MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01D674A9.187898E0"
Este documento es una página web de un solo archivo, también conocido como "archivo de almacenamiento web". Si está viendo este mensaje, su explorador o editor no admite archivos de almacenamiento web. Descargue un explorador que admita este tipo de archivos.
------=_NextPart_01D674A9.187898E0
Content-Location: file:///C:/268256B8/art8.htm
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Technical Note / Nota Técnica=
Multiple water governance
models: Ecuador as a case study
M=
últiples
modelos de gobernanza del agua: Ecuador como caso de estudio
Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnología, Universid=
ad
del Azuay, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Autor para la corresponde=
ncia. jpinos@uazuay.=
edu.ec
Fecha de recepción: 15 de mayo de 2020 - 29 de mayo de 2020 <=
/span>
ABSTRACT
Appropriate water management is
essential for healthy urban and rural metabolism. Unfortunately, many
challenges are associated with water governance, encompassing varying degre=
es
of cooperation and conflict. This technical note describes the multiple wat=
er
governance models in place in Ecuador such as public, private, community, a=
nd
partnerships; supported by literature, and discusses the efficiency level of
each model for drinking water supply and democratic citizen participation. =
The
analysis articulates how the heterogeneity of governance models across the
country respond to different socio-economic and environmental characteristi=
cs,
and how the distinctive models of water governance lead to vast differences=
in
how people understand and experience governance. The presentation and
qualitative case comparison of the existing water management models revealed
the transversal character of the problems affecting efficient water managem=
ent,
as well as the sector associated challenges and limitations. The note attem=
pts
to establish some insights about the conditions under which the various wat=
er
management models are suitable and effective. The manuscript concludes by
outlining several directions for future research.
Keywords<=
/u>:=
Water governance,
adaptive governance, water management, partnerships, communities, water sup=
ply.
RESUMEN
La gestión adecuada del agua es
esencial para un metabolismo urbano y rural saludable. Desafortunadamente,
muchos desafíos están asociados con la gobernanza del agua, a=
barcando
diversos grados de cooperación y conflicto. Esta nota técnica
describe diferentes modelos de gobernanza del agua que tienen lugar en Ecua=
dor
tales como público, privado, comunitario y asociaciones; apoyado por=
la
literatura, y discute el nivel de eficiencia de cada modelo para el suminis=
tro
de agua potable y la participación democrática de los ciudada=
nos.
El análisis articula cómo la heterogeneidad de los modelos de
gobernanza en todo el país responde a diferentes característi=
cas
socioeconómicas y ambientales, y cómo los distintivos modelos=
de
gobernanza del agua conducen a grandes diferencias en cómo las perso=
nas
entienden y experimentan la gobernanza. Además, la presentació=
;n y
la comparación cualitativa de casos de los modelos de gestión=
del
agua existentes; reveló el carácter transversal de los proble=
mas
que afectan la gestión eficiente del agua, así como los
desafíos y limitaciones asociados al sector. Esta nota intenta
establecer algunas ideas sobre las condiciones bajo las cuales los diversos=
modelos
de gestión del agua son adecuados y efectivos. El manuscrito concluye
delineando varias direcciones de futuras investigaciones.=
Palabras clave: Gobernanza del
agua, gobernanza adaptativa, gestión del agua, asociaciones,
comunidades, suministro de agua.
1. &nb=
sp; INTRODUCTION=
Urban and rural metabolisms are systems that are susta=
ined
by the constant circulation of materials and energy, where life would be
impossible without the uninterrupted flow of water (Kennedy, Cuddihy, & Engel-Yan, 2007). Consequently, t=
he
sustainable development of cities is strongly linked to the governance of
water. Water governance is the social function that regulates the developme=
nt
and management of water resources and the provision of water services (i.e.,
ensure adequate, equitable, and safe water) at different levels of the soci=
ety
in support of the economic development and social wellbeing, while not
jeopardizing life and nature (Pahl-Wostl, 2015;=
White
et al., 2019). In the last decades, the continuous adaptability of t=
he
water governance framework greatly raised political and scientific interest.
This is because a water governance system is the interconnected ensemble of
political, social, economic, and administrative elements that performs the
function of water governance (Pahl-Wostl, 2015)=
. Even
more, the interaction of elements, such as institutions and actors, and
coevolution processes, such as the adaptation of human beings to their
environment, while actively transforming and re-adapting to it, represents =
an
enormous challenge for science, policy, and management. The subjects relate=
d to
water policy have traditionally been simplistic managed with criteria
predominantly from engineering, economics
or
administration, paying considerably less attention to cultural and social
issues (Swyngedouw, 2004).
Ecuador
is relatively a water abundant country; however, the uneven distribution of
water resources and population are the major reasons for the country’s
water supply problems (Martínez, 2017). Urban and rural metabolisms =
in
Ecuadorian cities are complex, varying its dynamics according to the
geographical location and the local circular economy. The diverse nature of
water (groundwater versus surface water), the specific resource demand
(population density, urban versus rural), topography (flat versus mountaino=
us),
and extraction technologies translated into different uses of water and
affected the water resources management in different ways. Social relations=
in
conjunction with the dynamics of city-water-systems and various actors with
changing power relations, influence the balance between potentially conflic=
ting
uses. For example, the transition of government authorities in the country =
over
time resulted in the assignation of water management to a variety of
institutions, together with the radical neo-liberalization process of water
governance in 2007 under the government of Rafael Correa (Boelens,
Hoogesteger, & Baud, 2015). In addition, the
urban situation also was and remains embedded in a framework of external
forces, such as climate or technology.
From
a legal framework, in the article No. 318 of the Ecuadorian constitution,
several key mandates are found: “Water is the strategic national
patrimony of the State….”, “All forms of water privatizat=
ion
are prohibited”, “Water management will be exclusively public or
community”, “The Estate, through the unique water authority, wi=
ll
be directly responsible for the planning and management of water
resources….’’. The last point refers to the National Water
Secretariat (abbreviated as SENAGUA) created as the governmental entity that
controls and regulates the allocation of water resources in Ecuador. Howeve=
r,
directly or indirectly several different public or private institutions bec=
ame
also actors in the management of water resources, leading into an overlappi=
ng
of functions and responsibilities, which in most cases resulted in the
duplication of studies and infrastructure investments (Fernández &am=
p; Buitrón, 2012).
The
spatial heterogeneity of Ecuador’s available water resources in
conjunction with different urban and rural metabolisms resulted in time in a
variety of water governance models. Governance models refer to the various
forms through which governance can be realized (Pahl-W=
ostl,
2019). Several worldwide comparative analyses of water governance models ha=
ve
been carried out; however, little attention was paid to examine how these
systems emerged, what determines the differences between governance models,=
and
which governance model exhibits, for example, better performance in Ecuador.
The present study describes the different water governance models currently=
in
operation in Ecuador. A case study approach was used to assess how the
governance styles address the water management challenges. Finally, the art=
icle
complements the literature that questions the effects of different water
governance models in the hydro-social cycle and describes some gaps and
formulates some questions for further research.
2. &nb=
sp; WATER
GOVERNANCE MODELS
Three
main governance models for water access and management can be defined:=
1.
Privative management (also named market governance): This model focuses on =
the
provision of services related to drinking water supply, where corporations
through concessions (time-limited contracts) take the administration over t=
he
assets. The participation of a private company does not extend to ownership=
of
the assets. Commonly, the cost of capital is high, but it leads in the water
sector to an increase in efficiency and innovation. There is an institution=
al
closure to the democratic management of water, where citizen participation,
rights, and principles of equity are not included.
2.
Governmental management (also named hierarchical governance): The state thr=
ough
its public entities is in charge of protecting, preserving, and managing the
sources of water to satisfy the consumption needs of the population. This m=
odel
is based on two fundamental pillars: the first is the link between the
political and the social, and the second is the link between the citizens
themselves and the territory.
3.
Community management (also named network governance): Social structures cre=
ated
by groups of inhabitants in peri-urban and rural areas where the service do=
es
not usually arrive from public or private entities. By means of statutes of
self-government, joint work, and election of leaders in an open, simple and
democratic way, they direct their efforts to establish a system of capture,
purification, distribution, and payment for water. Community management foc=
uses
on the shared responsibility of all members of the community, as well as
factors such as co-management, collaboration, or self-government.
Further
information about the differences between the three governance styles can be
found in Pahl-Wostl (2015). In addition, depend=
ing on
the stakeholders involved in the water governance for a specific region,
different partnerships can be derived such as public-private partnerships a=
nd
public-public partnerships (also named hybrid governance) (Phumpiu
& Gustafsson, 2009).
3. &nb=
sp; METHODOLOGY<=
/p>
<=
/p>
The
present manuscript is based on an evidence-focused review of research and
review papers, including grey literature, and the official websites of
different government institutions. Qualitative text analysis was performed =
consisting
of the disintegration of existing texts and their synthesis, including the
reintroduction of domain-specific elements, into new texts that bring toget=
her
the essential aspects of the object to be analyzed. The analysis was
qualitative in its nature because it focused on rationales, as opposed to
quantitative research that focuses on statistical information. The followed
approach enabled to provide a perspective on the multiple water governance
models in Ecuador, and the discussion of the effectiveness of each model for
drinking water supply and democratic citizen participation.
4. &nb=
sp; RESULTS
Ecuador
has a political-administrative division of regions, provinces, cantons, and
parishes. Therefore, nine different case studies representing different wat=
er
governance models and dynamics are discussed in the following.=
span>
<=
/p>
Canton
of Cuenca
The
city of Cuenca is the capital of the canton, located in the country’s
highland region. It is the third most populated canton of Ecuador and its
capital is considered as one of the most expensive cities in the country. T=
his
case study corresponds to a governmental management model. The municipal
government has an autonomous public entity called “EmpresaPública Municipal de Telecomunicaciones,
Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento
(ETAPA EP) (https://www.etapa.net.ec)” designated for the supply of
drinking water and sanitation for the city and the water resources manageme=
nt
of the area within its jurisdiction. The entity addresses several key point=
s in
the region’s water resources management. First, the headwater catchme=
nts,
which provide water to the population, are declared as a protected area. The
key role of the entity is to have in its custody any activity that takes pl=
ace
within this area. Second, it has a series of high, medium, and low capacity
drinking water treatment plants and quality control and assurance laborator=
ies.
In addition, its drinking water distribution system is effectively supplying
98% to the urban area, 90% to the parishes and rural areas next to roads, a=
nd
70% to the dispersed rural area; within the area of influence determined in=
the
master plan. Finally, the wastewater collection and treatment service, i.e.=
the
sewage and wastewater treatment system, cover 85% of the urban area and 60%=
in
the rural area. The wastewater treatment plant treats 95% of urban wastewat=
er.
Metropolitan
district of Quito
Quito
is the capital of Ecuador and the second most populated city of the country=
and
is also located in the highland region. This case corresponds to a governme=
ntal
management model. Quito has an autonomous public entity called “EmpresaPúblicaMetropolitana de Agua Potable y =
Saneamiento
(EPMAPS) (https://www.aguaquito.gob.ec)” providing drinking water and
sanitation. The structure and operation are similar to that of the city of
Cuenca; however, the large population and area represent an enormous challe=
nge
for the water resources management of the metropolitan district. In spite of
this fact, Quito has the highest rates of drinking water and sewerage cover=
age,
respectively 99.27% and 93.60%. However, Quito started the operations of its
first wastewater treatment plant in 2017 and treats only a small percentage=
of
the city’s wastewater. Commonly, the wastewater is discharged in seve=
ral
streams that flow across the capital resulting in both environmental and he=
alth
risks.
Metropolitan
district of Guayaquil
Guayaquil
is situated in the coastal region and is the most populated city of the
country. This case study corresponds to a public-private management model, =
and
in the district are the drinking water and sanitation services granted to a
private consortium, named Interagua
(https://www.interagua.com.ec) that belongs to the transnational company Ve=
olia
Environnement S.A., branded as Veolia. In 2012 =
was
the public entity “Empresa Municipal de A=
gua
Potable y Alcantarillado de Guayaquil (EMAPAG E=
P)
(http://www.emapag-ep.gob.ec)” created as a regulating and controlling
entity for the terms and conditions established in the concession contract.=
Currently,
around 90% of the inhabitants have access to potable water and approximately
80% to sanitation. An operational wastewater treatment plant does not yet e=
xist
but is under construction. The wastewater treatment plant “Las Esclusas” will be the first for the city of Gua=
yaquil
and is expected to have coverage for one-third of the population. Commonly,=
the
wastewater is discharged into the streams bordering the city and released i=
nto
the sea.
Canton
of Samborondón and =
Daule
Samborondón and <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Daule are small cantons located in the coastal region=
. Both
these cantons possess a private management model. Agua=
s
de SamborondónAmag=
ua
C.E.M. (https://www.amagua.com) company, belonging to the transnational Gro=
up
INASSA, is a private provider of drinking water and sewerage service in La
Puntilla Parish in Samborondón and in La
Aurora Parish in Daule. The company supplies wa=
ter up
to 100% of the population within its action area and 85% sanitation. In
addition, the company has 91 operational wastewater treatment stations of l=
ow
capacity and the parameters of compliance with environmental regulations of
most of these treatment plants are not acceptable.
Province
of Imbabura
The
province of Imbabura located in the highland region is formed by six canton=
s: Antonio
Ante, Cotacachi, Ibarra, Otavalo, Pimampiro,
and San Miguel de Urcuquí. According to =
the
last national census carried out in 2010, 398244 people live in the province
with 50% of the population in rural areas and the other 50% in urban areas.
This case study is focused only on the rural sector which corresponds to a
community management model. In 1979, by governmental decree No. 3327, were
small community associations created with the responsibility of managing the
infrastructure built by the Ecuadorian Institute of Sanitary Works (IEOS), a
government entity created in 1966. These community associations go through =
life
under the name of “Junta Administradora d=
e Agua
Potable y Alcantarillado (JAAP)” and are
promoted by the government, i.e. are part of the legal state institutional
framework, with the particularity that they have their own autonomy for wat=
er
management. Decision making in each individual JAAP is carried out
democratically through a General Assembly of members or users. The General =
Assembly
meets twice a year in an ordinary manner, to know and approve the budgets a=
nd
investments, respectively, and only extraordinary sessions are convened in
cases that are necessary. The Assembly is the highest authority workspace
regarding water management and makes the most important decisions, while the
Committee is responsible for executing them. The main tasks of the JAAPs are
the construction, operation, administration, and maintenance of the water
system for drinking water supply and sanitation. Financing is obtained from=
the
customer fee and the government (Sandoval-Moreno & Günther, 2013).=
Canton
of Cañar
This
canton is located in the country’s highland region, possesses around =
77%
rural and 33% urban population, of which the majority lives in Cañar,
the canton’s capital. This case corresponds to a public-community
management model, it is a public-public partnership. The Center of Support =
for
the Rural Management of Drinking Water (CENAGRAP) is a co-management struct=
ure
of drinking water services between the municipality of Cañar and the
community organizations (JAAPs) of the canton. The center was created in 20=
02
and initially, there were 15 JAAPs. In 2011 the number of JAAPs increased to
82, in 2013 to 100, and in 2017 to 114, reaching 120 JAAPS at the beginning=
of
2019 (Coutteel, García, Robles, Solis, &=
amp; Solíz, 2011; Naula=
, Ojeda,
Solis, Guillas, & Padilla, 2013).
Canton
of Cotacachi
It
is a canton of the province of Imbabura in northern Ecuador within the high=
land
region. The canton is formed by 2 urban and 8 rural parishes. The water
governance model is an example of a public-private partnership between the
community organization in Quiroga and the rural parishes UNORCAC (Union of
Peasant and Indigenous Organizations of Cotacachi) in
Imantag, and the NGO SODeP=
AZ;
where the latter executes a project together with UNORCAC, consisting in the
installation of ozonation systems for water purification (Fernández,
2013).
Cayapas Mataje Ecological
Reserve (REMACAM)
Located
in Esmeraldas province within Eloy Alfaro and San Lorenzo parishes in the
coastal region, of which a large and important extension is covered by
mangroves. In this particular case, there is no water governance model of a=
ny
kind. Inside this protected area 26 afro-Ecuadorian communities are establi=
shed
with their home in informal settlements, without a legal right to land and =
most
do not have access to drinking water, sanitation, and security.<=
/span>
Machángara
River council and Chambo River committee=
o:p>
These
cases represent macro-public-private partnerships. Each member of the
partnership is denominated as “node” and can have different
dimensions, e.g., farmers associations, universities, municipalities, and
governmental entities. The Machángara Ri=
ver
council covers an area of 325 km2 in the province of Azuay and is
formed by 10 nodes which are densely interconnected between them. The Chambo River committee is located in the province of
Chimborazo and covers an area of 3580 km2 and is formed by 20 no=
des
where a considerable number of nodes are connected by only one or two nodes.
Both macro-partnerships develop efforts to protect the natural resources wi=
thin
their watersheds (Cisneros, 2019).
5. &nb=
sp; DISCUSSION=
p>
The
multiple water governance models within the country respond to different
complex metabolisms and hydro-social cycles between cities and regions. The
public model is the most outstanding in terms of drinking water supply and
sanitation coverage. The main factor for this efficiency is the higher mone=
tary
capital available for investment mainly in the urban water infrastructure a=
nd
to a lesser extent in the rural areas (e.g., Cuenca). However, the demograp=
hic
factor, i.e., the size and income levels of their populations, plays an
important role in this model. The increasing population led to higher
investments not only in the water sector but also in transversal sectors su=
ch
as waste management, urban planning, air quality control, transportation, e=
tc.
The effect of the population size culminated also into a decline in the
investment budget for water infrastructure resulting in deficient systems
(e.g., Quito). On the other hand, population growth increased the demand for
water supply and the pressure on the water catchments. Moreover, population
growth, which is inherently part of a city’s metabolism, implies a ch=
ange
in the urban water cycle.
To
supply the legal quality and quantity of water, reforms have called for
municipalities to join forces and coordinate with the private sector, as
typical is the case in the three coastal cantons (Guayaquil, Samborondon, and Daule). =
The
private water management transforms the relations between the public and
private sectors, whereby the state becomes a facilitator, promoter, and
regulator of the actions of the private sector in charge. Although they mig=
ht
seem isolated and rather exceptional, the concession of water and sanitation
services happened as a result of articulated policy processes. In the case =
of
Guayaquil, the provision of drinking water and sanitation was handled by the
Social Christian Party, the party that reached the city governance in 1993.
Since then, the water infrastructure works were carried out by concession
companies primarily in areas with greater profitability. Before the privati=
zation
process was the water services on the verge of collapse due to bad policies=
and
administration, which is reflected in effective improvement of the services
since the concessions agreements. However, they established a dependency ro=
le
and have taken advantage of the situation in economic terms (Swyngedouw, 2004). In this “indefinite”
long-term contract, the transparency and accountability to consumers were
reduced over time. This led to the dispossession of the inhabitants of the
fundamental rights of water and the degradation of the resource. Generally,
there are power disputes between the stakeholders involved, as a consequenc=
e of
differences in interests and in part because of a perceived lack of
transparency when a contract is signed with a private company. In the case =
of
scarce economic resources, it is highly probable that there will be
manipulation and abuse of control over subsistence resources. The control of
water resources and the provision of drinking water services in the postmod=
ern
era is used as a fundamental tool to create power flows in societies.
Therefore, water becomes an element of political and economic power, emergi=
ng
from social control to exclude access to water to vulnerable social groups =
(Swyngedouw, 2009). Commonly, it is the tension about =
water
as a human right and water as an economic good that is in debate within this
type of model, i.e., the controversy of public water in private hands.
Therefore, water security seems to depend greatly on the quality of the
contract between the partnerships, e.g., output specifications, monitoring
activities, chemical control, among others. In general terms, the private
management can be described as efficient, effective, performance- and
customer-oriented, and highly accountable for results produced depending on=
the
contract
terms which require extensive (and potentially costly) continuous monitoring
and regulation.
The
case of community management through the JAAPs in the rural area of Imbabur=
a is
a model that guarantees the rights of each member of the association but al=
so
reminds them of their duties towards the community. The principles that gui=
de
communities in the technical and social management of water have resisted t=
he
power of the state interventions, and the legal dispositions for the resolu=
tion
of conflicts regarding the use and property of water among the inhabitants =
are
in conflict with modern jurisdiction. The Assembly is the governing body for
any action on water management and unfortunately cannot resolve legal dispu=
tes.
Gradually, the traditional community organizations are losing power and
legitimacy. The community model of water management must evolve beyond just
asset management and could be maintained over time if there is political and
legal ability to meet the needs of local communities and to control conflic=
ts;
the latter seems to be strongly dependent on community forms of organization
(Hinojosa, Guerrero, & Arias, 2017). The community management model in
water management is reflected as common practice for rural water supply but=
is
not an efficient or effective framework for public service delivery. One key
point is the lack of technical support for the treatment of the complete
drinking water cycle, i.e., collection, pumping, potabilization, etc. This
triggers deficient water systems at the community scale and makes them comm=
only
dependent on the technical assistant of government entities (Decentralized
Autonomous Governments, GADs) or in some cases of ONGs. An example of the l=
ast
is the case of Cotacahi. Related to this, Férnandez (2013) claimed that the motivation of
beneficiaries (4226 inhabitants) linked to proper training will guarantee t=
he
maintenance of the water system and its durability as well as the protectio=
n of
watersheds. These types of public-private partnerships have a positive impa=
ct
by increasing the quality of life of rural communities, however, it can be a
temporary phase. Results are only quantifiable when the project finishes af=
ter
a few years, whereas long-term indicator monitoring is required for the ass=
essment
of sustainability over time. Unfortunately, systems generally stop working
after technical failures some years after or by lack of interest of the peo=
ple
and are abandoned. In the community model, there are users who do not fully
assess the health benefits of clean water and face serious problems of
collective action in the management of water supply. It should be noted that
within communities also conflicts can be found, shifting alliances, power, =
and
social structures that respond to individual interests, and this complex
behavior phenomenon can completely break the community management model
(Cleaver, 1999).
In
response to this constraint is the establishment of associations between pu=
blic
and community sectors of pivotal importance. The mixed “public-public
model” could change the management of water resources profoundly and,
hence, the relationship between water users, on the one hand, and between w=
ater
regulators and local administrations, on the other hand. The case of CENAGR=
AP
is an important model example that encompasses almost all JAAPS in the cant=
on
of Cañar and operates for water governance in agreement with the loc=
al
municipality. The role of the government is to bring important financial and
technical resources to local organizations and encourage a legalization
process, while the role of the community organizations compensates the
government’s difficulties to reach isolated rural populations and red=
uce
water inequalities (Dupuits & Bernal, 2015).
According to Naulaet al. (2013) benefit=
ed in
2013 a total of 6654 families from the potable water system, corresponding =
to
an estimated population of 26616 inhabitants. This governance model had a
social impact in the JAAPs across the country, and similar to CENAGRAP, we
found Pesillo-Imbabura, the largest public-comm=
unity
alliance in the northern area of Ecuador, covering the communities of the
province of Pichincha (cantons Cayambe and Pedr=
o Moncayo) and the province of Imbabura (cantons Otaval=
o,
Antonio Ante and Ibarra). However, the case of CENAGRAP and Pesillo-Imbabura
are not representative of the overall situation in the country, where most =
of
the community organizations remain isolated or reluctant to engage in
partnership with public authorities; many barriers remain to create these
alliances concretely. The first national network was created in 2012 bringi=
ng
together a large number of the water community organizations of the country.
The network is called Network of Social and Community Organizations of Water
Management of Ecuador (ROSCGAE) (http://roscgae.blogspot.com). ROSCGAE purs=
uit
three main objectives: 1) mediator between water community organizations, 2)
mediator between communities and local governments, and 3) mediator toward
national decision-making arenas. The most important and outstanding role wi=
thin
its strategic objectives is to be the official interlocutor between local
community organizations and the national government.
In
response to the development of resilience against changing regulations at
watershed scale arose the model of macro-partnership. The Machángara
River council was a denser and more centralized network which produced more
resilience than The Chambo River committee, whi=
ch was
a more diverse network, because it was able to foster trust among its parti=
cipants,
perform essential functions more effectively, and produce legitimacy of its
actions and outcomes. It is highlighted that changes in the regulations that
homogenize stakeholder participation in the local water governance could de=
epen
structural inequalities by making it harder for some actors to collaborate.=
The
availability of resources to subsidize participation, the number and redund=
ancy
of connections to other networks, and the capacity to establish new external
connections, improved the capacity of the macro-partnership to control the
direction of this change (Cisneros, 2019).
Finally,
in Ecuador, as many low- and middle-income countries, the land tenure situa=
tion
adds a level of complexity to the efforts of progressive realization of wat=
er
governance. Thousands of people established their home in informal settleme=
nts,
without a legal right to land. Ecuadorian government continuously fight aga=
inst
such situations, either because they seek to protect vested interests or
reserved areas for public investment, or because the areas are prone to nat=
ural
hazards. As a result, the law prohibits the extension of services to famili=
es
living in informal settlements. However, this is contradictory to the
constitution which clearly states that drinking water supply should cover t=
he
entire population and provide the minimum vital amount of water, calculated=
in
2017 by SENAGUA as 200 L of raw water per inhabitant per day. Although the
existence of the constitution, several situations exist in the country where
reality is not at all in line with the constitution. A clear
example
is the afro-Ecuadorian communities in the Cayapas Mataje Ecological Reserve in Esmeraldas. This situation is il=
legal
because it denies the rights of people to access drinking water and sanitat=
ion
(Pinos & Malo, 2018). In such situations, s=
ervice
providers (public or private) are left with the option of working with the
government on legal and policy reform.
Given
those situations, the need exists to analyze how public water rights are
socially, politically, and economically transformed into fluxes of power, in
order to develop the tools to counteract it (Swyngedou=
w,
2009). There exists significant urban-rural tension about water scarcity in
Ecuador, however, it is not the result of the physical absence of water, but
due to the non-prioritization of monetary resources together with political
reforms affecting the multiple water governance models. Therefore, in the
current generation resilience cities must develop the capacity to continual=
ly
adjust and self-organize in the face of change in order to maintain the cur=
rent
development path in water governance or to actively transform into a new
development trajectory (Boltz et al., 2019).
6. &nb=
sp; CONCLUSIONS<=
/p>
<=
/p>
This
paper presents a perspective of the multiple types of water governance mode=
ls
and partnerships for drinking water provision in Ecuador based on case stud=
ies.
On the national scale, a variety of political, economic, and ecological
interests make it difficult for partners to reach a common goal for providi=
ng
water to all. Public management shows heterogeneity between the highlighted
study cases. However, the models are in progress due to the assignment of
government budgets which is pivotal for the maintenance and expansion of
adequate coverage of drinking water services and environmental sanitation. =
In
the concession-based water management is the private model far from democra=
tic
and efficient as shown in the analyzed case studies, where it can be inferr=
ed
that political managers evade specialized justice and oversight. The govern=
ment
should concentrate on building up viable and democratic alternatives that a=
llow
civil society to be included in the first place. Community management is no=
t an
efficient autonomous model that presents several constraints such as the la=
ck
of a comprehensive institutional framework which hinders actors to particip=
ate
due to the insecure legal environment and the lack of technical support.
Public-community partnerships at the local level have demonstrated to be
efficient and to bring the best of abilities at high levels of equity. ROSCGAE provides key support to=
the
organization of the community and is at the same time mediator between water
actors of the communities and government, with the recognition of all actor=
s.
On the other hand, macro-partnerships could manage larger areas with the
integration of multiple stakeholders and higher budgets for investment,
however, the different degree of participation of the stakeholders create
conflicts in the collaboration between and among the network. The performan=
ce
of partnerships for an effective outcome requires a combined effort from all
actors over time.
7. &nb=
sp; A
VISION FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
The
coordination of transdisciplinary actors will provide a set of ideas and he=
lp
us to manage water more holistically (mutual learning) and focus on
solution-oriented knowledge creation, which is transferable to scientific a=
nd
social practice, pivotal in sustainable water governance (White et al.,
2019). Moreover, consolidated networks with multiple actor’s means a
redistribution and configuration of power, a legal democracy, and the
involvement of citizens, however, long-term leadership of political parties
could be a relevant issue to achieve strong sustainable governance.
Furthermore, water governance ought to be an adaptive process in the
development of safe, healthy, inclusive, responsive, and resilient cities by
facing the uncertainties caused by climate change and demographic pressure.
This will require an institutional change, which translates into a
transformation of attitudes, ways of thinking and behaviors, on the extract=
ion,
distribution and use of water, in such a way that socio-nature is maintaine=
d.
Future
research should be directed to address important gaps in Ecuador’s wa=
ter
governance that would improve our understanding and water management such as
the definition of governance-related values using quantitative techniques, =
the
stimulation and development of science-policy interactions to improve
transboundary water governance, the conduct of in-depth case studies on
corruption in the water sector, the evaluation of economic instruments such=
as
tariffs and subsidies for sustainable urban water management, the developme=
nt
of sustainable tools for building democratic processes and face political
barriers, and the buildup of collaborative methodological frameworks between
rural groups and public water organizations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
thank Prof. Dr. Jan Feyen for his critical and
constructive comments to improve the quality of the manuscript.<=
/span>
REFERE=
NCES
Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J., & Baud, M. (2015). Water reform
governmentality in Ecuador: Neoliberalism, centralization, and the restrain=
ing
of polycentric authority and community rule-making. Geoforum,
64, 281-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.07.005
Boltz, F=
., Poff, N. L., Folke, C., K=
ete, N.,
Brown, C. M., Freeman, S. S. G., Matthews, J. H., Martinez, A., & Rockström, J. (2019). Water is a master variable:
solving for resilience in the modern era. Water Security, 8,
100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2019.100048
Cisneros=
, P.
(2019). What makes collaborative water governance partnerships resilient to
policy change? A comparative study of two cases in Ecuador. Ecology and
Society, 24(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10667-240129
Cleaver,=
F.
(1999). Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to
development. Journal of International Development, 11(4), 597=
-612.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199906)11:4<597::AID-JID610>3=
.0.CO;2-Q
Coutteel, A., García, D., Robles, =
M., Solis, H., & Solíz M.
(2011). Yakukamay. Alianza
público-comunitaria: un modelo de gestión del agua. La
experiencia desde el CENAGRAP. CENAGRAP, PROTOS-CEDIR, Municipio de
Cañar.
Dupuits, &Eacut=
e;.,
& Bernal, A. (2015). Scaling-up water community organizations: The role=
of
inter-community networks in multi-level water governance. Flux, 99(1), 19-31.
https://doi.org/10.3917/flux.099.0019
Fernández, Á. (2013). Suministro de agua segura a
comunidades indígenas de Cotacachi - Ecuador. Tesis de Maestrí=
;a,
Máster en Cooperación y Desarrollo, Universidad de Castilla La
Mancha, España.
Fern&aac=
ute;ndez,
N., & Buitrón, R. (2012). The right =
to
water and sanitation in Ecuador: Progress, limitations, and challenges. EnvironmentalJustice, 5(2), 77-81.
https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2011.0021
Hinojosa, L., Guerrero, W., & Arias, P. (2017). Exploring water security and water demand determinants in
rural areas. The case of canton Cotacachi in Ec=
uador.
Water Resources and Rural Development, 10, 22-32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2018.09.001
Kennedy,=
C.,
Cuddihy, J. & Engel-Yan, J. (2007). The cha=
nging
metabolism of cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), 4=
3-59.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jie.2007.1107
Mart&iac=
ute;nez,
A. (2017). El
derecho al agua en el Ecuador: un análisis desde la Ciencia Pol&iacu=
te;tica
y el Derecho Público. Universidad de Cuenca, Facultad de Jurisprudencia, Ciencias
Políticas y Sociales.
Naula, Y., Ojeda, R., Solis, H., Guillas=
, S.,
& Padilla, A. (2013). Inventario de la gestión rural del agua
potable en las juntas administradoras de agua potable del CENAGRAP. Cuenca, Ecuador.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (20=
15).
Water Governance in the Face of Global Change - From Understanding to
Transformation. Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21855-7
Pahl-Wostl, C. (20=
19).
The role of governance modes and meta-governance in the transformation towa=
rds
sustainable water governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 91,
6-16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.008
Phumpiu, P., &a=
mp;
Gustafsson, J. (2009). When are partnerships a viable tool for development?
Institutions and partnerships for water and sanitation service in Latin
America. Water Resources Management, 23(1), 19-38.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9262-8
Pinos, J., &a=
mp;
Malo, A. (2018). El
derecho humano de acceso al agua: una revisión desde el Foro Mundial=
del
Agua y la gestión de los recursos hídricos en
Latinoamérica. Invurnus, 13(1),
12-20.
Sandoval-Moreno, A., & Günther, M. (2013). La gestión
comunitaria del agua en México y Ecuador: otros acercamientos a la
sustentabilidad. Ra Ximhai, 9(2), 165-179.
Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Social power and the
urbanization of water: flows of power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.=
Swyngedouw, E. (20=
09).
The political economy and political ecology of the hydro‐social cycle=
. Journal
of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 142(1), 56-60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2009.00054.x
White, D., Lawless, K., Vivoni,
E., Mascaro, G., Pahle, R., Kumar, I., Coli, P., Muñoz-Castillo, R., Moreda, F., &=
; Asfora, M. (2019). Co‐Producing Interdisciplinary Knowledge and Action=
for
Sustainable Water Governance: Lessons from the Development of a Water Resou=
rces
Decision Support System in Pernambuco, Brazil. Global Challenges, 3(4),
1800012. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201800012
Pu=
blicado
por DIUC - Dirección de Investigación de la Universidad de
Cuenca  =
; &n=
bsp;  =
; &n=
bsp;  =
; &n=
bsp;  =
; &n=
bsp; 74
MASKANA, Vol. 8, No. =
2, 2017
J.
Pinos: Multiple water governance models: Ecuador as a case study