New Water Policy and Practice Volume 1, Number 1 - Fall 2014 | Page 16

New Water Policy and Practice

of a difference of context and perspective.
Commentators from the essentially static societies of Western Europe and North
America, still dominate the literature in output if not in quality or relevance. In these
countries, most of the physical and institutional development required to meet water
security needs has already occurred. There
are decisions to be made as infrastructures
are upgraded and replaced and institutions
adapted to fit the political and economic logic of the moment. But these decisions are at
a different order of magnitude to those confronted by the practitioners of the South who
face the very different challenges of meeting
the needs and wants of societies where urban populations have doubled in size in the
past 25 years and will probably double again
by 2050; where social expectations double
the requirements for water yet again; where
still more is required to support economic
activity along with more investment to manage the growing deluge of used water that
is produced; where the financial resources
to support fully this rapid growth are rarely
available; and where the political economy is
more complex, institutions more fragile, and
capabilities more scarce.

The fact that so many authors write
from an easier and very different context to
that in which the majority of the world’s population lives means that the assumptions and
preferences (explicit and implicit) that guide
the analysis are also different. This helps to
explain the general priority given to environmental protection and conservation that
colours much analysis. Developing countries
face different challenges and have different
priorities. They have not yet established the
stable physical geography of a predominantly urbanized community and adjusted their
landscapes to support it, as has happened in
the richer world. Their priority (again, explicit or implicit) must be to build a geography that sustainably supports their popula-

tions. Given population numbers, the scale
of such interventions will inevitably impact
substantially on the “natural” environment.
But that is not helpful terminology. The present is best considered as the Anthropocene
moment. People now determine the characteristics of their future “natural” environment, from its atmosphere and its waterways
to its ground covers and the biota that inhabit them. They need the science and analysis
to support that adventure not research that
wistfully seeks to protect the past. This need
is not yet generally reflected in the water discourse.

Tony Allan, originator of the virtual water concept, has highlighted the challenge:Policy debates bring about hegemonic
convergence, a concept, which is similar to that of sanctioned discourse. Both
terms are part of a political ecology
approach to water policy making and
help to show how environmental policy-making is made. (Hajer 1996) All
policy making discourse is partial in
that it is made by coalitions, which reflect those who can best construct and
deliver the most persuasive arguments.
The most persuasive can exclude the
voices of those who do not construct
their messages sufficiently well to gain
access to the discourse. Policy outcomes are the result of elites making
deals selectively with groups that cannot be gainsaid. (Allan 2003)

In the context of the dams and development debate, another long-time analyst of
the water sector noted that the divergence
between the proposals from the rich world
and the needs of the poor:“… contributed to a