Dyson College of Arts and Sciences

is a private sector operator which has worked since 1958 to provide water services to semi-urban and rural communities, oen in remote municipalities without established public water authorities (Ndaw 2016; de Carvalho et al. 2011). BWSI's model relies on partner- ing with a focal municipality under which it is granted the rights to build and operate a water supply system for a specific period of time, oen for 35 years, aer which the rights of operation go back to the munic- ipality. By applying commercial-sector management principles such as economies of scale, lean operations and staffing, decentralized of management decisions, and working to meet customer needs in the particu- lar localities where they work, BWSI has expanded its operations beyond its original area of operation in the suburbs of Manila and achieved economic sustainabil- ity as it grows (Ndaw 2016). As with Waste Concern's small-scale models, BSWI's decentralized model has the potential for broad application in serving popula- tions which might otherwise remain under-served by public municipalities which rely on larger, centralized means of delivering water supply, thereby bypassing some of the issues of conflicting logics (Pache and San- tos 2010) present in the other models examined in this study. Discussion Taken together, the findings from this study point to the importance of jointly considering resource ownership with resource management and operation vis-à-vis the design of resilient water supply systems. Additionally, the analysis of the Waste Concern-Saiban case demon- strates the importance of attending to balance between resource ownership and resource management and operation in light of conflicting social and economic demands which impinge upon water supply systems and which may modulate their ability to develop re- siliency to shocks of varied origin and impact (Pache and Santos 2013; Williams et al. 2017; Schulman 1993). In examining the partnership between Waste Concern and Saiban, I attempted to draw lessons from sanita- tion sector which could be applied to water supply sys- tems, and in doing so, identified four distinct models of managing water resources. While these models— (1) municipal ownership/municipal management, (2) municipal ownership/community management, (3) municipal ownership/private management, and (4) private ownership/private operation—each have their particular strengths and weaknesses, it is important to keep in mind that their applicability may vary depend- ing on the needs and resource constraints of localities wishing to undertake one of these paths or another. e first model, municipal ownership com- bined with municipal management of water resourc- es, is the most common ownership and management combination found worldwide (Wolff and Palaniappan 2004). As noted by actors at Waste Concern, a munic- ipal ownership/municipal management model allows for a tight degree of central control of resources, and it is therefore important to have strong relationships be- tween implementing staff and political actors to ensure operation without difficulties within this ownership and management framework. In practice, however, the high-level decision making which takes places at pro- vincial, national, and international levels is oen de- tached from the work of local managers operating mu- nicipal systems on-the-ground in small localities and in rural areas (Ludwig et al. 2014). As such, the impact of decisions related to societal level forces which affect the work of local operators, such as climate change, is not directly realized or perceived by many public util- ities. Another downside of this model may be poten- tial for inefficient use of resources by the municipali- ty, particularly when strong financial and operational controls and not in place, or are compromised due to external factors. As previously noted, a recent, tragic, example of this is the delivery of contaminated water supply to the residents of Flint, Michigan starting in 2014 in an effort by municipal authorities, operating under severe financial pressures coming from the state authorities, to reduce costs. is example also high- lights a situation in which the balance between public sector and commercial logics was tipped towards the commercial side without due concern for the risk of negative health outcomes which ultimately resulted (Pache and Chowdhury 2012; Pache and Santos 2010). e second model, municipal ownership com- bined with community management of water resourc- es, is common in rural areas of emerging economies and other localities where resource constraints mean that a dedicated municipal or private manager cannot be put in place. e primary advantages of this model include a greater sense of ownership and control on the part of the ultimate beneficiaries of water resources, the community members, as well as a means by which to reduce chronic difficulties such as traveling long dis- tances to obtain water supply and obtaining water from sources contaminated with waste water (Klug et al. 2017). However, local management of water resources does not always result in benefits to the community. In some cases, existing power structures and relations 25

• Cover