Waiting at the Tap - Local Hydropolitics

Waiting at the Tap - Local Hydropolitics

Water is highly political especially as resources become more stressed. In the previous blogs we have explored the international dimensions of hydropolitics, hydropolitics are multi-scalar though and also extend to a local scale. Cities are becoming increasingly unequal and disparities between urban and rural dwellers continue to increase. The inequalities of water resources and the infrastructures which provide this vital source of life have become increasingly politicized.

Mother and Daughter fill jerry cans at a pump, Goma in The Democratic Republic of Congo - Source 

The ‘Poolitical’

Water not only sustains us through sustenance with water and food, it also sustains us and our societies through sanitation and clearance of waste. Though as urban centres continue to swell the inequalities around the sanitation of urban life have become increasingly more apparent. Mcfarlane and Silver (2016) use the term ‘Poolitical city’ to illustrate the politics ‘ostensibly’ concerned with sanitation delivery – which is often associated with economic dimensions, racial conditions and sociospatial trajectories. For example, the ‘Toilet wars’ which erupted in South Africa before the 2011 local government elections (Redfield and Robin2016). South Africa’s promotion of ‘dignified living’ with flushed toilets meant any sign of inequality in which the townships didn’t have access would appear a ‘regressive return for South Africa to the racialized indignities of the past’ (Redfield and Robin 2016). This saw protestors bring faeces from the literal margins of the city of Cape Town and flinging it at the sanitised centre. This example vividly illustrates the politicisation of the water resource with adequate sanitation an important aspect of dignified living.

'Toilet wars' and the 2011 South African election - Source

Waiting at the tap

Access to water resources has also become highly politicised. There is a marked difference in Africa between those with access to piped water versus those without access therefore relying on unpiped water such as wells, handpumps etc. (Thompson et al 2000). But inadequacy associated with piped water within Africa have led to calls for privatisation of water resources to fulfil ‘fiscal austerity’ and foster ‘broader economic liberalisation’ originating with the Washington Consensus and encouragement of decentralisation and market liberalisation in developing nations (Pierce 2015). Privatisation is therefore becoming increasingly more prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa as the state is increasingly more discredited. Some argue that water privatisation actually increases performance of the water network and is more effective than state control, for example the World Bank suggested only about 8% of water in Tanzania was being billed (Bayliss 2003). But others advise against the privatisation of water arguing for the need to delink ‘global corporations’ from ‘social welfare’ (Bond 2008) with anti-privatisation activists arguing against the profiteering from an essential resource with huge outflow of profit from developing nations to water corporations such as Suez based in developed nations. It is argued that African states have been ineffective in supply of water resources, this dissatisfaction and the promotion of market liberalisation and decentralisation has led to increasing prevalence of privatisation across Africa. Though many fear the privatisation of an essential resource, especially in nations in which the ability to pay is often severely limited.

 

Who gets access to water? - Source

Waters fundamentality therefore extends across multiple scales and its scarcity and importance makes it highly politicised. At the local level water is central to ensuring people can live dignified lives, not only through the provision of food and water, but also through sanitation. Water is increasingly being commodified and expropriated, dispossessing the poorest from this essential resource.