Reclaiming public water is
only half the victory. Across the world, communities have taken back control
from profit-driven firms, but the question lingers: what now? Beyond pipes and
policies lies a deeper test—will the new systems reflect justice, equity, and
care? This journey explores how oversight, not just ownership, holds the key to
transforming water into a truly public good.
1
After the
Takeback – What Comes Next?
Reclaiming public control over water systems marks only the beginning of a transformative journey. Across the globe, communities have fought to wrest water from the grip of privatisation, reclaiming pipelines, infrastructure, and the right to manage this vital resource. However, the deeper challenge lies ahead—governing these resources with transparency, inclusivity, efficiency, and justice. Ownership alone cannot guarantee equitable access or sustainable management. Without robust oversight, public control risks falling into the same inefficiencies and inequities that plagued privatised models (Bosch & Gupta, 2022; Feldman, 2011).
For water to truly serve
all, governance structures must evolve as courageously as the people who fought
for the transition. Transformation requires not only technical competence but
also moral clarity. It demands institutions that reflect the values of care,
solidarity, and justice, principles that prioritise the well-being of
communities over profit margins. Governance actors must construct systems
grounded in civic participation and equity that underpinned the
remunicipalization movement (Schmidt, 2023; Wilson et al., 2019).
The shift from private to
public management must deliver more than ownership; it must ensure oversight
that guarantees water flows fairly, sustainably, and equitably. Means
addressing capacity gaps, rebuilding public trust, and creating transparent
systems that empower communities to shape decisions (Samakov & Berkes,
2017; Dahake, 2018). It requires a cultural shift where water is no longer
seen as a commodity but as a sacred commons—a shared heritage that sustains
life and culture (Linton, 2013; Singh, 2008).
This article explores the
transition from ownership to oversight, offering insights into how resilient
and just water governance can be achieved. Drawing lessons from global
experiences, it highlights the critical steps needed to transform reclaimed water
systems into models of equity, sustainability, and care. The flow is ours to
shape, and the future of water governance begins now.
2
The
Post-Privatisation Landscape – Opportunities and Risks
The transition from privatised water systems to public ownership represents a critical turning point in global water governance. While remunicipalization offers the opportunity to reclaim water as a public good, this shift introduces significant challenges that stakeholders must address to ensure equitable outcomes. Sustainable and efficient service delivery. The chapter explores the post-privatisation landscape, focusing on the opportunities and risks associated with rebuilding public trust, addressing capacity gaps, implementing transparent investment planning, and prioritising social equity.
2.1
Rebuilding Public Trust
One of the most pressing
challenges in the post-privatisation era is restoring public trust in water
governance. Years of private mismanagement often leave communities skeptical
about whether remunicipalized utilities can meet their expectations (Bosch
& Gupta, 2022). Privatised models frequently prioritise profit over
service quality, leading to deteriorated infrastructure, unreliable access, and
inflated costs (Feldman, 2011). As a result, public institutions must
undertake visible, consistent reforms to rebuild credibility.
Transparency is a
cornerstone of trust restoration. Publishing detailed performance metrics,
conducting citizen consultations, and creating feedback channels are essential
steps in demonstrating accountability (Schmidt, 2023). For example, Eau de
Paris, a remunicipalized utility in France, rebuilt trust by mandating
financial transparency and reinvesting surpluses into social programs that
benefited low-income households (Wilson et al., 2020). Such measures signal
to citizens that public utilities prioritise their needs over profit.
Engaging communities in decision-making processes further strengthens trust. Participatory governance mechanisms, such as town hall meetings and advisory boards, allow citizens to shape policies and hold institutions accountable (Samakov & Berkes, 2017). These forums foster a sense of ownership and ensure that governance reflects the diverse needs of the population. Ultimately, rebuilding public trust is foundational for the long-term success of remunicipalized water systems.
2.2
Addressing Capacity Gaps
During privatisation, many
public agencies lose critical technical expertise and institutional knowledge,
as private operators often sideline or replace local staff (Nanedo et al.,
2014). Erosion of capacity poses significant risks to service continuity in the
post-privatisation phase. Governments must urgently rebuild institutional
knowledge and recruit qualified personnel to manage increasingly complex water
systems (Koop et al., 2017).
Capacity-building
initiatives are essential for addressing these gaps. Training programs,
leadership development, and partnerships with academic institutions can equip
staff with the skills needed to operate modern water infrastructure (Schmidt,
2023). For instance, Buenos Aires’ Aysa utility implemented rigorous training
programs to empower local teams with technical and managerial expertise,
enabling them to address the unique challenges of informal settlements
(Feldman, 2011).
Establishing robust
regulatory bodies is another critical step. These institutions ensure
compliance with performance standards and provide oversight to prevent
mismanagement (Bosch & Gupta, 2022). Independent regulators, insulated
from political interference, play a vital role in maintaining accountability
and fostering public confidence (Samakov & Berkes, 2017).
Capacity gaps also highlight the importance of knowledge-sharing networks. Public-Public Partnerships (PuPs), which facilitate technical exchanges and joint learning among cities, offer a solidarity-driven alternative to commercial consultancy models (Cisneros, 2019). By leveraging collective expertise, utilities can accelerate capacity-building efforts and adopt best practices tailored to local contexts. Addressing capacity gaps is not merely a technical requirement but a key determinant of public trust and institutional resilience.
2.3
Transparent Investment Planning
Transparent investment
planning is a vital component of effective water governance in the post-privatisation
landscape. Privatised models often obscure financial decisions, leading to
misallocation of resources and eroded public trust (Casalino et al., 2013).
Remunicipalized utilities must prioritise transparency to ensure that
investments align with community needs and deter corruption.
Participatory budgeting
practices are particularly effective in fostering transparency. Citizens
actively participate in deciding how funds are allocated through these
processes, ensuring that investments reflect local priorities (Schmidt, 2023).
For example, Cape Town’s water utility engaged residents in water demand
dialogues and made consumption data publicly accessible, enhancing trust and
accountability (Wilson et al., 2020).
Public disclosure of
financial records further reinforces transparency. Regular audits and open
reporting systems allow citizens to scrutinise expenditures and verify that
resources are used efficiently (Bosch & Gupta, 2022). Such measures
create a feedback loop that drives continuous improvement and builds public
confidence in governance institutions.
Transparent investment planning also supports long-term sustainability. Lifecycle costing models, which account for both capital and operational expenditures, enable utilities to make informed decisions about infrastructure upgrades and maintenance (Dahake, 2018). By integrating financial transparency with participatory oversight, remunicipalized utilities can create a governance framework that is both accountable and resilient.
2.4
Prioritising Social Equity
Social equity is the heart
of public water governance. Privatised models often exacerbate inequalities,
leaving marginalised communities with unreliable access to water (Feldman,
2011). Remunicipalization provides a unique opportunity to rectify these
injustices by prioritising investments in underserved areas and implementing
policies that ensure universal access.
Targeted interventions, such
as lifeline tariffs and cross-subsidies, are essential for addressing
disparities in water access (Wilson et al., 2019). Lifeline tariffs protect
low-income households by providing a basic amount of water at an affordable rate,
while cross-subsidies balance costs across user groups. These measures treat
water as a human right rather than a commodity. Proactive outreach to rural and
peri-urban communities further enhances equity. Governments must prioritise
infrastructure upgrades in areas that policymakers have historically neglected,
but they must now ensure that all citizens benefit from remunicipalization.
(Schmidt, 2023). For instance, Aysa’s decentralised model empowered local teams
to address the specific needs of informal settlements, transforming water
delivery into a tool for social upliftment (Feldman, 2011).
Inclusive governance structures also play a critical role in promoting equity. Participatory mechanisms that elevate marginalised voices ensure that policies reflect the diverse needs of the population (Samakov & Berkes, 2017). By integrating social equity into every layer of governance, remunicipalized utilities can transform water systems into instruments of justice and collective well-being.
The post-privatisation
landscape presents both opportunities and risks. While remunicipalization
allows communities to reclaim water as a public good, it also demands
significant reforms to rebuild trust, address capacity gaps, ensure
transparency, and prioritise equity. By embracing these principles, public
institutions can transform reclaimed water systems into models of sustainable
and just governance. The journey from ownership to oversight is not merely a
technical transition but a profound cultural and ethical transformation. We
redefine water as a shared heritage and commit to nurturing it for future
generations.
3
Principles of Resilient Public Water
Governance
Accountable institutions build resilient public water governance. Participation, equity, and sustainability. These principles ensure that water systems are not only technically efficient but also socially just and environmentally sustainable. By integrating these values into governance frameworks, public institutions can create systems that are adaptive, inclusive, and capable of meeting the needs of diverse communities. The chapter explores each principle in detail, highlighting its interconnectedness and its role in fostering resilient water governance.
3.1
Accountability
Accountability is the
cornerstone of resilient water governance. It ensures that public
institutions are transparent, responsive, and answerable to the communities
they serve. Without accountability, water systems risk falling into
inefficiency, corruption, and mismanagement (Bosch & Gupta, 2022). Public
utilities must establish robust oversight mechanisms that include independent
regulators, citizen watchdogs, and public-facing platforms for transparency.
Independent regulators play
a critical role in preventing political interference and ensuring that
technical decisions prioritise public welfare (Schmidt, 2023). For example,
Eau de Paris, a remunicipalized utility in France, implemented mandatory
financial transparency and regular audits to rebuild public trust and ensure
accountability (Wilson et al., 2020). These measures allowed citizens to
monitor , and Auditors assessed the utility’s performance and verified that it
used resources effectively.
Citizen participation further strengthens accountability. Mechanisms such as participatory audits and community monitoring empower residents to hold institutions accountable for service delivery (Samakov & Berkes, 2017). When citizens are actively involved in oversight, they become partners in governance, ensuring that decisions reflect their needs and priorities. Accountability is not just about enforcing rules; it is about creating a culture of trust and mutual responsibility that underpins resilient water systems.
3.2
Participation
Participation is essential
for building inclusive and democratic water governance. It ensures that all
stakeholders, including marginalised communities, have a voice in
decision-making processes. Genuine participation transforms water governance
from a top-down approach to a collaborative model where communities co-create
policies and solutions (Schmidt, 2023).
Participatory governance
mechanisms, such as town hall meetings, advisory boards, and digital platforms,
provide structured spaces for dialogue and collaboration. For instance, Cape
Town’s water utility engaged residents in water demand dialogues during a
historic drought, allowing them to contribute ideas and solutions (Wilson et
al., 2020). The participatory approach not only improved trust but also
fostered collective ownership of water conservation efforts.
Inclusive participation also
ensures that Governance bodies integrate diverse perspectives. Indigenous
communities, women, and rural populations often face barriers to participation,
yet their knowledge and experiences are invaluable for creating culturally
sensitive and effective policies (Samakov & Berkes, 2017). By elevating
marginalised voices, public institutions can design water systems that are
responsive to the needs of all citizens.
Participation and accountability are deeply interconnected. When citizens are actively involved in governance, they can hold institutions accountable for their actions. Dynamic creates a feedback loop that drives continuous improvement and ensures that water governance remains adaptive and responsive.
3.3
Equity
Equity is the heart of
resilient water governance. It ensures that all individuals, regardless of
their socioeconomic status or geographic location, have access to safe and
affordable water. Privatised models often exacerbate inequalities, leaving
marginalised communities with unreliable access to water (Feldman, 2011).
Remunicipalization provides an opportunity to prioritise social equity and
rectify these injustices.
Policies such as lifeline
tariffs and cross-subsidies are practical tools for promoting equity.
Lifeline tariffs provide a basic amount of water at an affordable rate for
low-income households, while cross-subsidies balance costs across user groups
(Wilson et al., 2019). These measures ensure that policymakers treat water as
a human right rather than a commodity..
Proactive outreach to
underserved communities further enhances equity. Governments must prioritise
infrastructure upgrades in rural and peri-urban areas that they have
historically neglected (Schmidt, 2023). For example, Aysa, a
remunicipalized utility in Buenos Aires, decentralised its operations to
address the specific needs of informal settlements, transforming water delivery
into a driver of social upliftment (Feldman, 2011).
Equity also intersects with participation. Inclusive governance structures that elevate marginalised voices ensure that policies reflect the diverse needs of the population. When Leaders embed equity in every layer of governance, water systems become instruments of justice and collective well-being.
3.4
Sustainability
Sustainability is the fourth
pillar of resilient water governance. It ensures that planners design water
systems to meet the needs of the present. And future generations. Sustainable
practices prioritise long-term Planning, resource conservation, and
environmental resilience (Dahake, 2018).
Lifecycle costing models are
essential for achieving financial sustainability. These models account for
both capital and operational expenditures, enabling utilities to make informed
decisions about infrastructure investments (Schmidt, 2023). By planning for
the full lifecycle of water systems, public institutions can avoid short-term
fixes and ensure long-term viability.
Green infrastructure further
supports sustainability. Practices such as wetlands restoration, rainwater
harvesting, and leak detection enhance ecological resilience and reduce water
loss (Wilson et al., 2020). For instance, Cape Town integrated digital
efficiency tools and green infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of a historic
drought, demonstrating the value of sustainable Planning (Wilson et al., 2020).
Sustainability also requires
adaptive governance. Climate change, urbanisation, and population growth
present ongoing challenges that demand flexible and responsive systems.
Continuous monitoring, scenario planning, and stakeholder engagement ensure
that water governance remains resilient in the face of uncertainty (Samakov
& Berkes, 2017).
Experts recognise that sustainability deeply connects to equity..Engineers design water systems to be environmentally sustainable and financially sustainable; they are better equipped to provide equitable access to all citizens. This interconnectedness highlights the importance of integrating all four principles into governance frameworks.
Public institutions build resilient water governance on the principles of accountability, participation, equity, and sustainability. These values are not isolated; they are profoundly interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Accountability ensures transparency and trust, participation fosters inclusivity and collaboration, equity guarantees justice and access, and sustainability secures the long-term viability of water systems. By embracing these principles, public institutions can create governance frameworks that are adaptive, inclusive, and capable of meeting the needs of diverse communities. The journey toward resilient water governance is not just a technical challenge; it is a cultural and ethical transformation that Communities redefine water as a shared heritage and nurture it for future generations.
4
Case
Studies of Reformed Public Models
The transition from privatised water systems to public ownership has been successfully implemented in several cities worldwide, offering valuable lessons for reformed public water governance. The chapter examines three case studies—Eau de Paris in France, Aysa in Argentina, and Cape Town in South Africa—that demonstrate how remunicipalization can foster accountability, equity, and sustainability. These examples highlight the transformative potential of public water systems when governance is rooted in transparency, inclusivity, and community engagement.
4.1
Eau de Paris (France)
Eau de Paris stands as a
leading example of how remunicipalization can deepen democracy and restore
public trust. In 2010, Paris transitioned its water utility from private
management back to public ownership, marking a significant shift in governance.
The city implemented several reforms to ensure transparency, accountability,
and inclusivity, transforming the utility into a trusted public asset (Wilson
et al., 2020).
One of the key reforms was
the establishment of a public advisory board that included representatives from
civil society. The board provided a platform for citizens to participate in
decision-making processes, ensuring that governance reflected the needs and
priorities of the community (Schmidt, 2023). By institutionalising citizen
oversight, Eau de Paris fostered a culture of accountability that strengthened
public confidence in the utility.
Financial transparency was
another cornerstone of the reform. Eau de Paris mandated the publication of
detailed financial records, including budgets, contracts, and operational
outcomes. Level of transparency allowed citizens to monitor the utility’s
performance and verify that resources were being used efficiently (Bosch &
Gupta, 2022). Additionally, the utility reinvested surpluses into social
programs, such as subsidies for low-income households, demonstrating its
commitment to equity and social justice (Wilson et al., 2020).
Eau de Paris also prioritised
environmental sustainability. The utility implemented green infrastructure
projects, such as rainwater harvesting and wetlands restoration, to enhance
ecological resilience and reduce water loss (Dahake, 2018). These initiatives
aligned with the city’s broader sustainability goals, ensuring that water
governance supported both environmental and social well-being.
The success of Eau de Paris illustrates that remunicipalization is not merely a reversal of privatisation but a transformative process that integrates transparency, participation, and sustainability into governance frameworks. By prioritising public accountability and community engagement, Eau de Paris has become a model for cities seeking to reclaim control over essential services..
4.2
Aysa (Argentina)
Aysa, the water utility in
Buenos Aires, Argentina, provides another compelling example of reformed public
water governance. After years of private mismanagement that left many
informal settlements without reliable access to water, Aysa transitioned to
public ownership and implemented a decentralised operational model (Feldman,
2011). approach empowered local teams to address the specific needs of diverse
urban neighbourhoods, transforming water delivery into a tool for social
upliftment.
Decentralisation was a key
feature of Aysa’s reform. By delegating decision-making authority to local
teams, the utility was able to tailor its responses to the unique challenges
faced by informal settlements. Localised approach improved service delivery and
fostered trust between the utility and the communities it served (Schmidt,
2023). For example, AySA integrated employment programs into its service
provision, creating job opportunities for residents and strengthening community
ties (Bosch & Gupta, 2022).
Aysa also prioritised equity
by targeting investments toward underserved areas. The utility implemented
infrastructure upgrades in informal settlements, ensuring that marginalised
communities received reliable access to clean water (Wilson et al., 2019). Policymakers
complemented these efforts with social policies such as lifeline tariffs and
cross-subsidies, which made water affordable for low-income households
(Feldman, 2011).
Transparency and
accountability were central to Aysa’s governance model. The utility
established participatory mechanisms, such as community forums and public
audits, to ensure that citizens could monitor its performance and provide
feedback (Samakov & Berkes, 2017). These initiatives created a dynamic
feedback loop that drove continuous improvement and strengthened public
confidence in the utility.
The success of Aysa demonstrates that decentralisation, when combined with equity-focused policies and community engagement, can transform water governance into a powerful instrument for social justice. By addressing the specific needs of marginalised communities, Aysa has set a precedent for inclusive and responsive public water systems.
4.3
Cape Town (South Africa)
Cape Town’s experience with
reformed water governance highlights the importance of integrating
technological innovation with participatory practices. Faced with a historic
drought that threatened urban water security, the city implemented wide-ranging
reforms to enhance efficiency, transparency, and community engagement (Wilson
et al., 2020).
One of the key reforms was
the adoption of digital efficiency tools, such as smart water meters and
real-time data analytics. These technologies allowed the city to monitor
water consumption with precision, identify leaks, and optimise resource
allocation (Schmidt, 2023). By reducing water loss and improving operational
efficiency, Cape Town was able to mitigate the impacts of the drought and
ensure the sustainability of its water systems.
Public engagement was
another critical component of the reform. Cape Town created water demand
dialogues that invited residents to participate in conservation efforts and
share their experiences (Bosch & Gupta, 2022). The city also made
consumption data publicly accessible through user-friendly platforms,
empowering citizens to monitor their usage and contribute to collective
water-saving initiatives (Wilson et al., 2020).
Cape Town’s governance model
also emphasised equity. The city implemented targeted outreach programs to
ensure that low-income households received adequate support during the drought.
These efforts included subsidies for essential water usage and infrastructure
upgrades in underserved areas (Dahake, 2018). By prioritising equity, Cape
Town demonstrated its commitment to social justice even in the face of
environmental challenges.
The success of Cape Town’s reforms underscores the value of integrating technology with participatory governance. By combining digital innovation with community engagement, the city created a resilient water system that was both efficient and inclusive. Cape Town’s experience serves as a blueprint for cities seeking to address the dual challenges of climate change and urban water security.
The case studies of Eau de Paris, Aysa, and Cape Town illustrate the transformative potential of reformed public water governance. Each example demonstrates that remunicipalization is not merely a technical transition but a cultural and ethical transformation that prioritises transparency, participation, equity, and sustainability. By integrating these principles into governance frameworks, public utilities can create systems that are adaptive, inclusive, and capable of meeting the needs of diverse communities. These case studies provide valuable lessons for cities worldwide, offering a roadmap for reclaiming water as a public good and ensuring its sustainable management for future generations.
4.4
Jakarta’s
Challenge: From Private Failure to Public Responsibility
Jakarta stands as one of the most symbolic battlegrounds in the global water justice movement. After two decades under private control by multinational corporations—PT PAM Lyonnaise Jaya (Palyja) and PT Aetra Air Jakarta—the capital’s water system was riddled with high tariffs, limited coverage, and widespread inequality. Following citizen-led lawsuits and public outcry, the city took steps toward remunicipalization. However, reclaiming ownership has only revealed deeper, systemic challenges.
The second battle for Jakarta’s water is now underway: ensuring just, inclusive, and accountable governance. Despite formal shifts toward public management, residents in low-income neighbourhoods continue to face unreliable access and poor service quality. Community voices remain underrepresented in water planning processes, and the institutional memory of private mismanagement lingers. Transparency and participatory oversight mechanisms have yet to take firm root.
Furthermore, Jakarta’s vulnerability to climate-related flooding, groundwater depletion, and land subsidence demands a water governance model that is not only just, but also climate-resilient. It requires integrating nature-based solutions, decentralised systems, and stronger inter-agency coordination. Cultural transformation is equally important—public officials must rebuild trust and reframe water not as a commodity, but as a shared civic responsibility.
Jakarta’s experience highlights a crucial truth echoed in cities like Paris and Buenos Aires: ownership is only the first step. Without structural reform, cultural shifts, and empowered communities, public control risks mirroring the failures of privatisation. To honour the struggle that reclaimed Jakarta’s water, city leaders must now ensure it flows with justice, care, and public accountability.
Jakarta may have won back
its water, but the battle is far from over. Without vigilant oversight, public
control can quietly slip back into private hands—this time through the backdoor
of influence, cronyism, or corruption. The future of Jakarta’s water hangs not
just on ownership, but on integrity. Because even after a takeover ends, the
takeover spirit can return, dressed in a new suit.
5
The Role of Global Frameworks and Partnerships
Global frameworks and partnerships play a pivotal role in transforming water governance into a system that prioritises equity, sustainability, and justice. These mechanisms provide the tools, resources, and collaborative platforms necessary to address the complex challenges of water management in an interconnected world. By fostering solidarity, aligning local efforts with international benchmarks, and promoting innovative financing models, global partnerships ensure that water governance evolves to meet the needs of diverse communities. The chapter explores three critical components of global frameworks: Public-Public Partnerships (PuPs), the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6), and financing for justice. Together, these elements form a cohesive strategy for building resilient and inclusive water systems.
5.1
Public-Public Partnerships (PuPs)
Public-Public Partnerships
(PuPs) represent a solidarity-driven alternative to profit-oriented
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPS). These partnerships emphasise mutual
learning, technical exchange, and capacity building among public utilities,
fostering collaboration rather than competition. PuPs have emerged as a
powerful tool for strengthening water governance by enabling cities and
utilities to share expertise and resources without the constraints of
commercial interests (Cisneros, 2019).
One of the defining features
of PuPs is their focus on peer-to-peer knowledge transfer. Cities like
Barcelona have supported utilities in Africa and Latin America through
technical exchanges and joint capacity-building initiatives. These
collaborations allow under-resourced utilities to benefit from the experience
of more established systems, enabling them to implement sustainable practices
tailored to their local context (Bandari et al., 2023). For example,
Barcelona’s partnership with utilities in Mozambique facilitated the adoption
of innovative water management strategies that improved service delivery and
reduced operational inefficiencies.
PuPs also prioritise
inclusivity and equity. By avoiding profit-maximisation imperatives, these
partnerships ensure that water governance remains focused on public welfare.
Collaborative networks foster trust and shared responsibility, creating a
culture of accountability that strengthens public confidence in water systems
(Cisneros, 2019). Moreover, PuPs provide a platform for cities to address
common challenges, such as climate adaptation and infrastructure modernisation,
through collective problem-solving and shared resources.
The success of PuPs lies in their ability to create a global ecosystem of cooperation. By connecting utilities across borders, these partnerships promote the diffusion of best practices and innovative solutions. For instance, joint workshops and study tours enable utilities to benchmark their performance and align their governance reforms with emerging global standards (Bandari et al., 2023). Interconnectedness ensures that local efforts are supported by a broader network of solidarity, enhancing the resilience and sustainability of water systems worldwide.
5.2
United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6
The United Nations
Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6) affirms that access to clean water and
sanitation is a fundamental human right. As a global benchmark, SDG 6 has
redefined water governance by emphasising equity, sustainability, and
accountability. It provides a framework for aligning local policies with
international standards, ensuring that public authorities manage water systems
in a way that prioritises social and environmental justice (Andrade et al.,
2021).
SDG 6 has catalysed
significant legal and policy reforms in countries around the world.
Governments have adopted progressive pricing mechanisms, social tariffs, and
participatory planning processes to ensure that water services are accessible
to all citizens, particularly marginalised communities (Mustafa et al., 2022).
For example, South Africa’s alignment with SDG 6 led to the implementation of
policies that guarantee a basic amount of free water for low-income households,
addressing historical inequities in water access.
The framework also emphasises
rigorous monitoring and reporting protocols. Countries use SDG 6 indicators
to assess their progress in areas such as water quality, service coverage, and
affordability. These metrics provide valuable benchmarks for identifying gaps
and implementing corrective measures (Sharma & Katoch, 2022). For
instance, India’s adoption of SDG 6 indicators has helped the government target
investments in rural sanitation infrastructure, significantly improving access
to clean water in underserved areas.
SDG 6 fosters collaboration
among international partners, creating a supportive ecosystem for water
governance reform. Global conferences, expert panels, and intergovernmental
forums dedicated to achieving SDG 6 facilitate the exchange of ideas and best
practices. These platforms enable governments to learn from one another and
coordinate their efforts to address shared challenges (Andrade et al., 2021).
By aligning local initiatives with global goals, SDG 6 ensures that water
governance is both locally relevant and internationally coherent.
The transformative power of SDG 6 lies in its ability to integrate social equity into the core of water governance. By framing water as a human right, the framework shifts the narrative from water being an economic commodity to being a public good. Perspective reinforces the democratic legitimacy of water governance and ensures that marginalised communities are not excluded from the benefits of public investment (Mustafa et al., 2022). SDG 6 thus serves as both a moral guide and a practical tool for achieving sustainable and inclusive water systems.
5.3
Financing for Justice
Financing for justice is
essential for creating equitable water systems that prioritise public outcomes
over investor returns. Traditional Public-Private Partnerships (PPPS) often
prioritise profit, leading to inequities in service delivery and access. In
contrast, rights-based and climate-smart financing models, such as concessional
loans, green bonds, and performance-based grants, ensure that investments yield
long-term social and environmental benefits (Cartwright et al., 2024).
Green bonds have emerged as
a powerful tool for mobilising capital for sustainable water infrastructure.
These bonds attract investment by demonstrating strong social and environmental
returns rather than high financial profits. For example, green bonds issued
in Kenya have funded projects that improve water access in rural areas while
reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy-efficient technologies
(Sinaga, 2024). By linking financial performance to measurable outcomes,
green bonds create a transparent framework that incentivises public utilities
to prioritise equity and sustainability.
Performance-based grants
further enhance accountability in water governance. These grants reward
utilities for meeting key service delivery and sustainability targets,
encouraging innovation and efficiency. For instance, grants provided by
international donors to utilities in Southeast Asia have incentivised the
adoption of innovative metering technologies, reducing water loss and improving
billing accuracy (Cartwright et al., 2024). Performance-based grants tie
financial support to specific outcomes and ensure that public funds benefit
communities effectively.
International actors play a
critical role in supporting financing for justice. Multilateral development
banks and donor agencies provide concessional loans and technical assistance to
help governments overcome the high upfront costs of infrastructure upgrades.
These loans often come with favourable repayment terms and capacity-building
support, ensuring that public utilities can manage their investments
responsibly (Sinaga, 2024). By respecting local autonomy and prioritising
public welfare, international financing mechanisms reinforce the principles of
equity and sustainability in water governance.
The shift toward financing
for justice represents a transformative approach to water governance. By
aligning financial strategies with social and environmental goals, governments
can create systems that are both economically viable and ethically grounded. Reorientation
ensures that water is treated as a public good rather than a commodity,
fostering resilience and inclusivity in the face of global challenges
(Cartwright et al., 2024).
Global frameworks and partnerships are indispensable for advancing equitable, sustainable, and resilient water governance. Public-Public Partnerships
6
Digital
and Smart Water for the Public Good
The integration of digital technologies into water governance has revolutionised how utilities manage resources, engage with citizens, and ensure equitable service delivery. Digital tools such as smart metering, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered Billing, and mobile citizen engagement platforms have transformed water management into a more efficient, transparent, and participatory process. the chapter explores how these technologies contribute to the public good, emphasising their role in enhancing accountability, sustainability, and inclusivity.
6.1
Smart Metering and Leak Detection
Smart metering has emerged
as a cornerstone of modern water governance, enabling utilities to monitor
consumption in real time and identify inefficiencies. These meters use
advanced sensors and wireless communication technologies to track water flow, detect
anomalies, and flag potential leaks (Nguyễn et al., 2022). By providing
high-resolution data, smart meters allow utilities to pinpoint issues quickly,
reducing water loss and improving operational efficiency.
Leak detection is one of the
most significant benefits of smart metering. Utilities can use data from
smart meters to identify leaks within the distribution network, enabling rapid
intervention and repair. Britton et al. (2013) highlight that advanced
algorithms can process sensor data to trigger alerts for maintenance teams,
minimising water wastage and lowering energy costs associated with pumping.
In regions facing water scarcity, such interventions are critical for achieving
sustainability goals.
Smart metering also enhances billing accuracy and reduces fraud. By automating data collection, these systems eliminate manual errors and ensure that customers are billed based on actual consumption. This transparency fosters trust between utilities and consumers, as Billing becomes more reliable and equitable (Nguyễn et al., 2022). However, the implementation of smart metering requires robust data governance frameworks to protect customer privacy and ensure ethical use of data.
6.2
GIS-Based Planning
Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) have become indispensable tools for water utilities, enabling
spatial analysis and data visualisation that support proactive decision-making.
GIS platforms allow utilities to map infrastructure, identify underserved
areas, and plan expansions equitably and efficiently (Carriço et al., 2023).
By overlaying water network maps with demographic and socioeconomic data,
utilities can prioritise investments in regions with the greatest need.
GIS also plays a critical
role in emergency planning. Utilities can use GIS to simulate disaster
scenarios, such as floods or droughts, and develop contingency plans based on
precise geographic data. Carriço et al. (2023) emphasise that GIS-based Planning
helps utilities allocate resources effectively during crises, ensuring that
vulnerable communities receive timely support. Capability enhances the
resilience of water systems, making them better equipped to handle
environmental and social challenges.
Asset management is another area where GIS excels. Utilities can use GIS to monitor the condition of infrastructure, schedule maintenance, and optimise resource allocation. By integrating GIS with real-time sensor data, utilities gain a comprehensive view of network performance, enabling them to address issues before they escalate (Carriço et al., 2023). A proactive approach reduces operational costs and extends the lifespan of water assets.
6.3
AI-Powered Billing
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
has transformed billing processes in the water sector, streamlining operations
and improving revenue collection. AI-powered billing systems use machine
learning algorithms to analyse consumption patterns, detect irregularities, and
automate invoice generation (Dada et al., 2024). These systems reduce
administrative overhead and ensure that Billing is accurate and timely,
benefiting both utilities and customers.
One of the key advantages of
AI-powered Billing is its ability to identify anomalies, such as unusually high
consumption or potential fraud. By continuously learning from historical
data, AI systems refine their accuracy over time, enabling utilities to address
issues proactively (Dada et al., 2024). Capability not only reduces revenue
losses but also enhances accountability, as customers can trust that their
bills reflect actual usage.
AI-powered Billing also supports affordability by enabling utilities to implement tiered pricing structures based on consumption patterns. Dada et al. (2024) note that AI systems can analyse data to design pricing models that incentivise conservation while ensuring that essential water usage remains affordable for low-income households. However, the deployment of AI in Billing requires strong oversight mechanisms to prevent biases and ensure fairness.
6.4
Mobile
Citizen Engagement
Mobile citizen engagement
platforms have revolutionised how utilities interact with the public,
transforming citizens into active participants in water governance. These
platforms, accessible via smartphones, allow users to report issues such as
leaks, outages, or suspected corruption in real time (Daniel et al., 2023).
By providing a direct communication channel, mobile apps foster transparency
and responsiveness, ensuring that utilities address problems promptly.
Mobile platforms also enable
utilities to gather feedback on service performance and customer satisfaction.
Interactive dashboards and surveys allow citizens to share their experiences,
helping utilities identify areas for improvement (Dada et al., 2024). Real-time
feedback loop strengthens trust between utilities and communities, as citizens
feel empowered to influence decision-making processes.
Geospatial analytics further
enhance mobile citizen engagement. Apps can use GPS data to locate reported
issues and integrate this information with GIS maps, creating a comprehensive
picture of network performance (Carriço et al., 2023). Integration enables
utilities to prioritise interventions based on geographic patterns. Decision-makers
allocate resources efficiently.
Mobile platforms also serve as educational tools, providing users with water-saving tips, service updates, and alerts about potential disruptions. Dada et al. (2024) highlight that these features promote sustainable practices and keep citizens informed about local water management activities. By fostering a culture of shared responsibility, mobile engagement platforms contribute to the democratisation of water governance.
Digital technologies such as
smart metering, GIS, AI-powered Billing, and mobile citizen engagement have
transformed water governance into a more efficient, transparent, and
participatory process. These tools enable utilities to monitor consumption,
optimise resource allocation, and engage with citizens in meaningful ways.
However, their implementation requires robust data governance frameworks and
ethical oversight to ensure that technological advancements benefit the public
without compromising privacy or equity. As utilities continue to integrate
digital tools into their operations, they pave the way for a future where water
governance is not only more innovative but also more inclusive and sustainable.
7
Beyond
Governance – The Culture of Care
Water governance must transcend technical systems and regulatory frameworks to embrace a culture of care that prioritises stewardship, shared responsibility, and solidarity. A cultural shift reimagines water as a shared resource; People no longer treat water as a commodity to control but as a sacred commons that sustains life, culture, and ecosystems. By embedding care into governance practices, communities can foster long-term sustainability, equity, and resilience. The chapter explores three key dimensions of the culture of care: stewardship over extraction, responsibility and inclusion, and solidarity and co-governance.
7.1
Stewardship Over Extraction
Stewardship over extraction
challenges the conventional approach to water governance, which often prioritises
control and exploitation. Instead, stewardship emphasises care, respect, and
the sustainable use of water resources. Shift requires rethinking water as a
sacred commons rather than a commercial product. Schmidt (2023) argues that
stewardship-based governance integrates ethical and cultural values into
decision-making. Stewards manage water in ways that honour its intrinsic worth.
Education plays a critical
role in fostering a stewardship ethos. Schools, community workshops, and
public campaigns can teach the importance of water conservation and its
cultural significance. Singh (2008) highlights that integrating traditional
ecological knowledge into modern education systems helps communities reconnect
with water as a living entity. For example, Indigenous practices often view
water as a spiritual force, emphasising reciprocal care rather than extraction.
By incorporating these perspectives, governance frameworks can promote a more
profound sense of responsibility and respect for water.
Rituals and public
ceremonies also reinforce the cultural dimensions of stewardship. Samakov and
Berkes (2017) note that community-led rituals celebrating water create
emotional and ethical connections that inspire sustainable practices. These
cultural expressions remind society that water is not merely a resource but a
shared heritage that demands protection. For instance, annual river-cleaning
festivals in India combine environmental action with cultural celebration,
fostering a collective commitment to stewardship.
Stewardship over extraction also requires institutional reforms that prioritise conservation over profit. Public utilities must adopt policies that incentivise sustainable water use and penalise over-extraction. Dahake (2018) emphasises that governance structures should align with long-term ecological goals, ensuring that water systems remain resilient for future generations. By shifting from a dominion-based model to one rooted in care, institutions can prevent the degradation of water resources and promote equitable access.
7.2
Responsibility and Inclusion
Responsibility and inclusion
are central to the culture of care, as they ensure that all stakeholders share
the duty of protecting water resources. Schmidt (2023) argues that shifting
from a mindset of ownership to one of collective responsibility fosters
long-term commitment to sustainability. The approach recognises that water
governance is not the sole responsibility of public officials but a shared
endeavour that involves private users, civil society, and marginalised
communities.
Inclusive governance
structures are essential for amplifying the voices of those historically
excluded from decision-making processes. Wilson et al. (2019) highlight that
Indigenous peoples, rural populations, and low-income communities often face
systemic barriers to water access. By creating participatory platforms such
as community advisory boards and public forums, Governance systems amplify
these voices to ensure they are heard. For example, participatory budgeting
initiatives in Brazil have empowered marginalised communities to influence
water infrastructure investments, addressing inequities in service delivery.
Responsibility and inclusion
also demand that governance frameworks integrate diverse perspectives and local
knowledge. Verschuur (n.d.) notes that Indigenous practices often offer
valuable insights into sustainable water management, emphasising harmony with
nature and communal care. Incorporating these practices into formal
governance systems enriches decision-making and fosters cultural sensitivity.
For instance, New Zealand’s recognition of the Whanganui River as a legal
person reflects Indigenous values and establishes a framework for shared
responsibility.
Shifting to collective responsibility requires public education campaigns that emphasise the interconnectedness of water systems and community well-being. Singh (2008) argues that teaching citizens about their role in water stewardship fosters a sense of ownership and accountability. These campaigns can include workshops, social media initiatives, and school programs that highlight the importance of conservation and equitable access. When communities understand their shared responsibility, they are more likely to adopt sustainable practices and support inclusive policies.
7.3
Solidarity and Co-Governance
Solidarity and co-governance
are foundational to the culture of care, as they break down silos between
government, citizens, and technical experts. Co-governance models prioritise
collaboration, enabling communities to self-organise, monitor systems, and
co-deliver services. Schmidt (2023) argues that solidarity-based governance
fosters trust and resilience. Communities manage water systems collectively
rather than hierarchically. Co-governance structures create platforms for
shared decision-making, where all stakeholders contribute to policy formulation
and implementation. Wilson et al. (2020) highlight that these models
democratise water governance, empowering communities to take an active role in
stewardship. For example, co-management committees in Canada bring together
Indigenous leaders, government officials, and environmental experts to oversee
water resources collaboratively. Approach ensures that policies reflect diverse
perspectives and address local needs.
Solidarity also strengthens
accountability by promoting transparency and mutual trust. Singh (2008) notes
that collaborative monitoring systems, such as citizen-led audits, ensure that
governance practices remain responsive to public concerns. These systems
create feedback loops that enable continuous improvement, fostering a culture
of care that prioritises both technical efficiency and ethical responsibility.
For instance, community-based water monitoring programs in Kenya have
improved service delivery while building trust between utilities and residents.
Breaking down silos requires
institutional reforms that embed care into governance practices. Samakov and
Berkes (2017) argue that public agencies must adopt values-driven policies that
emphasise relational responsibility and long-term well-being. Includes creating
mechanisms for regular dialogue, such as town hall meetings and stakeholder
workshops, where communities can voice their concerns and contribute to
decision-making. By institutionalising solidarity, governance systems become
more inclusive, adaptive, and resilient.
Solidarity and co-governance also promote social cohesion by aligning individual interests with collective goals. Verschuur (n.d.) notes that when communities work together to manage water resources, they build stronger relationships and foster a sense of shared purpose. Collaborative initiatives, such as joint water conservation projects, demonstrate that solidarity is not just a moral value but a practical strategy for achieving sustainability. These efforts transform water governance into a communal endeavour that reflects the interconnectedness of people and ecosystems.
The culture of care
redefines water governance by emphasising stewardship, shared responsibility,
and solidarity. By treating water as a sacred commons, communities can move
beyond extraction-based models to embrace sustainable and inclusive practices.
Education, rituals, and institutional reforms play a critical role in
fostering stewardship; Communities manage water with respect and care.
Responsibility and inclusion amplify marginalised voices, creating governance
systems that reflect diverse perspectives and promote equity. Solidarity and
co-governance break down silos, enabling collaborative decision-making and
fostering trust. Together, these dimensions of the culture of care provide a
blueprint for water governance that is ethical, resilient, and deeply connected
to the values of justice and sustainability.
8
Final Reflection: The Flow Is Ours to Shape
The journey of reclaiming water systems from privatisation marks a significant milestone, but ownership alone is insufficient to achieve true transformation. Winning back control of water systems is merely the first step in a broader process that demands deep reform, cultural shifts, and grassroots engagement. Reflection emphasises the need for justice, equity, and community-centred governance to ensure that Authorities manage water systems sustainably and inclusively.
8.1
Ownership Alone Is Not Enough
Reclaiming water systems
from privatisation is a critical achievement, but it does not guarantee
equitable or sustainable governance. Governments must accompany ownership with
structural changes that address the
root causes of mismanagement and inequity. Schmidt (2023) argues that public
ownership, while necessary, can fall short if institutions fail to prioritise
transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. Without these principles, public
systems risk replicating the inefficiencies and injustices of privatised
models.
The transition from private
to public ownership provides an opportunity to redefine water governance as a
collective responsibility rather than a profit-driven enterprise. Linton
(2013) highlights that ownership must be paired with ethical stewardship to
ensure that water systems serve the public good. Requires a shift in focus from
financial returns to community trust and ecological sustainability. For
example, remunicipalized utilities in Paris have reinvested surpluses into
social programs, demonstrating that ownership can be a catalyst for
equity-driven reforms.
8.2
Deep Reform Is Essential
Winning back water systems
is only the beginning; deep reform is essential to align laws, institutions,
and infrastructure with justice and equity. Schmidt (2023) emphasises that
legal frameworks must enshrine water as a human right, ensuring universal
access and protecting marginalised communities. Requires revising outdated
policies that prioritise economic efficiency over social and environmental
well-being.
Institutional reform is
equally critical. Public utilities must adopt governance models that emphasise
participatory decision-making and accountability. Wilson et al. (2019) argue
that Leaders must restructure institutions to include diverse voices,
particularly those of Indigenous peoples and low-income communities. For
example, participatory budgeting initiatives in Brazil have empowered marginalised
groups to influence water infrastructure investments, addressing historical
inequities.
Infrastructure investments must also reflect principles of sustainability and equity. Dahake (2018) highlights that lifecycle costing models, which account for both capital and operational expenditures, can ensure that water systems are financially viable and environmentally resilient. Green infrastructure solutions, such as rainwater harvesting and wetlands restoration, further enhance ecological sustainability while addressing community needs.
8.3
Governance Is Cultural
Real transformation in water
governance requires shifts in consciousness, trust, and daily practice—not just
technical fixes. Schmidt (2023) argues that governance is inherently
cultural, as it reflects the values, beliefs, and relationships that shape how
communities interact with water. Technical solutions, while important, cannot
address the deeper cultural dimensions of water governance.
Building trust is central to
cultural transformation. Linton (2013) highlights that trust is nurtured
through transparency, inclusivity, and shared accountability. Public
institutions must engage communities in meaningful dialogue, ensuring that governance
practices reflect local values and priorities. For example, community-led
water monitoring programs in Kenya have strengthened trust between utilities
and residents, fostering a culture of care and mutual responsibility.
Daily practices also play a critical role in cultural transformation. Samakov and Berkes (2017) note that rituals, storytelling, and public campaigns can reinforce water’s cultural significance, inspiring sustainable behaviours. For instance, annual river-cleaning festivals in India combine environmental action with cultural celebration, fostering a collective commitment to stewardship. These practices remind communities that water is not merely a resource but a shared heritage that demands care and respect.
8.4
The Community Is Central
Sustainable water governance
begins at the grassroots, as communities are the primary stewards of water
resources. Schmidt (2023) emphasises that top-down approaches often fail to
address local needs and priorities, making grassroots engagement essential for
effective governance. Communities possess valuable knowledge and insights that
can inform policies and practices, ensuring that Stakeholders manage water
systems inclusively and sustainably. Grassroots initiatives empower communities
to take an active role in water governance. Wilson et al. (2019) highlight
that participatory platforms, such as community advisory boards and
co-management committees, enable citizens to influence decision-making
processes. For example, Indigenous-led water governance models in Canada have
demonstrated the effectiveness of grassroots engagement in protecting water
resources and promoting equity.
Community-centred governance also fosters resilience by building social cohesion and trust. Verschuur (n.d.) notes that when communities work together to manage water resources, they create networks of care and mutual support. Collaborative initiatives, such as joint water conservation projects, demonstrate that grassroots engagement is not just a moral value but a practical strategy for achieving sustainability.
The flow of water is ours to
shape, but true transformation requires more than reclaiming ownership. Deep
reform is essential to align laws, institutions, and infrastructure with
justice and equity. Governance must embrace cultural dimensions, fostering
trust, consciousness, and sustainable practices. Above all, communities must
be at the centre of water governance, as grassroots engagement is the
foundation of resilience and inclusivity. By integrating these principles, we
can ensure that water systems are managed not as commodities but as sacred
commons that sustain life, culture, and ecosystems.
Reference
Bosch, C., & Gupta, J.
(2022). Water governance: Challenges and opportunities. Springer.
Britton, T., Smith, R.,
& Allen, L. (2013). Advanced leak detection in water networks. Water
Research Institute.
Carriço, A., Almeida, J.,
& Pinto, L. (2023). GIS-based Planning for Resilient Water Systems.
Journal of Water Infrastructure Planning, 15(2), 101–119.
Casalino, N., Nicolò, D.,
& Esposito, M. (2013). Transparency in public water systems: Lessons
from global case studies. Journal of Public Administration and Policy,
8(3), 233–245.
Cisneros, B. (2019). Public-public
partnerships: A solidarity-driven alternative. Water Alternatives, 12(1),
55–68.
Dada, A., Yusuf, T., &
Bello, M. (2024). AI-powered Billing and citizen engagement in water
governance. International Journal of Smart Governance, 10(1), 47–63.
Dahake, A. (2018). Sustainable
water governance: Aligning policies with ecological goals. Ecological
Governance Review, 9(2), 76–89.
Dahake, R. (2018). Sustainable
water systems: Lifecycle costing and green infrastructure. Environmental
Systems Management, 6(1), 45–58.
Daniel, J., Rahman, F.,
& Malik, S. (2023). Mobile platforms for participatory water management.
Smart Cities Journal, 11(4), 202–219.
Feldman, D. (2011). Water
justice: Equity in governance. MIT Press.
Linton, J. (2013). Trust
and transparency in water governance. Water International, 38(2), 182–195.
Nguyễn, T., Pham, H., &
Le, D. (2022). Smart metering and real-time water monitoring. Journal of
Environmental Innovation, 7(3), 145–159.
Samakov, A., & Berkes,
F. (2017). Participatory water governance: Lessons from global case studies.
Ecology and Society, 22(1), 33–44.
Samakov, A., & Berkes,
F. (2017). Rituals and community-led water stewardship. Water
International, 42(5), 615–632.
Schmidt, J. (2023). Ethics
of care in water governance. Water Policy Journal, 25(2), 99–115.
Schmidt, J. (2023). Transforming
water governance: Accountability and inclusion. Global Environmental
Politics, 23(1), 121–136.
Verschuur, R. (n.d.). Grassroots
engagement in water governance. Retrieved from
https://www.watergovernanceglobal.org/verschuur-grassroots
Wilson, E., Kumar, A., &
Torres, M. (2019). Equity and sustainability in public water systems.
Journal of Public Policy and Water Resources, 14(3), 289–308.
Wilson, E., Torres, M.,
& Kumar, A. (2020). Resilient water governance: Case studies from Cape
Town and Paris. Water Policy Perspectives, 16(4), 377–394.
Wilson, K., Ahmed, S., &
Tan, L. (2019). Participatory platforms for inclusive water management.
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(6), 887–903.
No comments:
Post a Comment