Developing capacity with developing policies.

“The only reason we are on track with water MDGs is because we are reaching for the ‘low-hanging fruit’ as the urban and peri-urban populations are easier to reach in terms of provision of water and sanitation. The rural population and the rural poor are more difficult to supply” – Dr. Mayfield

The notion of the “low-hanging fruit” presented by Dr. Mayfield helped confirm the greater relevance of my gradually developing MRP on globalization and its impact on development of water policies. Globalization has certainly helped facilitate increased progress on many fronts for improving water quality, access and attention to urban and peri-urban areas.[1] However, the fruits of globalization as discussed in this seminar were largely targeted at urban areas with easier potential for supply and development, marginalizing a whole section of the population who seem to be always left behind on the bandwagon to “development”- the rural poor.

Rural areas and water provision are the next big challenge because providing money and solutions to rural communities is much more difficult. This under investment coupled with increasing environmental targets eventually lead to the need to privatize the industry in order to generate sufficient additional funds.[2] The problem is that with law reforms pushing for increased private tenure and the predominant poorer status of rural communities, two phenomena are occurring:

1.  Laws become discriminatory as they increase class division by permitting those with capital to purchase land and water rights, further marginalizing the poor and certain communal traditions.
2. In many cases the private sector itself marginalizes rural communities given they yield less returns on investment due to predominantly poorer socio-economic conditions and distance from urban centers (where profit exists).

Brooks explains that “national and supranational strategies alone are not enough” anymore to deal with water scarcity and that “experience around the world proves that local management is essential to the sustainable exploitation of scarce water supplies” especially because local management permits a democratizing decentralization of decision and accountability.[3]

With a focus on local management, greater attention should be dedicated to capacity development. The Four Pillars approach developed by UNU-INWEH refers to the interdependency between the public sector, the community and community based organizations, the private sector and academic sector in capacity development. The emphasis is on the "capacity to educate and train, to measure and understand aquatic systems, to legislate and regulate and to provide appropriate, affordable water infrastructure". Perhaps with increased capacity building opportunities offered to individuals in local rural areas, the first step towards bridging the gap of privilege and accessibility is successfully taken. However, how far can this step go if policies implemented from above seem to have the tendency to reverse these progressive developments?

---

[1] Although some may argue it has also had negative implications with greater interference of international organizations in domestic affairs and a strong push for privatization- with criticism increasingly directed at the World Bank.

[2] http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/enviwat.pdf, p21.

[3] Brooks, David B. Water: Local-level Management. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2002, p6.