Historically, cities have built their drinking water service provision based on the principle of universal coverage that relies heavily on formal piped water supply offered by a few municipal actors. However, in cities of the Global South these formal service provision systems are often very fragmented and can face shortcomings in meeting the water demands of all urban water users. Importantly, the urban poor that live in informal settlements are often disconnected from these services and therefore complement their drinking water needs with a plethora of informal water services.

As part of the research project (WaterFlow), “Making the water flow Conflict(s) and cooperation between formal and informal urban water regimes in Asia and Africa” (2019-2022), funded by FORMAS, the objective has been to understand the kinds of  conflict(s) and cooperation that take place between formal and informal drinking water services in the Global South.

The project has focused particularly on learning from two cities, Nairobi (Kenya) and Delhi (India). Equally, in Nairobi and Delhi, full coverage of water provision through formal ‘piped’ water has not been realised and therefore both metropolitan regions contain a broad water infrastructure spectrum from centralised, tightly coupled monopoly networks, to more splintered service provision models. Therefore, the urban poor in these two cities are using a variety of options to meet vital water needs beyond piped water supply, such as water tanker tracks, community and private boreholes as well as water provided by water cart vendors.

In both cities, municipalities have been resisting recognition of this heterogeneity of urban water services despite their importance for the urban poor resulting in numerous forms of conflict(s) and cooperation that are usually missed by policy makers and water authorities. Turning to conflicts first. In the Delhi case, we found that conflicts although often subtle and drawn along lines of caste and class, they effectively determine which users become served first and by which water service regime (formal or informal). In Nairobi on the other hand, conflict(s) can be very dynamic and often violent involving clashes between different groups, vandalism or verbal conflict.

Despite the prominence of these kinds of conflict(s) we found at the other side of the spectrum, evidence of strong levels of cooperation in the interactions among the actors. In a recent publication from the WaterFlow project, we have discussed how institutionalised practices make it possible for water users to access both formal and informal modes of water provision, particularly during times of water scarcity. Furthemore, these same practices compel the formal urban water actors to accept the informal actors even though in official parlance ‘informal’ actors will be treated as ‘illegal’.  We find evidence that these interactions have become normalised over a long period of time and therefore tend to remain rather stable despite the existence of conflicts in both cases.

Further to our empirical research, we have sought to engage with municipal water authorities, policy makers, researchers and water practitioners on the importance of conflict(s) and cooperation as an important step towards achieving the sustainability of the entire urban water system as well as equity in water access and distribution. With seed funding received during 2022 from KTH Sustainability Office we hosted a policy and research workshop in Nairobi on the 8th of December 2022 with participation of important water stakeholders.  The workshop was used as a platform to discuss how formal and informal water services and actors can better co-exist, and to provide recommendations for improving water services to the urban poor and achieving sustainability.

A key recommendation from the workshop was that more efforts are needed to include water consumers from low-income settlements in the policy process. Namely, the key policy actors need to address water users’ experience with informal services in a more transparent way when designing water policies so that these experiences are not forgotten when implementing water policy plans.

The policy actors further noted a need to improve  coordination across formal-informal water services such as by creating an apex body at municipal level that can function as a single window grievance cell for water users (regardless of whether the water service is formal or informal).

The policy actors finally recommended to set-up a mechanism (such as a regulation or contract between the regulator and the water provider) to monitor the water price and quality of informal water delivery services. This can help reduce discrepancies in the pricing and quality of the water provided by formal and informal water providers.

However, it was also clear from the workshop that these recommendations require tackling more systemic obstacles in water service provision in the Global South. Lack of trust between the formal and informal water providers means that they can often undermine each other.  While structural problems in water delivery, such as corruption can act as a serious barrier to cooperation. It was crucially noted, that long-term sustainability tends to be side-lined in favour of short term political gains. That is why local politicians (city and municipal level) may often lack training and awareness around the role of different water service regimes.

International recognition and cooperation to achieve the positive links between access to water and sanitation services and people’s livelihood, health, dignity and freedom is growing. With the SDGs and the human right to water shaping the global policy discourse, there is greater recognition of diverse configurations of public, private and community providers of drinking water.  However, our research shows that there is still work to be done to understand what causes of conflict(s) and what types of cooperation models work better in different contexts. This is particularly true for the water sector as much as other critical sectors in cities and will be a necessary part of the puzzle of achieving the SDGs.

Contact and more information

Timos Karpouzoglou, KTH

Urban waterfronts as complex bioregions by nature and also socio-economical hubs by their history, provide a real challenge for planning institutions. The European Union SOS Climate Waterfronts project^[1] is aimed at the development of innovative and sustainable strategies for solving present situations, while helping to plan future resilient and adaptive waterfronts. The project allowed a multi and cultural disciplinary team to visit KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. For a month of intensive work we did a lot of transdisciplinary thinking and designing around the urban waterfront redevelopment of the Stockholm area called Lövholmen.

At EU level, an urban agenda^[2] has been drawn up to attain sustainable urban development, with a special focus on climate change issues. A cohesive policy is to lay the groundwork for sustainable, innovative and economically strong development for the cities of Europe. The approach to sustainable urban waterfront redevelopment differs from locale to locale, but literature on urban waterfront developments show some general challenges and key issues that were embedded in our plans.

Nowadays the land and buildings of Lövholmen^[3] are shared by private and public ownership. The area is characterized by an interesting industrial setting, under an ongoing transformation to host creative activities, like Färgfabriken art center^[4], Platform Stockholm, Concrete Art Gallery & Academy AB. The area is also characterized by a large and continuous waterfront, connecting Gröndal housing area and new Liljeholmskajen development. This provides us with  a very effective transport systems network. At last, there is an enormous natural potential in close proximity to Trekanten lake water and surrounding woods. But also great economic values are at stake: builders want to demolish and build new. Recent residents and many others interested in urban planning, want to proceed more cautiously and take advantage of several of the unique buildings.

In our Vision^[5], Lövholmen must be transformed into a gathering place with attractive destinations for all people in Stockholm focusing on the connection between nature and arts and so becoming a mending of memory and nature.  Besides an artistic and green neighborhood, it needs to be economically sustainable as well. Therefore the area must facilitate unexpected collaborations with return to investment potential, thus paving the way for Lövholmen’s future.

By creating a business plan where producers and investors share in business revenues, both economically driven stakeholders as well as artists, may work in the same direction sharing the same interests. This way, Lövholmen has the potential of becoming an experimental hub for art, business, technology and resilience. Considering the area redevelopment as ‘a cultural and resilient hub’, innovative techniques provide chances to work with companies and universities as trial projects, potentially reducing costs. This could be especially effective when it comes to decontamination of the soil or in the use of materials. The field lab role brings attention and a reputation for the area, creating interest for forward-thinking businesses to settle down.

^[1] http://sosclimatewaterfront.eu/sos/project
^[2] Urban Agenda: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/brochure/urban_agenda_eu_en.pdf
^[3] http://7mostendangered.eu/sites/industrial-area-of-lovholmen-stockholm-sweden/
^[4] https://archello.com/project/fargfabriken-art-museum

Contact and more information

Team contact:
Magdalena Rembeza, PhD, Faculty of Architecture, Gdańsk University of Technology (GUT)

KTH contact:
Katarina Larsen, KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Team members:
Ana Neiva, PhD, Faculty of Architecture of the University of Porto (FAUP)
Magdalena Rembeza, PhD, Faculty of Architecture, Gdańsk University of Technology (GUT)
Metha Bregman, drs/Msc, Behavioral scientist, CPONH, the Netherlands

SOS Climate Waterfront project https://www.kth.se/philhist/historia/forskning/environmental-histor/sos-climate-waterfront-1.1037673
SOS Climate waterfront project in CORDIS
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/823901

^[5] The vision for Lövholmen  was created by the whole team: Ana Neiva, Magdalena Rembeza, Metha Bregman, Elena Paudice, Nils Brattgard, Shea Nee Chew

There are a few significant stages in the life of a PhD candidate. The first one is the presentation of the pro memorandum, where the PhD student presents their plan for their thesis in front of the division. This is supposed to happen within the first year and is seen as a first step towards defending one’s one ideas and theories, but it is also important to take in criticism and suggestions by colleagues. The next step then happens after half of the PhD time is over. This is called midseminar in Swedish and here the PhD candidate also has an opponent. The opponent is usually a senior researcher from outside of the division, who gets to read the candidate’s work thoroughly and then presents the work for the PhD and afterwards enters into a qualified discussion with the student. Here, it is still possible to turn the PhD student’s work around and to suggest major changes, different theories or more content, which has been neglected so far. Approximately one year before the defence, the final seminar takes place, again with a different opponent. Significant changes should not be suggested and this seminar can be seen as the dress rehearsal of the defence.

In September 2021 my midseminar took place with Itay Fischhendler as opponent. Itay is professor and chair of the Department of Geography at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Even though I am writing my thesis in the interspace of history of technology and environmental history, also known as envirotech studies, I decided together with my first supervisor Per Högselius, that it would be best to get input and comments on my work from a researcher outside of the field.

Several reasons spoke in favour of this decision: 1. My work is generally not traditionally historical, as I argue for the use of social science theories in history. 2. Itay as a geographer and expert in transboundary conflicts seemed to be an excellent choice to comment on my research on historical transboundary conflicts along the Rhine River. 3. With my background in social anthropology, I am aiming at writing a history of the nuclear Rhine from the 1950s until today.

Itay and I discussed two of my articles and the introduction of my thesis, also known as kappa. The first article deals with a 41 year-long conflict on drinking water quality around the Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Centre. This is unfortunately a very common conflict and has been a fear of people close to nuclear sites ever since. My second article is about thermal pollution from nuclear power plants. This again is a fear from people since the planning days of nuclear power, but this seems to have fallen more and more into oblivion due to the major accidents of Chernobyl and Fukushima. With my work, I would like to bring these risks more into the centre of the debate again, especially in times of climate change and the discussion around nuclear power being part of the solution of tackling a heating climate.

Overall, I was very content with the outcome of the midseminar. Itay’s comments were on point as he emphasised the weaknesses of my work, but also gave encouraging feedback which motivated me to continue my research. According to him, going to the root cause of the problem by digging in archives, helps with identifying what the actual cause of a conflict is. History assists in finding solutions for the future. He also confirmed my theory that thermal pollution is indeed a neglected risk and needs to be studied more thoroughly even today. My job now is to frame my deep case studies with theory and to structure it in a way that even people without deep knowledge of the case can understand the issue.

Alicia Gutting

PhD candidate in the ERC-project Nuclearwaters, Division of History of Science, Technology and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Drought and the lack of access to clean water constitute serious threats to human and natural wellbeing in many places of the world. Over the last century, drought has faded from quotidian life in many parts of Scandinavia and northern Europe. However, experiences of extreme weather in recent years have advanced a new awareness and preparedness agenda. Issues concerning water use and availability are now among the priorities of risk management, climate change adaptation, and preparedness efforts.

Sweden’s weather was fairly stable for much of the 20th century. The problems of drought were usually regarded as difficulties affecting local agriculture and drinking water supplies. In addition, concerns related to the climate and weather were commonly overshadowed by threats linked to the politics of the Cold War. In the 1990s, crisis management interventions were formulated around weather-related contingencies. Among other things, scenarios for dealing with flooding were being worked out.

The drought and the subsequent forest fires during the summer of 2018 ushered in a new discussion about Swedish preparedness against drought. The historical aspects of what was usually referred to as the extreme weather were highlighted by the fact that the drought and the subsequent forest fires were described as the worst in “modern times”. The abstract notion of long-term and large-scale global climate change was made concrete and meaningful here and now, as it were, in contrast to being viewed as a potential disaster happening in the future and mainly affecting other parts of the world.

Drought as preparedness problems is multi-facetted. Public agents, policy makers, and researchers underscore the large amount of work that needs to be done, the importance of facilitating a much-needed collaboration between different stakeholders and a holistic view of the issues at hand. The formulation of preparedness problems involves a kind of battle over the narrative of which threats are most serious, how they have developed, what may happen in the future, and necessary activities.

History is a fundamental component of the efforts of upholding vigilance against threats that may or may not materialize in the near or distant future. Learning from past events is crucial. However, while historical narratives help societies understand, manage, and cope with present vulnerabilities and challenges, it is impossible to devise effective preparedness measures based exclusively on historical experiences. In an era of climate change, the scale and speed of natural events have the potential of reversing understandings of historical development and build a foundation for a reformed narrative of Swedish readiness.

A historical perspective on drought as a contingency problem includes but also goes beyond mapping and analyzing past episodes of low water availability. It also brings light on the human subjectivities, relationships, and forms of governance that have emerged in response to previous occurrences. Focusing on people, it brings into focus the efforts to cope with uncertainty rather than the historical development of specific technologies for turning potential dangers into controllable and calculable risk.

This contrasts with a narrative about the ever-increasing safety and certainty of modern society. Rather than illuminating the many ways in which science and technology have improved the protection of human and non-human life, health, and vitality, other actors and issues come to the fore. Through studying actors that have taken the existential concerns of low water availability as their primary concern, it is possible to contribute new understandings of drought as an historical preparedness problem.

This may contribute new perspectives on the present, a kind of genealogy of uncertainty. In this perspective, “unpreparedness” against drought is not merely seen as an inability or inadequacy of certain institutions or technical instruments. It highlights a lack of historical narratives that can give meaning to what is currently happening and relate contemporary problems to a longer history of how society has functioned in difficult circumstances. It may help to inform the kind of coping strategies needed to deal with a volatile relationship between humans and water, or lack thereof.

Fredrik Bertilsson, historian, working as researcher at the Division of History of Science, Technology and the Environment, KTH. His project “Beyond ‘unprepared’: Towards an integrative expertise of drought” is funded by FORMAS during 2022-2025.

Photo by: Mattias Klum (MKTG) and Stockholm Environment Institute

On the 1^st of February, this year, the biggest governance overhaul of Swedish hydropower in a century entered a new phase of implementation. This occurred when the first owners of hydropower installations, in 17 river basins, sent in permit review documents to the Land and Environmental Court, as part of the implementation of the National Plan of Hydropower Permit Review (NAP). Over the coming 20 years, all Swedish hydropower owners that signed up to the NAP (virtually all owners have done so) are required to apply for new hydropower permits that include modern environmental provisions. The overall aim of the process is to provide the maximum possible benefit to the aquatic environment and a nationally effective supply of hydropower electricity.

There is no doubt that hydropower is an important energy resource. Apart from being renewable, it is also valuable in that it provides high flexibility to the electric system which makes it fundamental for Sweden’s efforts to decarbonize. Hydropower production, however, deteriorates the connectivity of rivers – the movement and exchange of water, energy, material and species within the river system and surrounding landscape – to the significant detriment of the aquatic environment and biodiversity. When water is used for hydropower production, it loses most of the characteristics that support river connectivity. When trying to understand the essences of this national permit review process, one useful perspective is thus to view it as a national exercise of reallocating water between the, largely competing, requirements of the electric system and riverine ecosystems. Water reallocation is a governance process that includes a multitude of stakeholders that range from hydropower owners, local residents, Sámi representatives to environmental NGOs.

The governance challenges are thus significant, which means that more efficient, equitable and resilient solutions, even if identified, might not be possible to implement. In an attempt, to provide structure for analyzing and understanding the type of processes which the national permit review entails, we propose a framework of water reallocation in highly modified rivers in a recently published peer review article. The framework builds on insights from social-hydrological systems research, adaptive governance research and water reallocation research, and we test it on Sweden in a pre- and post- 2019 analysis. 2019 becomes a significant year in our analysis since this is the year the governance overhaul of hydropower formally started in the country. Based on our analysis we find that there has been an increase in adaptive capacity, understood as the capacity to reallocate water, but that this is linked mainly to water reallocation that will occur in smaller rivers and tributaries with small scale hydropower production. Rivers with large scale hydropower production are set to enjoy limited water reallocation, or we may even see increased allocation of water towards hydropower in the coming years, in the interest of increasing hydropower’s flexibility contribution to the electric system.

In this first round of implementation of the NAP, the involved basins and hydropower installations are small, but exhibit shifting character and importance. They include the mini station in Ihreån, the only hydropower installation on Gotland, to 18 hydropower installations in Rönne Å, Skåne, where the municipality of Klippan has bought and will decommission the three largest hydropower stations in the basin. As with all significant societal changes, there are varying and, at times, opposed opinions of these developments, which are reflected in the active debate that took place in the biggest Swedish newspaper at the start of this process.

Although our framework will not be able to solve all trade-offs and conflicting interests, it does provide a basis on which to analyze and understand this process and compare Sweden’s efforts in an EU setting. This is the case since the framework is broad enough to be of general interest yet sufficiently specific to provide clarity of analysis and a possibility for the cross-case analysis of various countries, with high hydropower production. We identify the EU’s top hydropower producing countries (including Sweden, France, Spain and Finland) of special interest for comparative analysis since they are all subject to the same EU directives requiring water reallocation to improve riverine ecosystem functioning while increasing the share of renewable energy. In this line, we have applied for funding with collaborating universities across Europe to continue this work.

We hope to be able to share good news and update you on these developments in coming blog posts!

Peter M. Rudberg, researcher at GeoViable
Timos Karpouzoglou, researcher, Division of History of Science, Technology and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology