![Sample our Urban Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110826/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Urban-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
What are the planning challenges faced in addressing equity? This paper discusses the importance of understanding institutional and policy contexts affecting planners’ efforts to close water access gaps across communities in low and middle income countries. Three challenges combined complicate local governments action towards water access: decentralization of water policy, high levels of inequality and low levels of local capacity, what we call the ‘impossible triad.’ Our analysis of two programmes designed to address the needs of the most marginalized communities in Mexico shows that programme requirements still fail to consider local constraints. Prior to decentralization, policies designed to reduce water access inequality relied on national government provision of municipal water infrastructure. Decentralized water policies differ, presenting severe institutional challenges for even the most well intentioned planners. This paper emphasizes the importance of national-level government involvement in addressing national-level inequalities and calls for reconsideration of decentralized policymaking structures to address massive water access inequalities.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Alejandra Kisahí Ríos Mendiola and María Paz Avilez Pincheira for excellent research assistance. Special thanks to Kevin Morrison, Stacy Harwood, Inés Valdez, Mildred Warner, and Anne Bauer, who provided useful comments on earlier drafts of the paper. The author also acknowledges helpful reviewers' suggestions but bears full responsibility for the research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Correction Statement
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1 In this paper ‘water access’ or ‘piped water access’ are used interchangeably signifying that a household has a connection to the water network inside the dwelling.
2 I do not claim that my argument covers the entire set of current challenges, there are other factors that have important policy and planning implications for planning – such as the structure of the economy and migration, clientelism and political parties, insecurity, etc. but this article is focused on exploring the simultaneous effect of large inequalities, poorly designed decentralized water policy programs and low levels of local capacity.
3 For example, the Sustainable Development Goal 6 for water and sanitation, includes capacity building as one of its targets (United Nations Citation2015, 19, target 6a).
4 The current rules of operation and procedure of the programs remain consistent to the findings of this analysis, with the exception that the current rules have additional components related to monitoring of the projects post-construction. See for example: Diario Oficial (Citation2019). Reglas de Operación para el programa agua potable, drenaje y tratamiento a cargo de la Comisión Nacional del Agua. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 26 February 2019. And CONAGUA, 2018. Programa Agua Potable, Drenaje y Tratamiento, Apartado Rural.
5 Interviews with administrative officials included individuals who operate the programs reviewed in this article: National Water Commission (CONAGUA), Indigenous Development Commission (CDI), and the Secretariat for Social development (SEDESOL) at the federal level offices in Mexico City. Interviewees also included individuals at the state level office and with local officials in Oaxaca state. Providing more information about the state and local officials would reveal identifying information.
6 Names of localities are left out for purposes of anonymity.
7 Collado (Citation2008) refers to this as the transformation from a developmental state to an administrative state.
8 Tariffs for water services have therefore been increasing, but increases have varied across cities and municipalities (CONAGUA Citation2008, 2009, 2010).
9 However, less than 1 percent of organismos operadores de agua (water operating bodies) are constituted as for-profit water companies (INEGI Citation2014, 14); 9 percent are constituted as civil society organizations and the remaining 89% are public service entities.
10 For example, the 2003 program’s rules of operation state that municipal governments that do not contribute their share in projects will not receive federal resources (see Diario Oficial Citation2003).
11 It is important to note that not all water projects under APARURAL constitute building piped water systems; rather there is a variety of projects. For example, of all projects in 2013, 11 percent were just digging deep wells (of 250 meters or more), CONAGUA Citation2010.
12 Appendix 2 lists major programs in Latin America addressing water needs of rural and marginalized communities, similar to the ones discussed in this paper.
13 The National Commission for Population, CONAPO, classifies municipalities by levels of social marginalization based on multiple socio-economic indicators, including access to basic services and infrastructure, quality of housing units, and level of income and education.
14 In addition, the authorities must provide an analysis of the project’s social feasibility. The idea of this requirement is to make sure there are the adequate conditions for the water project in the town. For example, if the municipal authorities are requesting a piped network to connect households, it needs to provide information about the town infrastructure already installed, such as pipes from source to the feeding pipes, or pumps needed to reach certain areas, etc. This requirement also includes socio-economic characteristics of the population.
15 Some argue that the costs and technical knowhow that is required to make sure the system is functioning well are key aspects of a functioning water system (Lockwood and Smits Citation2011). Others argue that water systems often fail because their operation and maintenance cost are not affordable for the community (Whittington and Hanemann Citation2006) or the technology is not appropriate to the context (Brown, Neves-Silva, and Heller Citation2016); or projects do not have enough buy-in from the community (Flora Citation2004).
16 This was a request of the loan provider of the program (the Interamerican Development Bank) and financial resources were incorporated in the last phase of the loan to carry reviews of implemented projects. Phone interview with employee at CONAGUA, 30 July, 2013.
17 These offices are located in Jalapa, Veracruz; Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas; Cuernavaca, Morelos and Oaxaca City, Oaxaca. This information is based on the interview with an engineer working at CONAGUA Oaxaca, 7 August 2013.
18 Information from phone interview with engineer working at CONAGUA, Oaxaca office. 6 August 2013.
19 The cost is approximately or $1105 pesos, or US $100.00. Information provided by staff members of the Dirección de Calidad de Agua, Comisión Estatal de Agua, Oaxaca.
20 Phone interview with Engineers in charge of the Oaxaca State office of CONAGUA in Oaxaca. 6 August 2013.
21 In 1990 in Paraguay drinking water access in rural areas barely reached 23%; in 2000 reached 51.6% and in 2015 increased to 94.9% (World Bank Data). Paraguay is one of the global leaders that reached the rural water access MDG.
22 In the case of indigenous communities, the program includes a review of the best practices of water service infrastructure to make sure the intended projects respond to the needs of the communities.