South Africa
76 The data in this section was drawn directly from: A
question of knowledge? Knowledge management and power in upgrading and resettlement initiatives, by
David Jordhus-Lier with Véronique Dupont, Cathy Sutherland and Einar Braathen
Third, the role of community knowledge brokers is important.Communityrepresentativeengagewith‘expert communities’(NGOs,universities,administratorsandlocal stateofficials)theybecomeprivilegedknowledgebearers and gain power. They also have the power to share knowledgewiththecommunityortoselectedindividuals in the community and they have the power to retain information. There is always somebody who speaks on
behalf ofsomebodyelse.Oncetheserepresentativesare
entrusted responsibility for coordinating community responses, exchanging knowledge and distributing information and resources, power dynamics in local communitiesareirrevocablychanged.Questionablepeople whousetheirroleforpersonalbenefitbecomeillegitimate astheymisuseknowledgeandinformation.
However, several initiatives exist which show how generationofspatialcommunity-basedknowledgecantake place,andhowitcanbeutilizedtobuildmoreparticipatory processesandchangeoutcomes(inthesenseofprocesses). IntheC2Sresearchproject,suchspatialknowledgebuilding exercises were carried out in specific sub-standard settlements(Durban,Lima,Rio,Guarulhos?).Othersimilar initiatives were also found. Such initiatives, usually undertaken by the local community with actors and organisations from outside have built capacity for knowledgemanagementasresidentsrealizedtheextentof theirknowledgeabouttheirlocalsituation.
Inseveralcases,theplansandmapsbuiltupthrough such processes have produced new information and knowledge. In Lima, they have produced maps of inequalitiesinwaterprovision,andpredictionsaboutthe effects of future shifts in climate change, population growth, and the resulting levels of water provision or watershortfall.
Community-builtknowledgehasbeenincorporatedin localcommunitynegotiationswithresettlementagencies (Durban). Italsoincreasedtheknowledgeresidentshad explicitly about their own settlements; bringing tacit knowledgeintocommunity-basedprocessesandmakingit explicitly embedded. This increases transparency for citizensinparticularareas,astheydevelopmoreagency vis-à-vistheirlivingenvironment.Itdoesnotnecessarily increasetheaccountabilityofgovernmentorganisations, asthisrequirescollectivemobilisationbycommunitiesto maketheirknowledgebeheardeffectively. Inconclusion,spatialknowledgemanagementprovides theopportunitytosupportchangingoutcomes,although thecircumstanceshavetobeconducivetoincorporating such community-embedded knowledge into processes linkedtohousingandresettlementprojects.
6.3.3. Implications of SKM for urban
water governance (WP4)
Thevariouscountrieshaveshownshiftsintheirframings anddiscursiveapproachestourbanwatergovernance,and water–related risk management. India previously had a publicprovisionapproachandnowhasastrongersectoral approach, with increasing private sector provision to balancepublicsectorgaps.Incontrast,BrazilandPeruhave watershedapproaches,withwaterincreasinglybeingseen asahumanright.InSouthAfricawaterisseenasahuman right,butlimitationsaresetonthemethodologiesthrough which it is provided within cities and outside the city developmentlines.SimilarlimitationsexistinIndia,which hasdifferentialrightstowaterforcertainpopulations(in sub-standardsettlements)–partofa‘democraticdeficit’. Discourses have become more inclusive in terms of populationshavingrightstowaterandnon-humanrights related to sustainability of water aquifer systems. Since water management is inherently spatial, sustainability approacheshavemeantthatwatershedbasinareashave become relatively more important, implying more recognitionforspatialdimensionsincontrasttoapproaches prioritizinguniversalwaterprovisionforurbanpopulations.
Water-related risks are dealt with under ‘disaster or flood-risk management’, which comes under other departments than water in the cities concerned. The discoursesinthisareaaremovingfromreactivetomore preventive measures. Such ideas are driven by greater awarenessafterexperiencingdisastersassuddenshocks, andoftenpushedbycivicorganisations[IB1].Thismeans thatwheresuchrisksareconnectedtowaterandsanitation systemsordrainagesystems(e.g.whenimproperlyworking sewerageanddrainagesystemscauseflooding),ideasneed totravelacrossorganisationalboundaries(Jameson2014). Themainactornetworksremainthoseofgovernment, workingtogetherwiththeprivatesector.Fordrinkingwater provision,thisrangeslocalandstategovernmentandoften includes a combination of para-statals and private sector providers.Forwatershedmanagement,provincialornational government departments dealing with (ground)water resourcesremaindominantactorsinnetworksalsoincluding watercommitteeswithstakeholdersinvolved.Forfloodrisk management,theactornetworksaremuchmoredispersed (fragmented)(inChennai),andhavebeguntoworktogether morewithcivicorganisationsandlocalcommunities,both for training of and dissemination of knowledge to communitiesasintermsofconsultationprocesses(Cape Town,GuarulhosandLima).Thismeansthatsuchnetworks have become more inclusive in terms of types of actors, althoughthepowerofcivicorganisationstochangebasic ideasandinfluenceworkprocessesremainslimited.
Technical information remains the dominant type of knowledgeincorporatedintodrinkingwaterprovision,with ashifttowardsinformationsystemsthatcanlinkdifferent kindsofinformation(Durban,Guarulhos,Delhiplanned). Thisistrueespeciallyforinvestmentinexpandingwater networks and for improving technical capacity of water systems (reducing leakages, etc.). Consulting companies play a major role in investment proposals on expanding watersystemsacrosstheboardinthecitiesconcerned.The useofGISwithintheparastatalcompaniesisextensivein theseprocesses,withstrongin-housecompetenciesbeing foundinSouthAfricancities,inGuarulhos,Limaandtoa lesser extent in Indian cities However, the consulting companiesbringinGISknowledgeforpreparinginvestment plans.Datacollectionforpreparingplansandmonitoring comesfromvarioussourcesinthecitiesconcerned,such as Census, state level data centres, and information producedbythewaterprovidersthemselves.Thewayin which knowledge travels within the organisations concernedwasfoundtobeverylimitedinChennai,where theknowledgeonactualpipedwaternetworkswasonly found among street-level workers and was not codified elsewherewithintheparastatalorganisation.InKD,explicit links were made between various groups of experts to movethewaterprojectthereforward.
Moreparticipatorynetworksincludingcivicorganisations are mainly used to train communities and disseminate government or private sector providers’ knowledge that theseorganisationsfeelresidentsshouldhave.Inseveral cities,moreinteractiveconsultationswerealsoheldwitha variety of stakeholders (Durban) and digital feedback systemsfromresidentsprovideinformationonmaintenance problems(grievances)inmanyofthecitiesstudied.Inmost cities,NGOsworkingonwater-relatedissuesarethestrong civic organisations in such processes (Lima, Cape Town, Delhi).Whereparticipatoryprocessesaremandatory,such asinBrazilandPeru,thisstrengthensthepositionofsuch NGOs.Residentsofthecity–whennotorganized–arenot recognized as important knowledge providers for water- relatedissues.
Disasterssuchasfloodshavetriggeredmoreparticipatory processes to institutionalize measures against flooding, including the use of early warning systems for citizens through mobile phone and other digital systems, and institutionalization of spatial knowledge in government departmentsmainlyfocusedonthecoastalzone(Guarulhos; KD,Chennai,Lima,Delhi,(Durban,CapeTown).InLima international research projects provided linkages that stimulateddiscussionsaroundthetopicofclimatechange andwater-relatedrisksinawidernetwork.Localleaders driving changes in government and civic organisations remainverystrategic(Guarulhos,CapeTown,Lima,Delhi).
Scenario-buildingworkshopsheldthroughouttheC2S project have served to bring together a variety of stakeholdersandexchangedifferentperspectivesonthe futureofwateravailabilityandwaterrisksandhowtodeal withtheassociatedchallenges.
Workprocesseshavechangedthroughtheintroduction ofSKM,providingthebasicinformationneededforinternal management information systems for more efficient/ effectivebilling(inIndiaandGuarulhos).Theearlywarning systems are also examples of changed work processes, helpingpreventdisasters(Guarulhos,Chennai).Thesehave madeworkprocessesmoreefficientcertainly,andmost likely more effective in terms of revenues collected (althoughformostcitiesinsufficientinfotosaythat).
SKMhascontributedtochangingoutcomes,byallowing organisations (both governmental and civic) to improve theirknowledgebases,andtomakethemmorespatialin termsoftakingscarcityandriskareasintoaccount.This helps to address the complexity of water provision, and water-relatedrisks,suchasfloods.Itisalsohelpfulwhen broadening the scope of water management to the watershedbasin,wheretechnicalandspatialinformation onhydrologyandphysicalfeaturesisusuallycollectedby governments,inpartnershipswithprivateconsultants.
SKM can potentially increase transparency and accountability to citizens and in some cities has already beguntobepartoftheregularexchangeinconsultation processes,andplatformswithvariousstakeholders.What is not yet recognized is the importance of community- basedknowledge,providingthemicro-levelknowledgeon localwater-relatedrisks,andallocationsofdrinkingwater.
SKMhasbuiltcapacityforknowledgemanagement,by internal information systems used by drinking waster providers,governmentorganisationsdealingwithground and surface water management, and by addressing new typesofcomplexity,uncertainties,andstresses,andamong civicorganisations,utilizingthespatialsourcesofinformation whichhavebecomemoreaccessible(GoogleEarth).