New Water Policy and Practice Volume 1, Number 1 - Fall 2014 | Page 44

New Water Policy and Practice

nical and often centralized approach to
wastewater management. In transboundary
watershed contexts, where a large proportion of the population is not being served
by centralized sewage and wastewater treatment systems, a decentralized or off-grid
approach may be more effective; on-site
treatment for wastewater may provide both
environmental and community benefits.
Decentralized infrastructure solutions are
therefore one important path toward improved wastewater treatment, especially
where political complexity hampers effective cooperation and coordination between
two or more national or cultural polities.

Under such scenarios, we advocate
for a community-driven, decentralized,
and flexible approach in those communities and regions where large-scale centralized solutions are inappropriate due to
inadequate infrastructure, political difficulties, and funding constraints. Decentralized
approaches to wastewater management
include administrative decentralization
and community infrastructure solutions.
Administrative decentralization shifts decision-making and responsibility to lower
level organizations, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and user
associations, thereby harnessing the capacity of community-based organizations
and initiatives. Engaging stakeholders in
decision-making, community education,
and knowledge-sharing can produce more
sustainable solutions that better reflect the
needs and values of the users (Mody 2004).
Community-based organizations like ours,
the Arava Institute for Environmental
Studies, a transboundary environmental
NGO, often advocate the use of decentralized infrastructure alternatives. These
are technologies that we, along with local
partners and the users themselves, can install and monitor on a household or community scale. Decentralized solutions, such

as well-maintained septic systems or greywater recycling systems, can be an effective
and economical approach that avoids large
capital investments and reduces operation
and maintenance costs (USEPA 2005). The
approach also precludes high-level political
engagement as the systems are integrated at
the local level. In many cases, this approach
is more efficient than seeking high-level political sanction, especially when the polities
lack a high-level cooperative mechanism
for providing wastewater management services, as is the case in the Israeli–Palestinian context.

It is important, therefore, that these
decentralized approaches be linked to conflict resolution. Consequently, stakeholder
engagement is a key component of comprehensive transboundary watershed assessment, effective implementation of decentralized wastewater treatment solutions, and
conflict resolution. During a transboundary watershed assessment, stakeholder
participation that is inclusive of all parties
must be integral to knowledge generation
and data collection because in many cases an asymmetry exists in data collection,
availability, and analysis. This type of stakeholder engagement must be fully representative of all parties within a transboundary
watershed and thus will include stakeholders from different countries, regions, and
communities. Stakeholders must also interact on a level playing field despite the power asymmetries that may exist among them.
This is of course not simple to do but if the
engagement is consistent and long-term,
the relationships among the stakeholders
should strengthen and issues of mistrust,
and miscommunication should give way to
cooperation. In regions of conflict, it is just
these kinds of activities that may trickle up
to the political sphere and offer solutions
for high-level resolution of the conflict beyond the specific issues being addressed by
42