ROLE OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PARTNERSHIPS: THE VIRGINIA PIPELINE SCHEME

Transcription

1 ROLE OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PARTNERSHIPS: THE VIRGINIA PIPELINE SCHEME Abstract The Virginia Pipeline Scheme in Adelaide is one of the largest high quality water recycling schemes in the world and the first of its type in Australia. This paper focuses on this scheme and illustrates the role of community participation and partnerships in successful implementation of the scheme. It also looks at the role of the initial developers and the factors, which created this public partnership, and the current perceptions of the present day users of the scheme. G B Keremane, J McKay Introduction In a situation where competition for high quality freshwater is manifold, reclaimed water is increasingly being recognised as a new and reliable water source, without compromising public health. Nevertheless, while developing successful and sustainable wastewater irrigation schemes, water managers, planners, and policymakers often encounter difficulties, particularly management problems. Management problems arise due to coordination complexity resulting from varying roles and responsibilities and overlapping concerns among the public agencies managing the resources (MacDonald and Dyack 2004). Similarly, wastewater collection, treatment, and its usage span a wide range of interests at different levels of administration. Therefore, the success and long-term sustainability of any reuse scheme largely depends on the institutional organisation, enhanced community participation, and well-designed partnerships. The paper illustrates the role of community participation and partnerships in developing a successful and sustainable reuse scheme. It also looks at the factors that created this partnership, and the perceptions of the present day users of reclaimed water in the Virginia Irrigation Area, South Australia. Background Overuse of the groundwater resources to irrigate the horticultural crops resulted in Figure 1. Layout of the Virginia Pipeline Scheme and its distribution network. the decline of water levels in the aquifers of the northern Adelaide plains. Each year groundwater resources provides about GL of water for irrigation in the Virginia region which is beyond the sustainable limits of supply (Kracman et al. 2001; Pritchard and Richardson, 2005). In order to supplement the declining groundwater supplies, prior to the Virginia Pipeline Scheme, many growers used Class C reclaimed water to irrigate their crops by pumping from the Bolivar wastewater treatment plant out-fall channel. Growers were thus aware of the potential this new source had to offer towards meeting the growing demand for water supplies. This realisation by the growers and driven Enhanced community participation and welldesigned partnerships led to success. by the environmental, economic and social factors has led to the commissioning of the Virginia Pipeline Scheme (VPS) in 1999 (Kelly and Stevens, 2000; Thomas 2006). Since then, the VPS has provided reclaimed water for irrigation in the Northern Adelaide plains, some 35 kms north of Adelaide. It supplies highly treated reclaimed water to approximately 250 growers operating within an area of 200 square kilometres. The proposal for developing the VPS was visualised when SA Water, as part of its Environment Improvement Program, constructed a $30 million filtration/disinfection plant (DAFF) to treat effluent from the Bolivar wastewater treatment plant, producing Class A reclaimed water that could be used for irrigation in the region. The Water Reticulation Services Virginia (WRSV), a private company, gained a contract to access the output from the treatment plant, and further signed up clients for the water and built the water distribution system. Thus, VPS is a co-operative undertaking of SA Water, Water Reticulation Systems Virginia (WRSV) - a private company and the Virginia Irrigation Association (VIA) - representing market gardeners and other irrigators. Figure 1 provides the schematic layout of the VPS and its distribution network. 29 NOVEMBER 2006 Journal of the Australian Water Association

2 The Study The design adopted for this study was Case Study, a research strategy that focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings (Eisenhardt, 1989). Household interviews were conducted to gather information and key informant interviews augmented the information. Structured questionnaires were used for the household interviews using a mix of question types: multiple choices, numeric open end, and agreement scales. An initial exploration survey revealed that the irrigators associated with VPS comprised Greek, Italian, Australian, Vietnamese, and Cambodian communities. In order to interview irrigators with non- English speaking background, interpreters were recruited on the bases of command over Vietnamese, Khmer and English language, as well as relevant knowledge of the survey methods and study theme. In addition, the questionnaire was translated from English into Vietnamese and Khmer by professional translators to facilitate the interview process and in some cases, allow the respondents to mark the document on their own. When the WRSV was approached for the list of irrigators associated with the VPS, it was difficult to obtain the list because of some formal obligations of the water company. Therefore, a snowball sampling technique was employed to identify the respondents who were using reclaimed water from the scheme. In total 165 farms were visited out of which 128 irrigators responded. This accounted for around 51 per cent of the total number of irrigators associated with VPS (Table 1). Those not responding were either not interested in the study or not available during the repeated visits made to their farms. Simple tabular analysis with aid of frequencies and percentages was used to arrive at the results. Results and Discussion According to Agarwal and Ostrom (1999), through collective action, enhanced community participation, and welldesigned partnerships, it is possible to coordinate individual s activities; develop rules for resource use; sanction violators and mobilise the necessary cash, labour, or material resources. This study attempts to capture the perceptions of present day users about community participation, collective action and partnerships along with the factors responsible for implementing the VPS. Factors prompting implementation of the scheme As mentioned earlier, VPS is the result of Table 1. Distribution of the respondents across different ethnic groups. Group Total number of farms visited Total Respondents Non-English speaking English speaking Total 165 (65) 128 (51) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of the total number (252) of irrigators using reclaimed water. collective efforts and partnerships. So, what factors prompted the partnerships or motivated the growers for collective action? Generally, whenever individuals face problems unsolvable on their own they tend to come together to find solutions. This means, when there is a widely acknowledged crisis i.e. a crisis that multiple groups acknowledge as affecting their core interests; collective action is possible (OECD, 2003). Collective action therefore becomes an immediate necessity rather than a choice. According to Wade (1979), where water is problematic for virtually all irrigators, the irrigators tend to form a corporate body to deal with common irrigation and cultivation problems. The individual not only gets an identity but also security in the process of collective action. That was the case with the inception of VPS where people organised collectively in order to find solution to the water scarcity crisis in the region caused by depleting groundwater resources (Kracman, 2001; Thomas, 2006). Respondents were asked to mention the most important reason that prompted development of the Virginia pipeline. Figure 2 illustrates their responses. Around 53 per cent of the respondents reported groundwater depletion as the most important reason followed by 32 per cent quoting the price of the mains water. Around seven per cent believed that community interest to use reclaimed water for irrigation was the important reason. About six per cent rated encouragement by water authorities as the important reason. However, these are only the irrigators perception. Apart from the factors perceived by the respondents, increasing public concerns about the environmental damages caused by discharge of highly nutrient rich effluents into the ocean accompanied by some government initiatives such as Building Better Cities were also instrumental. The theory of collective action Collective action is mostly discussed in relation to the tragedy of the commons (Hardin,1968) and much of the world is dependent upon resources that are subject to the possibility of a tragedy of the commons (Ostrom 1992). Although, overcoming the tragedy of the commons is not an easy task, there is a growing consensus among commons scholars that collective, community based regulation holds out the best prospects for efficient management of resources (Ostrom 2000). The concept of collective action has, therefore, emerged as a response to deal with the tragedy of the commons. The phrase collective action refers to activities that require the coordination of efforts by two or more individuals (Agarwal Figure 2. Irrigators perception of reasons prompting development of the VPS.

3 and Ostrom 1999). Individuals associate themselves for a collective action with an objective to face the uncertainties and to search for solutions wherever possible. The commons literature has ample evidences of collective regulation for natural resources management (White and Runge 1995; Lam 1996; Ostrom 1992; 2000). The study used 11-point Likert scale items as a measure of collective action and cooperation within the community. To assess the irrigators perception regarding collective action and also participation, respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the scale items and the results are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. More than 75 per cent of the respondents agreed that most people in the community are willing to help when in need. When asked about their perception on community prosperity over the last five years, around 76 per cent believed that the community has prospered because of cooperation among the community members. Keeping in mind the variations in cultural background and ethnicities, the respondents were asked if they felt accepted as a member of one community. More than 70 per cent agreed that they felt accepted. It was observed during the survey that most of the respondents were engaged in farming in Virginia for more than 10 years without any problems. This supports the perception of irrigators that they felt accepted by the community. When specifically asked about cooperating during a water crisis, about 59 per cent agreed that people cooperate in such situations. A considerable percentage of people remained neutral (marked five on the scale) in response to this proposition. As observed during the survey, one possible reason for this could be that most respondents were new to the scheme. Overall, the responses and observations made during the survey imply that the community has a strong sense of cooperation and is community orientated. Mere presence of a crisis does not always bring out collective action, participation of all the actors involved is equally important. Participation is a broad term with many variations in its meaning and interpretation. However, in its narrowest sense, participation can be defined in terms of nominal membership, while in the broadest sense it can be defined as a process in which people voice and influence in decisionmaking (White 1996). Here, the focus is community participation and to examine the extent of community participation the study proposed three statements to the irrigators (Table 3). Respondents, when asked if they worked with others for the benefit of the Table 2. Irrigators perception about collective action and cooperation. Statements Agree Neutral Disagree People in the community will cooperate when there is water supply problem 75 (59) 18 (14) 35 (27) Most people in the community are willing to help when in need 101 (79) 23 (18) 4 (3) This community has prospered in the last five years 97 (76) 28 (22) 3 (2) I feel accepted as a member of this community 99 (77) 26 (20) 3 (2) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentage of the total sample (N=128). community, almost 60 per cent agreed with the proposition. When asked whether people who do not participate in communal activities are criticised, more than 60 per cent disagreed with the proposition. About making fair contribution towards communal activities around 42 per cent of the respondents thought that everyone in the community makes a fair contribution. The term contribution here meant contributing in terms of money or kind. Almost an equal percentage of respondents remained neutral. Around 75 per cent of the respondents agreed that the community has prospered in the last five years. Chi-square (χ 2 ) estimates were calculated to test whether irrigators perception about collective action and participation varied with age, education level, or ethnicity. The estimates were not significant affirming that irrigators perception was similar across different age group, education level, and ethnicity. Trust and solidarity It is evident from the success of the scheme that despite different ethnicity and cultural backgrounds the irrigators have demonstrated a high degree of networking. Absence of this would have raised problems. This is in contrast to the argument regarding collective action that division of irrigators by cultural and/or other social differences affects their capacity to communicate with one another (Tang, 1992). Therefore, the findings of this study while contradicting previous studies suggest that relatively heterogeneous community groups can be effective at provision of irrigation services (Kurian and Dietz, 2005). This also demonstrates a high level of trust among the members of the community. Further, since different agencies are involved in the functioning of the VPS, trust in these agencies also plays an important role in deciding about participation in the scheme. Respondents were asked about their level of trust in the agencies- government, EPA, health services and the water company. Figure 3 depicts the level of trust irrigators have in various agencies. Irrigators had either complete trust or some level of trust in these agencies to perform their duties effectively. Around 58 per cent of the respondents had complete trust in the government agencies while another 16 per cent had some level of trust. Regarding the water company, more than 55 per cent had complete trust while around 26 per cent more had some level of trust. About trust in other associated agencies like the EPA and the Health department, more than 40 per cent had complete trust. However, percentage of respondents who were indifferent is considerable, particularly with respect to EPA and Department of Health. This may be due the lack of awareness among the irrigators regarding the role of these agencies in relation to the scheme. The chi-square estimates for age group (χ 2 =18.11) and ethnicity (χ 2 =41.78) in case of trust in water company were significant implying that irrigators with English speaking background and in the young and middle age groups had more trust. Similar results were obtained in case of trust in the Table 3. Irrigators perception about statements regarding participation. Statements Agree Neutral Disagree I have worked with others in the past for the benefit of the community 76 (59) 40 (31) 12 (9) Most likely, the people who do not participate in communal activities are criticised. 14 (11) 34 (27) 80 (63) Everyone in the community makes a fair contribution to communal activities 54 (42) 53 (41) 21 (16) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentage of the total sample (N=128) 31 NOVEMBER 2006 Journal of the Australian Water Association

4 health department where the estimates for age (χ 2 =23.82) and ethnic groups (χ 2 =71.32) were significant, implying English speaking background and young - middle age groups had more trust in the health department. Partnerships Apart from collective action and community participation, well designed public-private partnerships is also a factor responsible for the success and sustainability of VPS. In the context of water sector, publicprivate partnerships refer to public entity entering into a contractual agreement with the private sector to take over some or all of its activities related to water management (OECD 2003). Generally, public-private partnerships (PPPs) promoted within the water sector are concession-based contracts in which a private firm obtains from the government the right to provide a particular service under conditions of significant market power (Kerf et al cited in Braadbaart 2005). Such contracts come in three families namely: franchise contracts, concession contracts and the build-operatetransfer (BOT) contracts (Braadbaart, 2005). The Virginia pipeline is built on the BOT model. Under the BOT form of partnership, capital investment, designing, building and operating the scheme is the responsibility of the private sector while the responsibility of setting performance standards, asset ownership, user fee collection, and oversight of performance and fees rests with the public agencies. This means, in a BOT project, a private company is given concession to build and operate a facility that would normally be built and operated by the government (UNIDO, 1996 cited in Braadbaart 2005). In the present case, SA water (public agency) is responsible for setting performance standards, asset ownership, user fee collection and, oversight of performance and fees. The WRSV (private company) is responsible for capital investment, designing and building and operating the scheme. However, it had some financial assistance from the SA water and Federal government funds from the Build Better Cities Program. Impediments encountering implementation of reuse scheme Successful development of reuse schemes always encounters various impediments. Most of these are due to lack of institutional organisation and community reluctance to use this resource. Legal, policy, institutional and social impediments occupy a prominent place during the Figure 3. Irrigator s level of trust in different agencies associated with the scheme. implementation of any reclaimed water irrigation schemes. Acquiring funds is another important obstacle since financing a reuse scheme is normally a complex task. Legal and policy issues were addressed effectively because South Australia has a favourable regulatory and policy regime for wastewater reuse. The government policy to phase out all sewerage discharges to the marine environment where it is economically and environmentally sustainable has significantly influenced the development of water reuse programs in South Australia (Thiyagarajah 2005). The inclusion of reclaimed water in the South Australian Government s State Water Plan 2000 demonstrates the State s commitment to wastewater reuse projects. Above all, the state has several regulatory controls that need to be complied with before implementation of the scheme like comprehensive reclaimed water guidelines; Water Resources Act; approval of the Public and Environmental Health Service, and approval of Environment Protection Authority (EPA). The remaining financial, institutional and social issues were addressed through contractual agreements between the stakeholders SA Water, VIA, and the WRSV. As a part of the contractual agreement, SA water constructed the DAFF water treatment plant. The WRSV built the distribution system and delivers water to dams on individual growers properties, from which they pump the water into their own irrigation systems. The supply contracts with the irrigators are with the water company who owns the scheme at present and will transfer the whole scheme to SA Water in 2018 as per the terms of agreement (Menzies, 2001). In the present case, Government agencies contributed nearly half the capital funds. The total cost of the project ($55million), including the DAFF Plant and the reticulation system, was shared between the Commonwealth Government ($10.8 million), which contributed from the Building Better Cities funds, Landcare ($574,000), private investors ($7 million), SA government ($7 million), Horticulture Australia Limited ($ 700,000) and the remainder from SA Water. Regarding the social issues, which is mostly addressing the community concerns about using reclaimed water the VPS has clear and effective water management plans. An Irrigation Management Plan (IMP) is developed by the WRSV to ensure that the irrigation of the agricultural land is sustainable. The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for approving and reviewing the IMPs on an annual basis and ensuring that it complies with all the environmental legislations. The irrigation association (VIA) representing the community/irrigators manages an education programme for growers in relation to water reuse. This programme aims to educate the irrigators about the impact of the enhanced nutrient levels on soils and natural groundwater by use of reclaimed water. It also closely monitors the effects of the reclaimed water on the soils. To inform the public, all properties using reclaimed water have signs on fencing reading Reclaimed water do not drink. Journal of the Australian Water Association NOVEMBER

5 Conclusions Development of successful and sustainable water reuse projects will definitely provide solutions to water scarcity problems. However, we cannot overlook the impediments encountering implementation of any reuse scheme. Experiences from the VPS suggest that community participation, well-designed partnerships, and favourable regulatory and policy regime are very much important in implementing a successful and sustainable reuse scheme. Further, by providing knowledge and information on the current best practices and communicating this information in a form that is understandable to the different stakeholder groups, it is possible to implement sustainable reuse schemes. Acknowledgments The authors express their gratitude towards the University of South Australia and CRC for Irrigation Futures (CRC IF) for supporting this work. The authors thank Bui, Huynh Thanh Nguyen; Le, Thi Thanh Tra; Nguyen, Van Tuong; Pham, Thu Van and Chy, Ty for their help in translation and conducting the survey. The authors thank Satya G. N. for helping create the map and finally the participants for their time and cooperation. The Authors Ganesh B. Keremane is a PhD student at the University of South Australia. He is a President s Scholarship holder and CRC for Irrigation Futures Scholar and this paper is based on his PhD research work. ganesh.keremane@unisa.edu.au. Jennifer McKay is Professor of Business Law and Director of the Centre for Comparative Water Policies and Laws, University of South Australia. Jennifer.Mckay@unisa.edu.au References Agarwal, A. and Ostrom, E (1999) Collective action, property rights, and devolution of forest and protected area management. Paper presented at Workshop on Collective Action, Property Rights, and Devolution of Natural Resources Management, Puerto Azul, the Philippines, June. Braadbaart, O. (2005) Privatizing water and wastewater in developing countries: assessing the 1990s, experiments. Water Policy, 7: Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4): Hamilton, A. J., and et al. (2005) Position of the Australian Horticultural Industry with Respect to the Use of Reclaimed Water, Agricultural Water Management 71(3): Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162: Kelly, J. and Stevens, D. (2000) From problem to profit. Water, 27 (5): Kracman, B., Martin, R., and Sztajnbok, P. (2001) The Virginia Pipeline: Australia s largest water recycling project. Water Science and Technology, 43(1): Kurian, M. and Dietz, T. (2005) How pro-poor are participatory watershed management projects? An Indian case study, Research Report 92. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Lam, W. (1996) Improving the performance of small-scale irrigation systems: the effects of technological investments and governance structure on irrigation performance in Nepal. World Development, 24 (8): MacDonald, D. H. and Dyack, B. (2004) Exploring the institutional impediments to conservation and water reuse National issues. CSIRO Land and Water Client Report. Menzies, Tom (2001) The $ 52 m model. The Source, April 2001, Issue 13, pp.9. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003) Public-Private Partnerships in the Urban Water Sector. OECD Policy Brief, April Ostrom, E. (1992). Crafting institutions for selfgoverning irrigation systems. ICS press. San Francisco, CA. Ostrom, E. (2000) Reformulating the commons. Swiss Political Science Review, 6 (1), pp Pritchard J. and Richardson S. (2005) Northern Adelaide Plains: Analysis of trends in the groundwater conditions. Research and Environment Management Pty Ltd for North Adelaide and Barossa Catchment Water Management Board, Kent Town, South Australia. Tang, S. Y. (1992) Institutions and Collective Action: Self-Governance in Irrigation, San Francisco, ICS press. Thiyagarajah, R. A. (2005) Sustainable wastewater reuse through private sector participation - The Adelaide experience [online]. ADB. Documents/Events/2005/ Sanitation-Wastewater-Management/ paper-thiyagarajah.pdf [accessed 28 March 2006] Thomas, R. (2006) Reuse in South Australia in Daryl Stevens (Ed) Growing crops with reclaimed wastewater, CSIRO Publishing, Victoria, Australia. Wade, H. R. (1979) The Social Response to Irrigation: an Indian Case Study. Journal of Development Studies, 16(1): White, A., T and Runge, F. C. (1995) The Emergence and Evolution of Collective Action: Lessons from Watershed Management in Haiti. World Development, 23(10): White, S (1996) Depoliticizing development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6(1): Editorial Submissions - Technical Papers Water journal welcomes the submission of papers equivalent to 3,000-4,000 words (allowing for graphics) relating to all areas of the water cycle and water business to be published in the journal. Topical stories of up to 2,000 words may also be accepted. All submissions of papers intended for the main body of the journal should be ed to the Technical Editor, bswinton@bigpond.net.au and (Editorial Express). Shorter news items should be ed to jsage@awa.asn.au. A submitted paper will be tabled at a monthly Journal Committee meeting where, if appropriate, it will be assigned to referees. Their comments will be passed back to the principal author. If accepted and after any comments have been dealt with, the final paper can be ed with the text in MS Word but with high resolution graphics (300 dpi tiff, jpg or eps files) as separate files. Authors should be mindful that Water Journal is published in a 3 column magazine format rather than the full-page format of Word documents. Graphics should be set up so that they will still be clearly legible when reduced to two-column size (about 12cm wide). Tables and figures need to be numbered with the appropriate reference in the text e.g. see Figure 1, not just placed in the text with a (see below) reference as they may end up anywhere on the page when typeset. See index page 2 for more details on this and other editorial submissions. 33 NOVEMBER 2006 Journal of the Australian Water Association