Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
fragmentary approaches are supported by a poor evidence base on the relationship
between infrastructure construction and environmental outcomes. For example,
absence of disaggregate, reliable and more frequent information at appropriate
scales makes it dif
cult to predict the environmental outcomes of constructing
dams, tube wells or storm drains in terms of sediment capture, aquifer recharge and
wastewater reuse respectively. Institutional fragmentation is also supported by weak
feedback loops between legal and policy formulation, spatial and temporal variation
in biophysical environment and socioeconomic change within communities of
environmental resource users. As a result decision-makers cannot design pro-
gramme and project interventions with precision and may be unable to respond
effectively to feedback from consumers on changes in service delivery parameters
(affordability, reliability or quality) or to the effects of increased variability in
frequency, intensity and duration of environmental shocks (droughts or floods).
The intellectual basis for fragmentary approaches to planning is supported in
large measure by divides in approaches to environmental governance. Five divides
in environmental governance are evident in emerging and developing countries as
described below.
1.
Infrastructure versus services
: Many developing countries have invested heavily
in infrastructure including hydropower dams, water and wastewater treatment
and irrigation. While much of this expansion has been justi
ed to increase food
productivity and promote human security, there have been others that have
questioned how this may have been achieved at the expense of investments in
maintaining infrastructure. Further, the bene
ts of infrastructure construction in
several cases may have bypassed those segments of society that needed public
support the most. An explicit focus on service parameters such as affordability,
reliability and quality has until recently been overlooked by conventional
planning processes and structures (Kurian
2010b
).
2.
Centralized versus decentralized government
: A focus on infrastructure con-
struction in many cases led to expensive technologies being selected. Big dams
and sophisticated treatment technologies were the order of the day following the
Lewisian model of economic growth. As a result, central
fiscal transfers were
perpetuated and there was little incentive for local governments to rely on local
revenue sources to match their expenditure plans. Accountability was com-
promised, service charges skyrocketed and poor consumers who were unable to
pay suffered from lack of public services. Decision-making power remained
concentrated with higher tiers of government and donors. Local initiative and
autonomy suffered as a result and prospects for adaptive environmental man-
agement were compromised. As a result, political decentralization began to gain
importance in academic and policy discussions.
3.
Public versus private management models
: In response to growing disen-
chantment with centralized management, due to their inability to protect envi-
ronmental resources, there was a phase of utility privatizations notably in South
America. During the 1990s, the political mood also favoured community-based
natural resources management that emphasized themes of co-production and
Search WWH ::
Custom Search