As seen in the title, this post is the continuation of the last one, which detailed the integrated water resource management (IWRM) approach in the Volta Basin. In this edition of water management strategies, I will be narrowing my scale down to Africa’s urban landscape. Firstly, it is widely known that Africa is urbanizing rapidly. With urbanization comes an increase in the urban population, whereby the World Bank predicted that there would be a 50% increase by 2050 (World Bank, 2015). Due to exponential urbanization rates, there have been
physical changes to the environment where these towns and cities are located. Consequently, this results in most places facing a crisis whereby their land’s carrying capacity is being exceeded. What this means is that the amount of natural resources needed to support the overgrowing population is possibly going to become insufficient, should nothing be done. Of these resources, water is one of the most contested supply due to its key function in both human survival and development. Hence, it is vital for urban areas to also have water management strategies so as to be able to strive towards sustainable development.
This brings me to introduce the urbanscape alternative of IWRM, also known as Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM). While similar in concept to the IWRM approach, IUWM is more specialized, in a sense that it only concerns one particular city and/or town undergoing urbanization, rather than a few riparian countries. According to Global Water Partnership’s policy brief (2013), IUWM necessitates the coalition of urban development and basin management to attain sustainable economic, social, and environmental milestones. It marries water resources, sanitation, storm- and waste-water management and incorporates these with land use planning and economic development. The approach combines water sector planning with other urban aspects (i.e. land, housing, energy, and transport) to ensure that the policies and/or decisions made are not repeated or fragmented across all sectors. Likewise, the approach also considers the urban informal sector and marginalized communities in their decision-making processes. Figure 1 highlights how an ideal IUWM would work.
Now that we know how the IUWM works, let us move on to how IUWM can be implemented in African cities, such as Nairobi in Kenya. Nairobi’s population has been growing rapidly since 1985. With this increase comes the increase in water demand, where in 2009, Nairobi underwent a water crisis that led to water being rationed in the city (Jacobsen et al., 2013). The other water resource related uncertainties which Nairobi faces can be attributed to decentralisation and climate change effects, which affects the demand and supply of water available. Because of this, IUWM’s adaptability is suitable for Nairobi thanks to its ability to deliver water security on a broader scale regarding potential water demand and supply circumstances. It could also help balance or pay-off heavy investments in conventional water resources as alternative options, like stormwater harvesting and greywater recycling*, are considered. The levels (household, cluster, city) as to which option is executed rely on policies dictated by the stakeholders’ judgments.
First, the measures available at household level include increasing household water efficiency. This is done through adding water saving devices as a requisite for building codes, providing household water audits, “awareness campaigns”, and “social marketing tools”. However, these strategies tend to be targeted towards the high- and middle- income households, meaning that those living in poverty are excluded. Hence, this is something stakeholders should account for, considering Nairobi is home to one of the largest slums in the world, where an estimated 22% of citizens live in poverty (WorldPopulationReview.com, 2018).
One way to include those living in poverty is to implement cluster level measures. Clusters are defined as “areas or communities that can function as units for development”. Cluster sizes can range from a small neighbourhood to a large estate or suburb. Not only are cluster level measures more inclusive, it is also more cost-effective and reliable in maintaining the water supply quality in terms of implementing solutions that work better at a bigger scale (i.e. stormwater management, greywater reuse, and leakage management). For example, seasonal stormwater harvesting can be improved by operating a cluster-level reservoir that provides storage for a couple months’ supply that would be significantly cheaper than storing at the singular household level. As espoused by Eckart et al. (2012, in Jacobsen et al., 2013), an approximate of 111000 cubic meters/day at a unit cost of US$0.37/cubic meter is a realistic outcome for the whole of Nairobi in 2035.
Due to the long-term nature of executing an IUWM approach, demonstration pilots are important in providing a testing ground to see what works for upcoming urban areas in Nairobi. A place nominated by Nairobi stakeholders in 2013 is Tatu City, which is a 5000-acre mixed-used development area with Special Economic Zone (SPZ) status . The water management strategies proposed for Tatu City was initially limited to just one cluster of up to 1000 dwellers, and to contain stormwater management and greywater reuse (especially for industrial uses). By condensing the water cycle into one system, ensuring the quality of water corresponds with its proposed use, and utilizing advanced skills to fully maximise the usage of wastewater, planners would be able to analyse the IUWM approach’s applicability to Tatu City and many similar urban zones in the future.
Demonstration pilots are also key in testing for the institutional capacity for initiating IUWM solutions in actual urban situations. This is because the demonstration pilot would present scenarios whereby authorities in the multiple private and public sectors would have to overcome together through collaborations, sometimes in non-traditional ways. Thus, underlining any sorts of misconceptions that may arise which can be fixed for future implementation after the demonstration period is “over”. An example of authorities from various institutions collaborating can be seen in changes in the building codes to encompass reusing of wastewater and rainwater harvesting machineries. State urban planners would have to work together with private building developers and the construction companies to ensure that new buildings are built with the codes in place, with no scrimping on the construction that would compromise the water management tools’ utility.
As Jacobsen et al. (2013) explains, the negotiations with stakeholders indicated that there was a “strong interest” in facilitating the implementation of alternative water resources in Nairobi. There was a positive response towards changing building codes to allow for rainwater harvesting and considering greywater and wastewater reuse. Additionally, there were no qualms towards executing a demonstration pilot project in a new development, like Tatu City, to test IUWM and ensure it would work on a bigger scale. Therefore, IUWM is another water management strategy that could be effectively implemented in African cities, considering the context in which they best work in, which is in newly developed areas. This is because of the massive amounts of both physical changes, in terms of a constructive sense, as well as mindset changes towards water management in general, that is required of state authorities seeking to employ an IUWM approach in their urban planning.
I end this post quoting Dr Mohamed Ait Kadi, the chair of the GWP technical committee:
physical changes to the environment where these towns and cities are located. Consequently, this results in most places facing a crisis whereby their land’s carrying capacity is being exceeded. What this means is that the amount of natural resources needed to support the overgrowing population is possibly going to become insufficient, should nothing be done. Of these resources, water is one of the most contested supply due to its key function in both human survival and development. Hence, it is vital for urban areas to also have water management strategies so as to be able to strive towards sustainable development.
This brings me to introduce the urbanscape alternative of IWRM, also known as Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM). While similar in concept to the IWRM approach, IUWM is more specialized, in a sense that it only concerns one particular city and/or town undergoing urbanization, rather than a few riparian countries. According to Global Water Partnership’s policy brief (2013), IUWM necessitates the coalition of urban development and basin management to attain sustainable economic, social, and environmental milestones. It marries water resources, sanitation, storm- and waste-water management and incorporates these with land use planning and economic development. The approach combines water sector planning with other urban aspects (i.e. land, housing, energy, and transport) to ensure that the policies and/or decisions made are not repeated or fragmented across all sectors. Likewise, the approach also considers the urban informal sector and marginalized communities in their decision-making processes. Figure 1 highlights how an ideal IUWM would work.
Figure 1: Diagram summary of IUWM’s organisational structure (source: GWP, 2013)
First, the measures available at household level include increasing household water efficiency. This is done through adding water saving devices as a requisite for building codes, providing household water audits, “awareness campaigns”, and “social marketing tools”. However, these strategies tend to be targeted towards the high- and middle- income households, meaning that those living in poverty are excluded. Hence, this is something stakeholders should account for, considering Nairobi is home to one of the largest slums in the world, where an estimated 22% of citizens live in poverty (WorldPopulationReview.com, 2018).
One way to include those living in poverty is to implement cluster level measures. Clusters are defined as “areas or communities that can function as units for development”. Cluster sizes can range from a small neighbourhood to a large estate or suburb. Not only are cluster level measures more inclusive, it is also more cost-effective and reliable in maintaining the water supply quality in terms of implementing solutions that work better at a bigger scale (i.e. stormwater management, greywater reuse, and leakage management). For example, seasonal stormwater harvesting can be improved by operating a cluster-level reservoir that provides storage for a couple months’ supply that would be significantly cheaper than storing at the singular household level. As espoused by Eckart et al. (2012, in Jacobsen et al., 2013), an approximate of 111000 cubic meters/day at a unit cost of US$0.37/cubic meter is a realistic outcome for the whole of Nairobi in 2035.
Due to the long-term nature of executing an IUWM approach, demonstration pilots are important in providing a testing ground to see what works for upcoming urban areas in Nairobi. A place nominated by Nairobi stakeholders in 2013 is Tatu City, which is a 5000-acre mixed-used development area with Special Economic Zone (SPZ) status . The water management strategies proposed for Tatu City was initially limited to just one cluster of up to 1000 dwellers, and to contain stormwater management and greywater reuse (especially for industrial uses). By condensing the water cycle into one system, ensuring the quality of water corresponds with its proposed use, and utilizing advanced skills to fully maximise the usage of wastewater, planners would be able to analyse the IUWM approach’s applicability to Tatu City and many similar urban zones in the future.
Demonstration pilots are also key in testing for the institutional capacity for initiating IUWM solutions in actual urban situations. This is because the demonstration pilot would present scenarios whereby authorities in the multiple private and public sectors would have to overcome together through collaborations, sometimes in non-traditional ways. Thus, underlining any sorts of misconceptions that may arise which can be fixed for future implementation after the demonstration period is “over”. An example of authorities from various institutions collaborating can be seen in changes in the building codes to encompass reusing of wastewater and rainwater harvesting machineries. State urban planners would have to work together with private building developers and the construction companies to ensure that new buildings are built with the codes in place, with no scrimping on the construction that would compromise the water management tools’ utility.
As Jacobsen et al. (2013) explains, the negotiations with stakeholders indicated that there was a “strong interest” in facilitating the implementation of alternative water resources in Nairobi. There was a positive response towards changing building codes to allow for rainwater harvesting and considering greywater and wastewater reuse. Additionally, there were no qualms towards executing a demonstration pilot project in a new development, like Tatu City, to test IUWM and ensure it would work on a bigger scale. Therefore, IUWM is another water management strategy that could be effectively implemented in African cities, considering the context in which they best work in, which is in newly developed areas. This is because of the massive amounts of both physical changes, in terms of a constructive sense, as well as mindset changes towards water management in general, that is required of state authorities seeking to employ an IUWM approach in their urban planning.
I end this post quoting Dr Mohamed Ait Kadi, the chair of the GWP technical committee:
“Urban water management is now on the verge of a revolution in response to rapidly escalating urban demands for water, as well as the need to make urban water systems more resilient to climate change.”
With the imminent climate change, it is imperative that more developing countries undergoing rapid urbanisation consider IUWM in their planning.
*Take note that stormwater and greywater serve as non-potable sources of water or to recharge groundwater! (Eckhart et al., 2012 in Jacobsen et al., 2013)
*Take note that stormwater and greywater serve as non-potable sources of water or to recharge groundwater! (Eckhart et al., 2012 in Jacobsen et al., 2013)
Comments
Post a Comment