Water governance in cities - WATEC
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•1,114 vistas
Presentation made at the WATEC confernce in Tel Aviv, Israel on 13-15 October 2015 by Aziza Akhmouch, Water Governance Initiative Project Manager, Regional Development Policy, OECD. www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/watergovernanceprogramme.htm
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (12)
Destacado
Destacado (17)
Similar a Water governance in cities - WATEC
Similar a Water governance in cities - WATEC (20)
Más de OECD Governance
Más de OECD Governance (20)
Último
Último (20)
Water governance in cities - WATEC
- 1. WATER GOVERNANCE IN CITIES: AN OECD SURVEY Aziza AKHMOUCH, PhD & Oriana ROMANO, PhD OECD Water Governance Programme WATEC Conference, 14 October 2015 Preliminary Results of a Report to be published on 1 December 2015
- 2. Analytical Framework Is urban water governance fit for the future?
- 3. Keywords associated with "water management in cities” (48 respondents/water departments, top 5 ranking out of 65 words) Source : OECD, 2015 forthcoming, Water Governance in OECD Cities, OECD Publishing, Paris
- 4. Ageing infrastructure: a challenge for cities in OECD & BRICS Water- related factors changing urban water governance 92% 83% 37% 77% 63% 77% Share of wastewater treatment (% of wastewater produced by the city that is collected and treated to at least a basic/primary level) Source : OECD, 2015 forthcoming, Water Governance in OECD Cities, OECD Publishing, Paris Share of water loss ( as % of net water production)
- 5. Average number of water utilities’ employees per 1000 connections Figure 29 Average number of water utilities’ employees per 1000 connections Note: In the case of unbundled services the average of employees and connection for each service has been calculated. Source: OECD Survey on Water Governance for Future Cities, 2014
- 6. Average price of water per household (USD value in constant prices, constant PPP)
- 7. An overview of water service management in cities * Note: Based on answers from 48 cities for drinking water supply and 45 in the case of sewage collection and waste water treatment. Source: OECD Survey on Water Governance for Future Cities, 204 Number of service providers in surveyed cities by water functions * Bundled services Unbundled services 62.50% 37.50%
- 8. Multi-level governance gaps 23% 23% 27% 31% 44% 46% 46% 48% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Lack of publicly available data on drinking water quality Lack of accounting control through regular financial audits Lack of competitive procurement processes Weak judicial system for conflict resolution Lack of benchmarking for service providers’ performance Lack of publicly available data on economic and financial performance Limited monitoring / evaluation guiding decision-making Weak stakeholder engagement Limited information sharing across local authorities Multi-level governance gaps Administrative gap Policy gap Objective gap Capacity gap Funding gap Information gap Accountability gap Perceived transparency and accountability challenges to urban water management Source : OECD, 2015 forthcoming, Water Governance in OECD Cities.
- 9. OECD Principles on Water Governance A shared responsibility across levels of government
- 10. A Framework for improving urban water governance Stakeholder engagement To secure the willingness to pay, accountability and policies buy-in Rural-urban partnership For coherent policies on water, land use, spatial planning , nature conservation, etc. Metropolitan governance Opportunity to pool resources and capacity at a critical scale for effective water management Vertical and horizontal coordination Policy complementarities 3Ps Policy Places People
- 11. Water function Water strategies Drinking water • Promoting water supply from unconventional sources (Barcelona) • Favouring collaboration studies to increase water resources availability (Malaga), • Securing supply of drinking water through cooperation between communities (Nantes) • Joint research for water consumption reduction (Naples) • Long-range strategies for sustainable water supply management (Phoenix) Sewage collection • Rehabilitation of urban and metropolitan sewers (Acapulco) • Long range plans for infrastructure upgrades, rehabilitation and maintenance (Calgary) • Impact assessment of strategic and local developments on water quality (Hong Kong) • Urban planning and collaboration (Prague) Wastewater • Environmentally friendly strategies for wastewater treatment (Marseille) • Energy efficiency strategies (Milan) • Rural neighbourhoods strategy (Zaragoza) Drainage • Use of partnership approach (Liverpool) • Studies to optimize stormwater drainage (Malaga) • Green infrastructure ( New York City) Water security • Flooding alarm system for the public (Acapulco) • Resilience study against extreme events in the metropolitan area ( Barcelona) • Environmental Recovering Program (Belo Horizonte) • Information services for citizens ( Cologne) • Water level sensor network in several rivers ( Rio d Janeiro) • Strategic plan to construct 52 flood management capital projects ( San Luis Potosi) Forward looking/adaptive strategies to manage water risks
Notas del editor
- Respondents to the Survey were the primary authorities managing water in the city, which, depending on countries could be municipal or metropolitan departments, regional authorities, service providers, deconcentrated bodies at the local level. When asked to associate the top 5 words, over a choice of 65, with water management in cities, respondents gave a high relevance to “infrastructure”, but also to efficiency, customers, investment and accountability. For OECD countries as a whole, investment requirements in the water supply and treatment sector are expected to increase by almost 50% by 2030 (OECD, 2007). Empirical research shows that heavy investment in water efficiency could boost overall GDP and create jobs and that adequate water and sanitation services appear to be a key driver for economic growth (Hammer et al. 2011). A range of innovative options can increase efficiency and save costs, from sophisticated IT tools for monitoring water service operations to energy costs minimisation for wastewater treatment.
- Almost all surveyed cities (92%) signalled ageing/ obsolete/ lacking infrastructure as a major driver to urban water governance. Cities in OECD countries usually have adequate infrastructures to supply the water they need, collect and treat wastewater, protect them from floods and heavy rains, and alleviate the effects of drought. Generally in the OECD area the share of wastewater treated at the least the primary level is close to 100% since the nineties. In European cities this is a consequence of the requirements of the Directive concerning urban waste water treatment. Mexican cities (e.g. Veracruz, Toluca, Chihuahua and Acapulco) are those lagging behind, with serious consequences on water quality. When looking at the size, the average of wastewater treated in surveyed cities below 1.5 inhabitants is below 90%, while it is higher in bigger cities. However a number of OECD countries built their water networks decades ago and now face inefficiencies and leakages, while some OECD countries with relatively low GDP per capita are still in the phase of infrastructure development, requiring investment of the order of 1% of GDP (OECD, 2012a). Half of the cities surveyed have water losses greater than 20%. In a few cities, water losses can be greater than 40% (Chihuahua, Mexico City, San Luis Potosi) and 60% (Tuxla). In less developed countries, unauthorised consumption, poor connections and metering inaccuracies contribute to wasting water (Farley 2001). Hence improving the information system, flow monitoring and the use of performance indicators can reduce inefficiencies and avoid environmental and financial costs. Some cities in the sample have reduced water losses since the 1990s (Cologne, Grenoble, Kitakyushu, Lisbon, Liverpool, Montreal, Naples, Oslo, Prague, Rome, Stockholm and Zaragoza). Reductions in water losses are due to infrastructure renewal, such as rehabilitation of the pipeline network and pressure management controls. While it is technically possible to further reduce the loss percentage, it is not currently economical (Beal et al., 2012). However, where demand for water increases and future supply potentially decreases with climate change, the future value of water will increase, and further improvement of infrastructure efficiency will become cost-effective (Karaca et al., 2014). Increased efficiency in O&M of existing assets can be a cost-efficient way of improving water security and services. Urban utilities in developed countries increasingly rely on computer tools, inspection robots and geographical information systems (GIS) to gain a precise knowledge of the state and performance of their assets, particularly those buried underground. This knowledge allows them to better phase their maintenance and renewal investments to improve system reliability (especially by repairing damaged pipes). Innovative tools help enlarge the scale and scope of infrastructure monitoring, and extend the time horizon for asset management. Funding gap: Underinvestment jeopardises the efficiency of urban water infrastructures in some OECD cities, thus compromising the capacity of institutions to deliver expected outcomes. Key water-related challenges concern their capacity to implement innovative business models that can help “do better with less”, put in place efficient governance structures for water utilities (i.e. multi- sectoral utilities, local public enterprises, etc.) and make the most of innovative sources of finance (municipal bonds, private equity, long-term institutional investment) for renewing aging infrastructure. OECD governments and cities are struggling to design tariff structures promoting wise water use while ensuring service providers’ financial sustainability. The OECD (2010a) has shown that few OECD countries reflect water scarcity in their water prices – which instead reflect (at best) the long-term marginal costs of providing WSS services. Financing strategies for urban water management in OECD countries combine four elements. First, they minimise operating costs and investment needs through targeted maintenance, efficiency gains (e.g. from amalgamating water services at the right scale), or using low-cost water resources. Second, robust financing strategies explore tariff structures that contribute to water resource management (particularly water conservation) and the financial sustainability of water services. Third, revenue streams for water management can be more diverse when cities consider new fiscal instruments (e.g. taxes on land or impervious surfaces), or when utilities develop new services. Finally, cities can tap into new sources of capital. The private sector, including financiers, property developers and small entrepreneurs, is gaining experience in financing discrete facilities (desalination or wastewater treatment plants, distributed infrastructures) at different scales. Public utilities, for their part, recycle some of the capital tied up in water infrastructures to generate cash for use in new projects. National and local governments need to explore innovative ways to jumpstart and leverage private investment where required. Innovation around these issues abounds in cities, but some institutional barriers – including the preference for incumbent technologies and cheap water (which fails to recognise negative externalities, such as poor maintenance or degraded performance of water services), as well as political interference (e.g. service micromanagement, sub-optimal and unstable pricing policy, and biased or incomplete definition of performance for water services) – need to be overcome in order to diffuse it more systematically.
- In the majority of cases only one service provider operate within the cities’ administrative boundaries for what regards drinking water supply, sewage collection and wastewater treatment. When zooming into water functions, there tends to be overall a greater number of service providers in the case of wastewater treatment Amongst the surveyed cities which provided data concerning the service provider operating in drinking water supply, sewage collection and wastewater treatment, the highest number of service providers for drinking water and sanitation services are accounted in the Chinese cities with 15 in Suzhou and 22 in Zibo. Drinking water supply, sewage collection and wastewater treatment services are bundled within the same service provider in 62.5% of surveyed cities. While large municipal system can improve a water system’s ability to finance needed investments and at the same time increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness, on the other hand, examples from megacities show the risk of diseconomies of scale since high costs are attached to water transport and network maintenance. In most cases, the “right” scale is different for drinking and not potable water and require unbundled water services, which best fit the purpose, while making the best use of scale and scope effects (OECD 2009). The question of the appropriate operational scale depends on context, and there is not a unique solution. Amalgamating urban water management Non-technical options exist to minimise costs. Many OECD countries have aggregated (or are considering aggregating) small utilities to generate economies of scale and make the best use of large infrastructures. Heavy investment costs and the phasing out of government subsidies have prompted local utilities to concentrate part or all of the tasks related to the provision and delivery of WSS services at upper levels of government (OECD, 2013a;). In New Zealand, the amalgamation of several councils gave the Auckland Council the necessary scale to tackle issues that were previously beyond the capacity of individual councils. Since amalgamation, the Council has been able to accelerate the modernisation of the region’s antiquated wastewater treatment systems, substantially upgrade its two key wastewater treatment plants and progress the NZL 950 million (New Zealand dollar) “central interceptor” project that will reduce overflows from the combined waste and stormwater system of the Auckland isthmus. In Korea, cities in the Gyeongnam province achieved cost efficiency by amalgamating urban water services. The economic and financial crisis has provided many governments with an opportunity to step up municipal re-organisation, with the goal of rationalising and pooling resources to increase the efficiency of local public action. In parallel to these territorial reforms, a number of OECD countries are also experiencing deep reforms aiming to consolidate and corporatise water operators. Italy numbered 3 704 water service operators and 4 278 wastewater service operators (Marques, 2010) before the 1994 and 2006 reforms. Since then, consolidation has taken place. Some 2 000 operators were active in the water sector in 2014, and their number is further expected to shrink to 91.
- The OECD recently adopted 12 Principles on Water Governance to reap the economic, social and environmental benefits of good water governance. These Principles apply to all levels of government, and regardless of water management functions, water uses, and ownership models. They are clustered around three categories: Effectiveness of water governance relates to the contribution of governance to define clear sustainable water policy goals and targets at different levels of government, to implement those policy goals, and to meet expected objectives or targets. Efficiency of water governance relates to the contribution of governance to maximise the benefits of sustainable water management and welfare at the least cost to society. Trust and Engagement, in water governance relate to the contribution of governance to building public confidence and ensuring inclusiveness of stakeholders through democratic legitimacy and fairness for society at large. The OECD argues that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to water challenges, but rather a large diversity of situations within and across countries. Governance responses should therefore be adapted to territorial specificities, and recognise that governance is highly context-dependent and it is important to fit water policies to places. Also water governance is not a static concept but needs to adapt to changing circumstances and levels of risk. An adaptive governance implies flexibility across time. Developments in water management take place at different timescales than political behaviour or social perception. Therefore, it is important to put in place flexible water governance frameworks so that future generations do not inherit poor decision making and policy/project implementation. A range of technical solutions exist to deal with water risks, but also non -technical solutions, based on coordination across governmental and non-governmental actors, policy complementarities and improved information system, among others, can help pooling resources, enhance knowledge and raise awareness.
- Policy responses under the framework of the 3 Ps: Policy, place, people . Local governments are dealing with interconnected sectors and policies: spatial planning can increase water security, building codes can save water, proper waste management can reduce water pollution and so on. Policy coherence is crucial, resources are scarce and there is the need for coordination. Cities are not on their own when it comes to water, they depend on the surrounding environments (rural and watersheds) that sustain them. But the way water is used for different purposes and in neighbouring places affects the availability and the quality of water. Hence a greater coordination across places (urban areas and their hinterlands) would enable a more efficient use of the resources. In some OECD countries are already in place Rural- urban partnerships. These are seen as win-win-win solutions, benefiting cities, upstream and downstream communities and ecosystems. Metropolitan governance is consistently used in OECD cities and help enhancing information sharing and costs saving for projects on water, integrating plans, policy making, strategy setting and implementing innovative forms of service provision across municipalities (i.e. multi-sectoral utilities, local public enterprises). Cities are the tier of government nearest to people, the place where “people matter” and so do their needs. Building on this, cities should foster stakeholder engagement. People demand for it and raise their voices: engaging stakeholders can help build consensus for any new water tariffs or water sharing regimes, and can raise awareness on current and future water risks as the recent OECD report “Stakeholder Engagement for Inclusive Water Governance” pointed out. Principles for effective stakeholder engagement in water-related decision-making: Efficiency and effectiveness: regularly assess the process and outcomes of stakeholder engagement, and learn, adjust and improve accordingly. The city needs to ensure that the inputs from stakeholder engagement are taken into account and that the outcomes are regularly assessed with a view to improving the decision-making process.
- Drinking water supply: strategies varies from reducing energy consumption, promoting water supply from unconventional sources (Barcelona), implement water demand strategies (Calgary), enhancing public education on water Urban planning (Hong Kong), favouring collaboration studies to increase water resources availability (Malaga), securing supply of drinking water through cooperation between communities (Nantes), joint research for water consumption reduction (Naples), long-range strategies for sustainable water supply management that focus both on adequacy and resiliency (Phoenix); Sewage collection: rehabilitation of urban and metropolitan sewers (Acapulco), long range plans that include infrastructure upgrades, and rehabilitation and maintenance (Calgary); enforcing relevant legislation, ensuring the provision of an adequate sewage infrastructure; assessing the possible impact of strategic and local developments on water quality and requiring this to be taken into account in development plans (Hong Kong), urban planning and collaboration (Prague); Wastewater treatment: long range plans that include infrastructure upgrades and rehabilitation and maintenance (Calgary), environmentally friendly strategies concerning wastewater treatment such as use of reclaimed water, installation of greening sewage treatment facilities, odour abatement and use of renewable energies (Marseille), energy efficiency strategies (Milan), revisions of regulation and planning to improve ecosystem health (Phoenix), rural neighbourhoods strategy (Zaragoza); Drainage: assessment of the drainage situation (Hong Kong), use of partnership approach (Liverpool), studies to optimize stormwater drainage (Malaga), improving water quality that integrates “green infrastructure,” such as rain gardens and green roofs, with investments to optimize the existing system and to build targeted, cost-effective “grey” or traditional infrastructure( New York City); Water security: Participating on the development of a flooding alarm system for the public (Acapulco), resilience study against extreme events in the metropolitan area ( Barcelona), Environmental Recovering Program; deployment of parks and green areas, drought management plan (Belo Horizonte), information services for citizens ( Cologne), initiatives to strengthen resilience and preparedness against uncertainties and challenges ( Hong Kong); expert group to work on city drainage system analysis and flood prevention (Malaga), implementation of more robust design standard, and harden pumping stations and wastewater treatment plants through capital projects ( new York City); deployment of a water level sensor network in several rivers ( Rio d Janeiro); strategic plan to construct 52 flood management capital projects inside and outside the city ( San Luis Potosi), flood and drought management (Zaragoza).