sacrificing some communities for others, they provided large cities with water. Interestingly enough, it was the state that could make these large investments, not the private sector.

In Latin America –during the post-war period and to some extent until today – water, as many other services, has been managed on various occasions as a tool for a ‘clientelist-populist’ way of government (Ward, 1997 and Bennett, 1995). Providing water services in a step by step fashion (from the water truck to the common faucet and finally to the house connection) and as a ‘gift’ given by politicians in exchange for votes has been very frequent.

The role of the private sector

Starting the 1980´s, the budgetary deficits in the welfare states became a growing concern. The answer given was through structural adjustment that involved privatisation of many industries and services previously owned by governments. Privatisation came in many forms varying the degree of private or public control and responsibility. Budds and McGranahan (2003) classify the most common forms of private sector participation in this way: service contract, management contract, lease/affermage, concession, BOT-type and divestiture. They are ordered from the one that involves the least participation of the private sector – the service contract, in the case of the Federal District (DF), Mexico – to the one that gives even asset ownership to the private companies called divestiture, in the case of England and Wales.

Swyngedouw et al (2002) identify the consequences of the worldwide shift in the view of water as a commodity: water becomes another product where profit must be maximised; private agencies gain power in the decisions concerning water management to the detriment of wider citizen involvement. Water management becomes part of the global economy where investment decisions taken elsewhere affect the water provision of a city. Indeed, although the need for investment was one of the reasons for private participation to be encouraged, the concessions granted were for the lowest tariff bid, the results turning out to be sacrificing investment to maximise profits (UN-WWAP, 2003).

Another serious problem with privatisation, most acute in developing countries, is the unequal power relations between the water companies and the local governments. Awarding a concession transfers power previously in public hands to private hands. For this reason, regulatory agencies are central to ensure access and quality, particularly for the poor. Yet these agencies are not always put in place. If they are it is frequently difficult for a new agency to be capable of managing such a great task in front of powerful transnationals (Barlow and Clarke, 2002).

Although not all private participation is in transnational corporations’ hands, huge water companies do have a considerable control. The two biggest companies are Suez (previously Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux; ONDEO is the brand name for water operations) and Vivendi Universal. Together they control 70 per cent of the world’s water market and the earnings of this industry are calculated to be 40% of that of the oil sector (Barlow and Clarke, 2002). Considering this it becomes obvious that the power of negotiation and knowledge face to face with a local government can be in favour of these water giants.

The role of organised civil society

Today it is widely accepted that in order to achieve good governance meaningful participation of the different sectors of the population is essential. In this context, participation means involvement in the different stages of policy making including decision-making. In this sense Castro emphasises how the governance system is linked to citizenship rights, giving special importance to the right to participate in the water resources management. ‘This involves, among other issues, the existence of institutions ensuring that the management of water and water services is accountable to the citizenry and subject to democratic control’ (Castro, 2003: 7).

Thus key to the discussion is the issue of accountability. It is not so much the problem of whether water services should be public or private, but that whoever manages this resource can be held accountable to the population. Certainly in order for a private company to be accountable there is a need for a good regulation and proper enforcement to protect the citizen. Nonetheless if the government is the provider there is still a need of having the proper channels for citizen demands to be addressed.

Most governments admit the need for participation but the extent and the ways citizen involvement is permitted varies considerably. Participation often is only considered in implementation stages, which is unsatisfactory for those affected. More participatory models include decision-making powers to representative organisms in such issues as planning and tariff approval (UN-WWAP, 2003). Another common problem to claim participation is that of adequate representation of different actors. Due to water’s importance in all aspects of life, it is only natural that competing interests within the civil society arise. For this reason, adequate representation would mean the possibility to engage in dialog and negotiate together.

In this sense, Castro highlights ‘the prevailing model of water governance continues to alienate and exclude rather than including “civil society” … limiting people’s participation to their role of customers. In this regard, the evidence shows that for the prevailing policy models “participation” often means “willingness” to accept decisions already taken with little or no consultation. These policies are creating an imbalance resulting in the weakening of local governments and civil society structures, which have lost any capacities they had acquired in the past to actually exercise democratic control and regulation’ (Castro, 2004: 27).

Participation has become a fashionable word and the fact that the WB, among others, has it as a prerequisite to approve projects has helped to make it more widespread. Yet the distance between the theory and the practice of how governance frameworks function brings us back to remember that power relations are always at the centre. This means that as long as power in greatly unequal societies remains unmoved, well intentioned regulations that allow for citizen involvement are likely to be unrepresentative and probably fail to achieve more socially just results. Let us now engage on the discussion of social justice in water distribution and management.

Social justice in water distribution and management

Since water is an indispensable element for survival and adequate quality of life, it necessarily becomes strategic. The command over the resource is intrinsically power related. An increase in the power of the private sector in detriment of the civil sector, manifested when the population has no control over the management of the resource, becomes an issue of social justice.

To define social justice is a challenge because there is no consensus of what the term means. David Harvey considers social justice is a set of principles to address conflicts related with social cooperation and individual improvement. He summarises this as ‘a just distribution justly arrived at’ (1988: 98). However Iris Young (1990) argues that social justice is not restrained to distribution but also considers the need of people for expression and participation in their community.

In my view social justice is about the distribution of benefits and responsibilities in a society allowing individuals in that society – regardless of their gender, ideology, ethnicity, ability, age, income or sexual preference – decide upon their future in a participatory and democratic manner that should guarantee an acceptable standard of living. For sure, this definition would be contested by many because the perception of social justice is related to life experiences, beliefs and cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless most of us would agree that having adequate access to water services is an issue of social justice.

When evaluating if the distribution of water is socially just we have to bear in mind not only the availability disparity that different sectors of the population may face. We need to be aware that the complexity is considerable. It is not only about quantity of water. It is about quality, frequency of availability, affordability and equity in the price paid for the resource. Moreover social justice is also about having a say in how the resource is managed: what the priorities are. If the resource is scarce this is even more important. For instance, if the water will be only available at certain times then there must be a negotiation of how these times will be allocated. This also means that the proper channels of communication must be available for the citizens to express their concerns.

Water quality issues, of water for human consumption and of wastewater, are especially a health concern. The number of deaths due to diseases related to inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene are alarming, especially considering that we know about how to prevent them. To give just one example, in 2001, 2 million people died of infectious diarrhoeas, and more than half were children under five (UN-WWAP, 2003). Improving water supply in quantity and quality, sanitation measures, hygiene education and environmental management are all central to improve living conditions and reduce the number of people suffering from these diseases.

The problem of how water is priced is of considerable importance also. It is not only the issue if water is affordable for the population, but what price is paid for what service. The question of affordability is related to what proportion of an income is spent on water and if this allows a family to consume as much water as needed for sanitary and health needs. Naturally a lower income family will spend a higher proportion of their salary on water even when they are paying the same amount as a wealthier family. If this payment affects the capacity of the lower income family to fulfil other basic needs there is an injustice.

Concerning the second issue about what price is paid for what service commonly shows the most insulting injustices. The quality of the service is frequently inversely proportional to the price! Bennett (1995) expresses this by letting us know that ‘poor urban residents in Latin America with the worst water service often pay up to ten times more for their water than wealthy families with the best water services’ (p.22). In the case of Guayaquil, Swyngedouw (1995) explains the terrible situation of people served by tankers who may pay as much as 400 times what people served by the public utility do.

Hence, the issue about the distribution of water involves many things. The most evident is the amount of water available but also important is the frequency of the service, the quality of the water and the service, the way it is available (as a common faucet or an in-house faucet) and the price paid for it. These may all vary according to location. For instance, there are differences between the Federal District (DF) and the State of Mexico , differences within the delegaciones and municipalities of these entities, between the city and the rural areas, and between regular and irregular settlements. These location differences are also much related with variations in income – people in the DF are broadly wealthier and have generally better water services than those in the State of Mexico. Nonetheless, there are considerable differences within the DF which will be addressed further on.

Then the distribution of water service provision varies considerably with space. Generally urban areas are better served than rural areas, and Mexico is no exception. The reason for this is mainly that the dispersion of the population makes it much more expensive to supply rural settlements. Nevertheless, within cities there is also spatial variation in the distribution of the service. In Mexico City Ward notes that areas with significant irregular settlements are more deprived (1986: 90).

Furthermore, differences also become apparent among different users of water: domestic, commercial or industrial. Many industries have the technological and financial capacity to have their own wells and extract water for their production process. These wells are supposed to be metered and the water authority charges the use of this water. Nonetheless, the control becomes difficult for the water authority particularly because the wells are frequently inside the industry’s property. The economic power corporations exercise may ultimately override the rights of other sectors of the population. As mentioned earlier the difference of availability for the industry in Monterrey in the 1980s, sacrificing the lower income population during a drought brought about a furious social response (Bennett, 1995).

In this discussion of the distribution of water services it is important to be aware that the burden of water scarcity is not suffered equally within the household. It is normally women and children who are responsible to fetch water from the common faucets or other sources (Bennett, 1995). The consequences of being responsible for such a task include reduced opportunity for income earning activities, studying or recreation, and permanent skeletal damage for regularly carrying water (UN-WWAP, 2003). This means that above all their participation should be sought when trying to address water issues and improve policy making.

All these possible ways in which the distribution of water is inequitable become a possible source of conflict. According to how widespread and how powerful the actors involved in a conflict are a corresponding response form the authority will take place. At this point we become aware of an important problem: Considering that the power of the actors is central in getting the attention of the authorities to resolve a conflict, it is clear that it might well be that the most marginalized actors may not be heard. The poor in order to have power normally need to be organised. If they are not, they are generally ignored.

When situations turn desperate and the population manages to organise, for example in mass demonstrations or road blockages, the attention of the authorities might be gained. This does not necessarily mean that the problem will be addressed in an integral way. Most commonly fast unarticulated responses are the outcome. Frequently they do not last for long. As Martha Delgado , an independent local parliament member, said in an interview, it is only through demonstrations, road blockages and so on that the authorities pay attention to the citizens’ demands; yet the kind of solutions they give are not for the origin of the problem to be solved but for satisfying the immediate demand (interview with the author, 3/08/04).

A senior official of the water authority in Mexico City, Germán Martínez Santoyo, also considered that the demonstrations and road blockages do not help to arrive at more socially just solutions. He explained that in order to give lasting solutions to citizen demands investment and technology is needed. These infrastructure undertakings should be part of established plans and projects (interview with the author, 23/07/04). Thus if a group of citizens block a road or protest in any other way to call for better water services officials might sit and talk to them but if there is not a particular project for that area already in place, the solution will only be temporary to calm the protesters.

Yet it is difficult to disregard the impact citizen protests can have on policy making. After all if an area is a continuous source of conflict, it will most likely be included when plans and projects are formulated. There are plenty of examples of this process particularly in Latin America (Gilbert, 1998). This may be a long process and will require sustained action from the population to be taken seriously. Moreover it might not bring the desired outcome in the form it was imagined and demanded. Nonetheless it might still be a considerable improvement from the previous situation. In other cases, protesters may sometimes aim and succeed to frustrate plans and projects that they perceive contrary to their interests. Some examples of conflicts and their results in the water sector in Mexico City will be given in the next section.

Bringing things together, water, because of its indispensable character for survival and development, becomes an issue of social justice in the way that it is distributed and in the way it is managed. This in turn creates conflict within the system of governance over what is to happen with the resource.