Periodic Reporting for period 1 - CO-Water (From Conflict to Co-production: A Grassroots-Led Model of Polycentric Water Governance in the Postcolonial South)
Reporting period: 2021-10-01 to 2024-09-30
In most postcolonial countries, only few institutional arrangements have been established to ensure universal access to essential water infrastructures and services. As a result, these countries have experienced significant fragmentation in access to water services. Meanwhile, the conventional approach to water infrastructure systems, which promotes centralized networks with homogenous technology, have proven inadequate in addressing the needs of large and mega-cities with irregular urban fabrics. Our research programme CO-Water is particularly concerned about the growing disparities in household real income, community wellbeing, and socio-environmental resilience, largely driven by fragmented access to water. At the same time, CO-Water acknowledges the need to diversify infrastructure provision systems while ensuring just and equitable access to water. As conflicts over water resources and water territories continue to rise in an era of uneven urbanization, the worsening impacts of climate change further heighten the urgency of these issues. These are the central challenges of contemporary water governance, and CO-Water is committed to addressing them.
CO-Water, explores potential pathways for turning water conflicts in the post-colonial South into the co-production of water, sanitation, and related infrastructures and services (hereafter 'water co-production'). A more flexible approach to water governance—one that better engages communities—would result in more democratic and effective service systems, accommodating the significant variation in socio-hydrology, aspirations, resources, and capacities. Water co-production is a specific form of collective action, where diverse arrangements of joint efforts are made to allocate resources for the provision of public or common goods and services. CO-Water aims to conceptualize a co-productive governance model, in which social movements' initiatives are integrated into processes that resolve conflicts and drive the structural transformation of public water infrastructures and services.
CO-Water, explores potential pathways for turning water conflicts in the post-colonial South into the co-production of water, sanitation, and related infrastructures and services (hereafter 'water co-production'). A more flexible approach to water governance—one that better engages communities—would result in more democratic and effective service systems, accommodating the significant variation in socio-hydrology, aspirations, resources, and capacities. Water co-production is a specific form of collective action, where diverse arrangements of joint efforts are made to allocate resources for the provision of public or common goods and services. CO-Water aims to conceptualize a co-productive governance model, in which social movements' initiatives are integrated into processes that resolve conflicts and drive the structural transformation of public water infrastructures and services.
Two types of water conflicts have been studied in the 3-year CO-Water research program. The first is place-based conflict, centred on the eviction of riparian communities living in informal settlements, or riparian kampungs. These communities have been displaced under the pretext of flood management, yet the government’s technological interventions, such as cement and concrete flood walls, have paradoxically harmed both the environment and water ecosystems. The second type of conflict is non-place-based, arising from key conflicting values that polarize water as an economic good versus water as a common good. This conflict is manifested within the case of water privatization in Jakarta and its opposition. Although the era of privatization has officially ended, with Jakarta's water utility now returned to state control, the utility still operates under the paradigm of water as an economic good, with the entire provision chain highly financialized.
Within the studied conflicts, various formations of collective actors were analyzed. These include intellectual and activist communities connected at the national level by shared paradigms; place-based communities from informal settlements; locally bound communities engaged in specific (informal) economic sectors; uncoordinated individuals who nonetheless contribute to the formation of collective discourses and practices; and professional groups and policymakers embedded in governmental organizations and beyond. A morphogenetic approach to conflict, drawing on the theoretical works of Margaret Archer, was used to examine both the spatial and historical dimensions of these conflicts. The analytical categories of ‘role’, ‘role formation’, and ‘role occupation’ were developed as interfaces between ‘structure’ and ‘agency,’ helping to bridge the two types of conflicts in our analysis. Additionally, Elinor Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IADF) was used to guide our field research, especially for mapping out institutions. The framework was also applied as a participatory mapping tool. Although we used it in the early stages of the research, IADF showed promising potential for further development as a participatory tool.
The CO-Water Podcast has released 21 episodes to date, exploring diverse perspectives on water-related issues through interviews with experts from various scientific, policy, and social-movement backgrounds. The lead researcher has presented papers at five interdisciplinary international academic conferences, attended four training sessions and five workshops, and published three papers. Dr. Putri was also invited to speak at seven forums, including events outside university communities, such as one civic forum in Germany and two civic forums in Indonesia.
Within the studied conflicts, various formations of collective actors were analyzed. These include intellectual and activist communities connected at the national level by shared paradigms; place-based communities from informal settlements; locally bound communities engaged in specific (informal) economic sectors; uncoordinated individuals who nonetheless contribute to the formation of collective discourses and practices; and professional groups and policymakers embedded in governmental organizations and beyond. A morphogenetic approach to conflict, drawing on the theoretical works of Margaret Archer, was used to examine both the spatial and historical dimensions of these conflicts. The analytical categories of ‘role’, ‘role formation’, and ‘role occupation’ were developed as interfaces between ‘structure’ and ‘agency,’ helping to bridge the two types of conflicts in our analysis. Additionally, Elinor Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IADF) was used to guide our field research, especially for mapping out institutions. The framework was also applied as a participatory mapping tool. Although we used it in the early stages of the research, IADF showed promising potential for further development as a participatory tool.
The CO-Water Podcast has released 21 episodes to date, exploring diverse perspectives on water-related issues through interviews with experts from various scientific, policy, and social-movement backgrounds. The lead researcher has presented papers at five interdisciplinary international academic conferences, attended four training sessions and five workshops, and published three papers. Dr. Putri was also invited to speak at seven forums, including events outside university communities, such as one civic forum in Germany and two civic forums in Indonesia.
Our study highlights interconnected socio-environmental units where diverse informalities intertwine and reproduce specific nature–culture interrelations. We seek to categorize these assemblages by analysing the varying temporal-spatial trajectories of social movement groups and the different values people assign to water and water-related services. Our research emphasizes how these interconnected socio-environmental dynamics are not confined to local contexts but are also influenced by broader structural and political-economic forces. In Jakarta's contemporary water governance, tensions are no longer primarily defined by whether water utilities are privately or publicly operated, as the state has fully owned the utilities since 2023. However, these utilities are now part of broader processes of financialization and privatization in water service provision, creating new scalar dimensions in urban and water governance and bearing the potential for new conflicts.
As conflicts have eroded the collective pursuit of societal welfare in public civic domains, a co-productive model of water governance can re-engage disillusioned or apathetic individuals and groups, motivating them to participate and reinforcing the core function of the state: serving shared, common interests. Our analyses on group formations offers insights of power dynamics that might inform the strategy of social movement groups and trade unions. Our analysis of group formations provides insights into power dynamics, offering valuable guidance for the strategies of social movement groups and trade unions.
Looking to the future, the success of water governance will depend on governments' ability to lead co-productive efforts that involve communities and stakeholders in building more resilient, just, and sustainable water systems. Ongoing analyses highlight the importance of hybrid institutions, focusing on the potential roles of public and community partnerships, while potential co-productive planning instruments are also under study. The role of the state, particularly through public planners and public water utilities, remains crucial as they are entrusted with serving the public interest. This approach bridges the gap between formal and informal water systems, ensuring that all residents—regardless of socio-economic status or geographic location—have access to safe, reliable, and affordable water.
As conflicts have eroded the collective pursuit of societal welfare in public civic domains, a co-productive model of water governance can re-engage disillusioned or apathetic individuals and groups, motivating them to participate and reinforcing the core function of the state: serving shared, common interests. Our analyses on group formations offers insights of power dynamics that might inform the strategy of social movement groups and trade unions. Our analysis of group formations provides insights into power dynamics, offering valuable guidance for the strategies of social movement groups and trade unions.
Looking to the future, the success of water governance will depend on governments' ability to lead co-productive efforts that involve communities and stakeholders in building more resilient, just, and sustainable water systems. Ongoing analyses highlight the importance of hybrid institutions, focusing on the potential roles of public and community partnerships, while potential co-productive planning instruments are also under study. The role of the state, particularly through public planners and public water utilities, remains crucial as they are entrusted with serving the public interest. This approach bridges the gap between formal and informal water systems, ensuring that all residents—regardless of socio-economic status or geographic location—have access to safe, reliable, and affordable water.