Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28

Practicalities of participation in urban IWRM: Perspectives of

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

wastewater management in two cities in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh

Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma

Abstract
As the demand for water in cities increases, the quantity of wastewater being produced is growing at a phenomenal rate.
If resources are to be managed effectively, a new paradigm is required for urban wastewater management. This paper
reviews the initial findings of a participatory action planning process for managing wastewater for agricultural use. It finds
that such processes need considerable facilitation, capacity building and knowledge sharing, but that if a plan can be
devised that meets the needs of the stakeholders, even if some compromise is required, then certain stakeholders are likely
to take responsibility for specific aspects. This may not meet the entire integrated water resources management (IWRM)
vision of the plan but provided the plan is developed in such a way that incremental implementation will be beneficial then
this will produce some success and may stimulate further cooperation.
Keywords: Stakeholders; Collaboration; Participatory planning; Wastewater; Urban IWRM.

1. Introduction positive impacts for the environment and livelihoods. This

Urban populations are growing at such a phenomenal rate
that in 2008 more than half the world’s population will be
living in urban areas for the first time in human history.
These 3.3 billion people are expected to increase to 5
billion by 2030 by which time the towns and cities of the
developing world will make up 80% of the global
population (UNFPA, 2007). This will put pressure on the
resource base and on urban administration due to the
increased need for urban infrastructure including houses,
power, water, sanitation, roads, and commercial facilities.
Naturally this will contribute further to water requirements,
with industry and urban water use predicted to double by
2050 (UNDP, 2006).
Coupled with this demographic change is the production
of urban wastewater: cities dispose of around 80% of the
water they use as wastewater and in developing countries
only 10% of this is treated (UNEP 2003; Sadeq, 1999; Joyce,
1997 cited in Molle and Berkoff, 2006). Proper management
and utilization of this wastewater for irrigation near urban
areas would ease the demand for freshwater and reduce the
quantity of wastewater reaching water bodies, resulting in
Alexandra Evans is a Researcher with the International Water Management
Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. E-mail: A.Evans@cgiar.org.
Samyuktha Varma is a Researcher with the International Water
Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations
practice is generally considered desirable if managed
effectively; for example, in Israel 65% of domestic sewage
production is treated and reused predominantly for
agricultural irrigation (Friedler, 2001; Lawhon and
Schwartz, 2006) and in Oman although only half the
wastewater is treated more than 90% of this is used, mostly
for arboriculture (FAO, 2001; cited in Hamilton et al., 2007).
However there are numerous examples of wastewater
being used directly on agricultural land without adequate
risk mitigation measures, for example as documented in
Ghana, Vietnam, Pakistan, India and Bolivia (Drechsel et al.,
2006; Raschid-Sally et al., 2004; Cornish and Kielen,
2004; Ensink et al., 2004; and Scott et al., 2004). In part,
this is because the cost of wastewater treatment means
that at present it is prohibitive. For example it has been
estimated that an investment of US$ 65 billion would be
required to treat the 73% of urban wastewater in India that
is believed to be untreated, or 10 times what the
government of India proposes to spend (Kumar, 2003: cited
in Scott et al., 2004).
Turning wastewater into a resource requires an integrated
approach. It is argued that such an approach must
encompass the principles of integrated water resource
management (IWRM) especially the coordinated development
of land and water resources, to provide maximal and
equitable social welfare benefits without undermining the
sustainability of the resource base (GWP TEC, 2000; cited
20 Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma / Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28
in Rees, 2006). Merrey et al. (2005) go further stating that
the basic objectives of IWRM should be “empowering poor
people, reducing poverty, improving livelihoods, and
promoting economic growth.”
This paper presents preliminary findings from the Wastewater
Agriculture and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation (WASPA)
project, in which interactions between people are facilitated,
on the basis of equal knowledge about certain issues,
leading to improved decision making and better IWRM
solutions. The project was established to test practical ways
to effectively manage urban wastewater in developing
country contexts to improve the livelihoods of wastewater
dependent peri-urban farmers through the development of
implementable participatory action plans (PAPs). The
assertion was that an approach was needed that recognized
the interconnectedness of all parts of the system and
involved the participation of all relevant stakeholders, since
a problem as complex, and potentially costly, as wastewater
management and use is unlikely to be solved by sector
professionals alone (IWA and UNEP, 2002; Rees, 2006;
Thomas and Durham, 2003).
The effectiveness of the planning process, the successes
achieved, the constraints experienced and suggestions to
overcome these in future are explored in this paper, based
on observations by the project team and stakeholders two
years into the process. Although the issues are in some
cases specific to the project locations and subject, there are
many lessons that can be applied to other urban IWRM
processes and to participatory planning in general.
2. Background
The WASPA project was undertaken in two Asian cities —
Rajshahi in Bangladesh and Kurunegala in Sri Lanka —
between December 2005 and December 2008. The project
was funded by the European Union (EU) and undertaken
by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI),
the COSI Foundation for Technical Cooperation (Sri Lanka),
NGO Forum for Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation
(Bangladesh) and the International Water and Sanitation
Center (IRC, Netherlands). The two cities were selected
because they were identified as locations where untreated
wastewater was used in agriculture and where there appeared
to be potential for improved management (Comprehensive
Assessment, no date).
Kurunegala city, in the North West Province of Sri
Lanka, had a population of 28,000 at the time of the last
census with a further 150,000 estimated to enter the city
daily for work (Department of Census and Statistics, 2001).
The city derives its water supply from the Deduru Oya
(River) and the resulting wastewater is discharged via
storm water drains and natural streams to Maguru Oya just
outside the western boundary of the municipality. Downstream
the Maguru Oya is used for various purposes including drinking
water supplies for other cities. The wastewater draining
through the city collects urban run-off, solid waste, and
commercial, hospital and domestic wastewater (both grey
and black water although most households have septic
tanks). This wastewater is totally untreated. However the
National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB) is
currently working on a project with the Danish International
Development Agency (Danida) — still in the planning
stages — to sewer and treat the waste from half the city,
including the hospital (National Water Supply and Drainage
Board, 2005; Dissanayake et al., 2007).
The wastewater is used directly to irrigate roughly 53 ha
of paddy land which is cultivated by approximately 130
families including owners and tenant farmers who mainly
grow paddy as a subsistence crop and also work in the city
(Jayakody et al., 2007). Flood irrigation is practiced and
farmers work barefoot in the fields, which poses a potential
health risk to them; but since paddy has a husk and is
always eaten cooked, the health risks from consumption are
minimal (WHO, 2006).
Rajshahi city is located in the north west of Bangladesh,
in Rajshahi District, and has a population of around
388,800 (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2005). The city
receives its water from groundwater sources and the Padma
River, and is drained by a network of storm water drains
flowing north to the Baranai River. The 10 main drains collect
illegally discharged domestic, industrial and commercial
wastes, which are totally untreated; some of which are used
to irrigate an estimated 550 ha of land (Comprehensive
Assessment, no date). The project area, which covers
around 98 ha, is irrigated by three of these drains and
cultivated by 247 farmers of which some are landowners,
tenant farmers and paid labourers including women
(Jayakody et al., 2007b). A wide variety of crops are grown
on this land including vegetables likely to be eaten raw
such as tomatoes, onions and chillies, which increases the
need to consider on-farm practices to reduce contamination
of crops, as well as consumer practices to further reduce
risks (WHO, 2006). The irrigation methods used are both
flood irrigation and ridge and furrow, with water being
pumped directly from the storm water canals. The latter
method may minimize the contact between the crop and the
wastewater but means that farmers and pump operators are
in direct contact with wastewater (Plate 1 and Plate 2).
3. Stakeholder platforms for participatory planning
In order to undertake participatory planning for wastewater
management a framework was required that could be
moulded by the stakeholders. As a guide, the project used
a combination of project cycle management and a form
of the model developed by the EMPOWERS project as an
IWRM planning cycle which encompasses: visioning,
assessing, strategizing, planning, implementing and reflecting
(FAO, 2001; EC, 2002; EC, 1998; Moriarty et al.,
2005a).
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations
 Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma / Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28
The methodology drew on the rich history of rapid rural
appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA)
which has led to a plethora of approaches that differ to
varying extents (Chambers, 1994). The approach most
closely followed in the WASPA project was the consensus
building methodology of participatory action plan development
(PAPD) which includes situation analysis, stakeholder analysis,
participatory planning, clustering stakeholders, planning-
workshops, consensus building, review and dissemination
(Barr, 2001; Bunting, 2005). Central to the process is the fact
that key primary and secondary stakeholders are given the
opportunity to identify constraints, propose appropriate solu-
tions, develop and agree on plans of action and embark upon
the process of implementing activities to address some of the
most pressing and widely held problems (Bunting, 2005).
In order to facilitate the planning process, the stakeholders
in each city were organized into a local platform as part of
a Learning Alliance (LA). The term Learning Alliance has
been used in many arenas and was defined by the Centro
Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) as a “process
undertaken jointly by research organizations, donor and
development agencies, policy makers and the private
sector through which good practices, in both research and
development, are identified, shared, adapted and used to
strengthen capacities, improve practices, generate and docu-
ment development outcomes, identify future research needs
and potential areas for collaboration and inform both
public and private policy decisions” (Lundy et al., 2005).
The definition used by IRC, a project partner, in its work
in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector,
recognizes the layered structure of the sector and makes
more explicit reference to platforms at different institutional
levels, defining it as: “a series of interconnected multi-
stakeholder platforms at different institutional levels
(national, district, community), aiming to speed up the
process of identification, development and scaling up of
innovations” (Moriarty et al., 2005b; Smits et al., 2007).
Although the definition provided by IRC and used in this
project requires inter-linked platforms, this paper
concentrates on the city level platform (principally because
efforts to stimulate national level platforms were only
partially successful). The city-level platforms consist of:
• Kurunegala: Municipal Council (including Commissioner,
Public Health Engineers and Environmental Officer);
Figure 1. The WASPA project process.
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations
21
District Secretary Division; Teaching Hospital; Pradeshiya
Sabha; Greater Kurunegala Sewerage Treatment Project
(part of NWSDB); Provincial Council; District Health
Service; Wilgoda community based organization (CBO);
farmers via farmers organization; Department of
Agriculture; Department of Agrarian Services.
• Rajshahi: Rajshahi City Corporation (RCC); Rajshahi
Development Authority (RDA); Bangladesh Environmental
Lawyers Association (BELA); Department of Agriculture
Extension (DAE); farmers representatives; local NGOs;
Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation
(BSCIC); National Association for Small and Cottage
Industries of Bangladesh (NASCIB); Rajshahi University
of Engineering and Technology (RUET).
3.1. Project methodology
The project methodology started with assessment, including
situation and stakeholder analysis. This was followed by
discussion of the findings and stakeholders’ opinions of
problems that they face in the areas of wastewater
management and agriculture. This led to the development
of visions for wastewater management in the city and
further meetings, workshops and field visits to form detailed
but flexible plans that could be altered as implementation
progressed. Reflection and dissemination were initiated
early on in the process and are on-going (Figure 1).
3.2. Stakeholder analysis and assessment
In the study, the initial stage was to identify specific
problems experienced in Rajshahi and Kurunegala, whilst
remaining cognizant of the aims of the wider project, of
seeking solutions applicable to other cities in the region.
The work started with a stakeholder analysis using
participatory data collection tools based on work by Laban
et al. (2005) and Hawkins (2003). This analysis was designed
to understand:
1. Who are the main stakeholders and what roles do they
play?
2. What are the main problems for each of the stakeholders
in relation to wastewater, agriculture and sanitation?
3. What is the institutional environment in which the
stakeholders operate?
22 Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma / Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28

Plate 1. Contact with wastewater. Plate 2. Vegetable irrigation.

4. Who are seen as the prime movers amongst the
stakeholders?
5. What are their relationships with each other? Are there
any conflicts?
This was followed by both primary and secondary data
collection to gain an understanding of stakeholder perceptions
regarding wastewater management issues; constraints and
opportunities they perceived in their day-to-day activities;
involvement with wastewater production, management,
regulation or use; and other basic information required to
facilitate the planning phase of the project (Moriarty et al.,
2005a; Table 1).
3.3. Sharing knowledge and building visions
communities along the canal who experienced poor
sanitation and environmental conditions, and then became
polluters through lack of infrastructure and management
systems; and farmers as wastewater recipients and users
(Table 2). In Bangladesh they chose to address the system
not so much as a continuum but as interlinked clusters based
on the group producing or using the wastewater: industries
and clinics as sources of hazardous pollution; domestic
wastewater producers; and end users (farmers). This reflected
the greater concern in Rajshahi over industrial wastewater,
and the less linear flow from source to use (Table 3). The
strategies for both cities fell into five overlapping categories:
pollution prevention and reduction; policies and institutional
processes; improved sanitation and hygiene; wastewater
treatment; and improved agricultural management.

The assessment findings were shared in a discussion forum

with the stakeholder platforms in each city, providing them
with the opportunity to give further input to the analysis.
This led to the development of visions and strategies to
address the key constraints identified.
The stakeholders were asked to suggest solutions along
the production-to-use chain. In Sri Lanka this was envisioned
in three areas: the city as the main source of wastewater;
4. Strategies and actions — what and why?
During the phase of defining the strategies and activities,
it was clear that certain options or types of interventions were
more preferable to some stakeholders than others. These
differences were categorized and a brief analysis of what
stimulated the preferences is provided here.

Table 1. Background data collection

Information source Purpose

Background statistics
Focus group discussion
One-to-one stakeholder meetings
Household interviews on
sanitation and hygiene
Household interviews on agriculture
Water sampling
Industrial survey
All available statistics were collected on population, agriculture and sanitation.
With farmers and city residents upstream of farming area to discuss wastewater production and use, as well as
perceived benefits and problems.
With government agencies to discuss wastewater production and use, as well as perceived benefits and problems.
Conducted with a selection of households in farming areas and villages adjacent to the drains to: determine the
local sanitation situation; and understand hygiene practices.
Conducted with farmers to learn about agricultural practices, crops, yields, irrigation techniques, fertilizer use
and wastewater related health risks.
To obtain current water quality data.
To inform the discussion on water quality and pollution sources.

© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations

 Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma / Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28 23

Table 2. Visions and strategies for Sri Lanka

Vision Strategies

To have drainage facilities for
rainwater and liquid waste,
which are free of solid waste;
and appropriate disposal.
To have adequate sanitation,
hygiene, water supply and waste
collection services in Wilgoda.
To have better yield and improved
health for wastewater farmers;
and access to irrigation water
of acceptable quality.
Engage with the Greater Kurunegala Sewerage Treatment Project (GKSTP) which is developing sewerage and
treatment.
Work with selected commercial units on cleaner production and facilities to treat wastewater.
Strengthening the procedures and regulatory system for waste control.
Raise awareness among the general public on waste issues and its management.
Upgrade water supply facilities in Wilgoda.
Improve sanitation facilities in Wilgoda.
Improve hygiene and environmental sanitation behaviour in Wilgoda through community awareness, and
strengthening the CBO.
Prevent solid waste from reaching fields.
Provide recommendations for fertilizer applications, according to irrigation water quality, in collaboration with
relevant authorities.
Educate farming community on health risk reduction.
Strengthen farmers’ organizations.

Table 3. Visions and strategies for Bangladesh

Vision Strategies

To have improved wastewater
management systems in RCC area.
To have improved water quality in
drains through industrial wastewater
management.
To have wastewater of improved
quality for agricultural use as
well as improved yields and
reduced health risks.
Demonstration projects e.g., garbage trap; feasibility studies for appropriate treatment and small-
bore sewerage.
Community activities e.g., reduce solid waste entering canal.
Facilitate industries to take greater responsibility for wastewater management — investigation
and implementation of cleaner production options.
Support to authorities to review, improve and enforce wastewater management from industries.
Identify suitable treatment options for the wastewater flowing into the agricultural area and
explore possibilities for implementation by RCC.
Training for farmers on how to improve yields and reduce health risk when irrigating with
wastewater.
Provide messages for communities in agricultural area regarding hygiene practices especially in
relation to wastewater use and consumption of wastewater crops.

4.1. Visible problems and ready agreement 4.2. Intuitive knowledge or informed actions

Some problems required little or no effort to reach consensus.
For example, the scourge of solid waste in the drains was
universally acknowledged; government officials, city residents
and farmers all wanted to see solid waste, particularly
plastics, removed from the drains. They felt that it was
unsightly and caused blockages leading to flooding. For
farmers, it blocked irrigation pumps, sharp objects cut
their skin, and they had to spend time cleaning canals
and fields, which took labour away from productive
activities.
All stakeholders readily agreed on this as a significant
problem that needed immediate attention. Most stakeholders
initially felt that this was entirely the responsibility of the
RCC in Rajshahi and the Municipal Council (MC) in
Kurunegala but after some discussion they acknowledged
the fact that solutions would require collaboration between
community members, the urban council and NGOs.
Consequently the plans that were proposed covered various
locations throughout the system, included physical activities
and awareness-raising, and were probably the best examples
of participatory options developed within the PAPD process.
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations
Similarly to the focus on solid waste, there was also a
perception that certain groups contributed more or “worse”
pollution than others. In Rajshahi, BSCIC area received
criticism for the level and types of pollutants being discharged
to the environment even though this assumption was not
corroborated by the water quality data collected or the
survey of industrial units. This does not mean that
industrial pollution is not a problem, rather the assessment
suggested that the health risks from domestic sewage were
greater than from the industrial effluent, hence the discussion
was not being informed by systematic data collection or
rational analysis. The use of intuitive knowledge may,
however, be extremely useful in expediting appropriate
interventions rather than delaying until all the relevant
information has been amassed. This is especially true
where prudent interventions will not preclude alternative
actions, for example, introducing cleaner production
measures in industries and services stations will only be
beneficial provided they are cost effective and implemented
in such a way that businesses are supported rather than
alienated from the process.
24 Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma / Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28
4.3. Tried and tested versus innovation?
Certain typical or “tried and tested” options were suggested
by the stakeholders in both cities as strategies to achieve
the visions. One such set of solutions was: “awareness
raising” and “training”. Whilst these options can be of great
importance, especially linked to other activities, it seemed
as if they filled the gap for a solution even when they were
not the most appropriate choice or where an in-depth causal
analysis could provide better suggestions for interventions.
The reasons for this include familiarity: some of the
stakeholders and the project team were used to training,
awareness raising and campaigning, particularly in Bangladesh.
This may have benefits because they are more likely to be
done well, but they do not necessarily address the need.
There is the potential to fall back on such tools when other
solutions are not apparent. In some cases such an approach
may work and lead to a second stage of ideas; in other cases
it would be better to highlight the lack of an answer to the
problem and identify a phase of collaborative research to
seek one. Alternatively, given the need to allocate a budget
between different activities it may be prudent to ignore
some problems rather than implement an activity that is
unlikely to solve them. Naturally this should only be done
if it will not negatively affect other components of the plan.
Another example was the interest in constructing
wastewater treatment plants. In both cities, stakeholders
wanted wastewater to be pumped to a central plant and
treated to a high quality. They also saw treatment as the
solution for industrial and clinical waste and there were no
calls for appropriate technologies or alternative solutions
to treatment. Back in 1982, Kalbermatten et al. similarly
found that the main challenge to sanitation was high
expectations coupled with limited resources, with decision-
makers being asked to achieve the same standards of
convenience as the industrialized world. Today the expectations
remain similar but finances have not increased adequately
to meet them.
This desire is understandable but where resources are
insufficient, as was the case in Rajshahi, other more cost
effective and sustainable options need to be sought. The
conventional thinking that highly technical or infrastructural
solutions are the most effective and that ‘alternative’,
‘sustainable’ or ‘appropriate’ solutions mean low cost and
‘not as good’ is still common and too many uninformed
professionals, including expatriate funders and advisors,
often think that adopting technologies from industrialized
countries is the most appropriate option (Mara, 2003).
Despite the concerted efforts of many development practitioners
(see de Bruijne et al., 2007) there still appears to be
insufficient value placed by some government departments,
and to an extent communities, on changing the approach
to these problems, as observed in both Kurunegala and, to
a greater extent, in Rajshahi where the Master Plan includes
sewering the city but where there is no financial provision
for this.
4.4. Intangible issues
Stakeholders felt that a root cause of poor wastewater
management was the inadequacy of environmental protection.
These related mainly to industrial effluent but in Rajshahi
there was concern over laws to regulate septic tanks and
the illegal practice of connecting tanks to the storm water
drains. The discussions emphasized the stakeholders’
perceptions that there was inadequate awareness of
environmental protection laws; and the divide between
those who believed that the fault lay with the lack of laws
and those who saw ineffectual enforcement as the culprit.
It appeared that the responsibility was split in various ways
between RCC, RDA and the Department of Environment
in Rajshahi; and the Provincial Environmental Authority
(PEA) and the MC in Kurunegala. Some were unclear
about their responsibility, others felt that the regulations
were ineffective and responsibility should be moved to
other organizations, and there was a general acknowledgement
that resources were insufficient.
The outcome was a proposal for an institutional and law
review in Rajshahi, followed by further informed discussions.
In Kurunegala, the LA decided to discuss the problems
further amongst themselves. However, no one in the
stakeholder coalition was able to provide a clear strategy
for this or to take responsibility for the activity. It appeared
that intangible actions such as policy changes or institutional
strengthening were easy to suggest but difficult to conceptualize
and plan, especially for non-government stakeholders.
Consequently tangible, physical interventions and “training”
were prioritized.
4.5. Position and influence
The issue raised above obviously links to another factor,
which is that the LA was organized at the city level,
whereas many of these policy decisions are made
nationally. Furthermore, the individuals in the LA meetings
were not senior enough to take certain decisions. The idea
of changing policy or even its implementation was beyond
the remit of the representatives, highlighting the need
for inter-linked platforms at various levels and good
communication between representatives and the groups or
organizations that they act for.
5. Collaboration — Who, how and why?
In addition to the types of activities, the success of the
process and the effective development and implementation
of the PAPs is contingent on the efficacy of the collaboration.
Who collaborates, how they collaborate, the level to which
they collaborate and their reasons for collaborating all
contribute to this (Cowie and Borrett, 2005). Identifying
and understanding these factors can not only provide
options to improve the existing process but can contribute
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations
 Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma / Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28
empirical evidence for use in similar participatory processes.
Linked to this is the extent to which stakeholders perceive
the need to collaborate in order to address issues in an
integrated manner: Moench et al. (2003) note that in
relation to IWRM major questions exist over who does the
integrating; whose interest should be reflected in the integrating
process; how to govern such an integrating process to
ensure all stakeholders’ interests are equitably reflected;
how disputes should be resolved; and which issues should
be addressed through integrated approaches, since some
could be dealt with separately. The processes of developing
PAPs and LAs, though only in their second year, provided
some insights into what motivates people to collaborate or
not, and the ways in which they engage with each other to
attain a particular outcome. This is described in the
following sections.
5.1. Conceptualization, priorities and project cycles
There are inherent difficulties in embarking on a participatory
process to address interlinked components of a system that
may have boundaries beyond those which the participants
are familiar with. In all cases, the stakeholder has a
particular affiliation with one component of the system: the
farmers with the field or end-use; the citizens with pollution
outside their homes and lack of sanitation; and industry
managers with managing their waste (a minor part of their
daily business). Grasping and, more importantly, retaining
the concept of a holistic approach to wastewater management
and use is difficult and everyone, including the project team,
is influenced by personal perspectives and prior knowledge.
An individual’s perspective on the system, or the priorities
within it, naturally influences the way in which a stakeholder
collaborates whether consciously or not.
If the stakeholders conceptualize the IWRM approach
and see the potential overall benefits, they may still feel
that their personal agendas or those of their organization
are best served, at least in the short term, by pushing a
course of action which may not conform to a systems
approach and the principles of IWRM (although they need
not be selfish). This will reduce the desire for collaboration
on certain activities or may result in deliberate attempts to
divert the planning process to meet particular objectives.
This is especially true where there is political motivation
or where the time frame of political appointments does not
support a longer-term integrated approach. In a review of
Finnish assistance to the water supply and sanitation sector,
Seppälä (2002) noted that planning has been based on
short-term thinking restricted, for instance, by lengths of
parliamentary terms. Certainly the willingness of government
officials to participate in Rajshahi was influenced by the
political situation at the time (in which the elections were
continuously postponed and an interim government was
eventually formed to reduce corruption in the political
system before a fair election could take place; which has
only just taken place some two years later).
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations
25
A key factor is that the project team had an agenda,
which shaped the entire process and did not necessarily
map onto the needs of the stakeholders. The project also
set the time frame and had specific goals to achieve within
that period. This will inevitably have implications for the
depth of participation and the selection of intervention
options, even if the team tries to remain impartial. External
influences like this are common. For example, donors and
projects, while anxious to assist programs that will become
self-sustaining, can create dependence with respect to both
funding and technical assistance, which can also shape the
collaboration (Seppälä, 2002).
Fortunately studies of stakeholder opinions in water
management have found that there is considerable overlap
in: preferences for water policy mechanisms; preferred
degrees of public involvement in participatory management;
and attitudes towards information, implying that opinions
may not be polarized and that participatory methods can
elicit these perceptions and desires, and identify the issues
pertinent to each stakeholder group (Baggett et al., 2008).
If implemented effectively, this should break down barriers
or highlight synergies depending on the starting position,
thus allowing stakeholders to agree on basic principles and
a course of action that meets their needs or at the very least
does not compromise their agenda. This is essential because
there are considerable transaction costs associated with
participation and collaboration which will only be accepted
if the benefits are perceived to be greater (Rees, 2006).
5.2. Who takes responsibility?
For the strategies to be successful it is imperative that certain
organizations or groups, and usually particular people
within them, are assigned and accept responsibility for
implementation. In certain cases it was clear where the
responsibility should lie, for example management of
industrial pollution falls to BSCIC and NASCIB in
Bangladesh, but in other situations it may not be clear or
accepted. In the case of solid waste management for
example, this is within the remit of the MC and RCC, but
city residents are also responsible. However, some
negotiation was required to arrive at this understanding and
addressing solid waste management issues still largely fell
to municipal councils who planned to raise awareness
amongst the community members followed by promoting
household waste sorting and recycling.
Despite the fact that much discussion and empirical work
has revealed the importance of participation in planning and
implementation in order to foster a sense of ownership and
improve the likelihood of sustainability (see Participatory
Learning and Action; Cornwall and Pratt, 2003), most
participants appeared to want more interventions to be
undertaken by the project. Stakeholders did not appear to
sufficiently recognize their own role in some processes and
felt that solutions should be external. For example, certain
stakeholders from agriculture departments suggested that
26 Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma / Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28
“the project” should test water and soil to improve fertilizer
recommendations for farmers, in which they specifically
referred to the project as an external entity, not something
that they were part of.
Fortunately, this was not universal and many stakeholders
acknowledged the need for their organizations to work in
collaboration with the project team so that the suggestions
suited the local conditions and were acceptable to the
relevant stakeholders. The MC in particular saw its role
within the project and the role of the project within their wider
goals, and asked the WASPA project team to collaborate
on relevant activities that they had already initiated.
Where this commitment or recognition of responsibility
does not exist, it is essential to build the capacity of sector
professionals, civil society and communities to understand,
commit to and promote policies and interventions, because
reform processes in the field have often failed, due to
inadequate involvement and commitment of stakeholders
at all levels (Seppälä, 2002; Cowie and Borrett, 2005).
5.3. Coalitions and working groups
It has been observed that local coalitions have formed
around specific strategies and activities. For example, the
MC and Wilgoda CBO are working together to address the
sanitation problems in Wilgoda Pura; the Department of
Agriculture and the DAE are working with the farmers and
the project team to increase the benefits of nutrient recycling;
and the industries, industry associations and National Cleaner
Production Centre are working together to find options to
reduce pollution and improve efficiency.
A limitation is that this collaboration has always arisen
as a result of direct facilitation by the project team whereas
the aim is to provide the environment for stakeholders to
form their own alliances. Merrey et al. (2005) note that
such institutions can take decades to build and that a more
pragmatic approach is to establish interim forums in which
the diverse stakeholders’ interests would be represented
and to use these forums to educate people on IWRM
principles. This resonates with the findings of the WASPA
project in as much as fully cooperating multi-stakeholder
learning platforms are unlikely to form within a two year
period, but if certain useful coalitions can be built and
sustained, then there is the potential for the benefits to
extend across the LA and result in organizational learning.
Furthermore, Moriarty et al. (2005b) include “facilitated
platforms” in their definition of an LA because they
acknowledge that multiple stakeholders need to be facilitated
to come together to innovate and scale up.
6. Improving participatory planning
Clearly fostering collaboration is of critical importance to
participatory planning and integrated solutions, and this
research suggests that this can be enhanced if:
1. The systems approach concept is clear and not forgotten;
2. There is flexibility in the project concept;
3. The approach provides sufficient incentives;
4. Personal and institutional responsibility is accepted;
5. Knowledge and capacity building is integrated into the
approach; and
6. Participation and speed are balanced.
6.1. The systems concept
If all partners have a shared concept of the systems approach
then the solutions may be more easily forthcoming. This is
itself a challenge; even within the project team there are
slight differences in ideas about the overall project and the
focus. Avoiding jargon is essential as even “systems approach”
and “IWRM” have connotations and a whole plethora of
definitions behind them. The stakeholders must agree on a
simple statement of the overall objective of the planning
approach and continually return to reinforce this and to
check that the work is in line with the objective. In Sri Lanka
for example there was much debate over the appropriate
way to define the concept in Sinhala because there is no
direct translation for some words.
6.2. Flexibility
Many projects come with a preconceived set of objectives.
This is undeniably necessary to retain a focus but there
should be some flexibility if they are not addressing
stakeholders’ priorities. The LA methodology allows for
the identification of a broad problem which is further refined
with stakeholders, or for stakeholders to come together to
define their problems and analyze which stakeholders
should be involved (Smits et al., 2007). In reality LAs are
often (but not always) facilitated by outside groups therefore
the former approach is most common because these groups
have their specific areas of expertise or interest. If however
adequate scoping is done, if the initial issues are broadly
defined, and if flexibility is allowed, then this should be
sufficient to ensure stakeholders’ priorities are included in
the LA and PAP process.
6.3. Providing incentives
Rightly or wrongly we all have agendas: only by seeing our
goals within the overall systems approach will we have an
incentive to cooperate in a way that contributes to the
integrated management of water and land resources. Taking
time to understand the agendas of stakeholders may be
perceived as a delay to planning and intervention but will
ultimately accelerate the process. Ideally stakeholders
should perceive greater benefits arising from the whole
package than they would achieve in isolation. Hartley (2006)
found, in a study on public perceptions of water reuse, that
keeping participants motivated to sustain their involvement
was very important and in some cases it may be appropriate
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations
 Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma / Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28
to introduce individual or institutional incentives to stimulate
the process (Davies, 2004; cited in Rees, 2006).
6.4. Responsibility
Individuals and organizations have certain responsibilities
but they can lose sight of them or may even be unaware of
them. Fostering a sense of responsibility is therefore critical;
this may be best achieved by the project team facilitating
discussions between stakeholders. A well known example
of this is ‘participatory total community sanitation’ in
which communities are motivated by reviewing the current
sanitation facilities and highlighting the embarrassment of
open defecation (Kar, 2003; Kar and Pasteur, 2005). The
method used by Kar is particularly severe but there may be
a case for using similar but less extreme motivational tactics.
6.5. Knowledge and capacity
This aspect is associated with all other aspects but requires
emphasis because only through knowledge of the approach,
issues, other stakeholders and potential solutions can
participatory planning for IWRM take place. Therefore
stakeholders need to share their opinions and have access
to a variety of sources of information. This is the basis on
which they can build the goals and activities of the PAP.
The WASPA project highlighted the lack of innovation as
an impediment to PAP development but this may have
stemmed from insufficient knowledge. An example is that
of Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology who
requested information on waste stabilization ponds and
constructed treatment wetlands.
Cowie and Barrett (2005) observe that information must
be presented in such a way that it intersects with the divergent
interests, capacities and motivations of the stakeholders.
Hence, the media and tools used for knowledge sharing and
capacity building are all important because background,
language and literacy levels will vary between stakeholders.
Posters, calendars, presentations, news letters, reports, street
drama and song have all been used in the WASPA project.
6.6. Speeding up the process
The process of participatory planning naturally takes time,
ideas must be shared, disagreements resolved and finally
consensus reached. The time required for this can be seen
as a delay and can reduce interest in the process; therefore
a balance needs to be found between participation and
speed. Ideally both would be optimized but in reality that
is rarely possible. By implementing aspects of the draft plan
that do not have negative impacts elsewhere in the system, the
participatory process can actually gain momentum since
people find it easier to cooperate around something tangible.
By developing an appropriate “master plan”, ranking
interventions, initiating implementation and then reviewing
the plan in an iterative process, the pace of implementation
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations
27
can increase without losing the essence of the IWRM
approach or participation. These activities can also build
capacity and stimulate incremental change.
7. Conclusions
This paper reviewed a process to encourage stakeholders
to interact to develop and implement PAPs for urban
IWRM in relation to wastewater management and use in
peri-urban areas. The research found that stakeholders were
willing to cooperate but that considerable external support
was required, implying that capacity building and raising
awareness were necessary to foster an understanding of the
issues and constraints faced by other stakeholders. Once
the process moved to the implementation phase collaboration
tended to increase and to take place within coalitions
around specific activities.
The study provides some clear lessons that can be
transferred to other participatory processes especially around
urban wastewater management. These are that: the concept
must be clearly defined and understood; there must be
flexibility in the approach; incentives are likely to be
useful; responsibilities must be made clear and accepted;
knowledge sharing and capacity building are critical to the
whole process; and a balance may need to be struck
between the speed of the process and level of participation.
Many questions about participatory processes and the
effectiveness of a systematic approach to urban wastewater
management remain, but this research has provided
empirical insights into the process which will help to inform
future efforts and shape the on-going project.
References
Baggett, S., Jefferson, B., Jeffrey, P. 2008. Just how different are
stakeholder group opinions on water management issues? Desalination,
218, pp. 132–141.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), 2005. Population Census-2001,
Community Series, Zila: Rajshahi. Planning Division, Ministry of
Planning. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
Dhaka.
Barr, J.J.F., 2001. Methods for Consensus Building for Management of
Common Property Resources, R7562. DFID Strategy for Research on
Renewable Natural Resources, Natural Resources Systems Programme,
Final Technical Report. Centre for Land Use and Water Resources
Research, University of Newcastle.
de Bruijne, G., Geurts, M., Appleton, B., 2007. Sanitation for all?
Thematic Overview Paper 20. IRC International Water and Sanitation
Centre, Delft, The Netherlands.
Bunting, S., 2005. Evaluation action planning for enhanced NR management
in PU Koltaka, R8365. Natural Resources Systems Programme, Final
Technical Report. Institute of Aquaculture, University of Sterling.
Chambers, R. 1994. The origins and practice of PRA. World Development,
22(7): 953–969.
Comprehensive Assessment no date. Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture Program: The Case of Rajshahi
Metropolitan City of Bangladesh. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/
SWW2008/Bangladesh/Rajshai%20Summar%20yreport.doc
28 Alexandra Evans and Samyuktha Varma / Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 19–28
Cornish, G.A., Kielen, N.C., 2004 Wastewater irrigation — hazard or
lifeline? Empirical results from Nairobi, Kenya and Kumasi, Ghana.
In: Scott, C.A., Faruqui, N.I. and L. Raschid-Sally (eds.) Wastewater
Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting the Livelihoods and Environmental
Realities. CABI Publishing, London.
Cornwall, A., Pratt, G. (Eds.) 2003. Pathways to Participation: Reflections
on PRA. ITDG Publishing, London, UK.
Cowie, G.M., Barrett, S.R., 2005. Institutional perspectives on participation
and information in water management. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 20: 469– 483.
Department of Census and Statistics (DCS), 2001. Census of Population
and Housing 2001: Kurunegala District — Final Results (CD). Sri Lanka.
Dissanayake, P., Clemett, A., Jaykody, P., Amerasinghe, P., 2007. Report
on water quality survey and pollution in Kurunegala, Sri Lanka.
WASPA Asia Project Report 8, IWMI, Colombo. http://www.iwmi.
cgiar.org/waspa/publications.htm
Drechsel, P., Graefe, S., Sonou., M., Cofie, O.O., 2006. Informal irrigation
in urban West Africa: An overview. IWMI Research Report 102,
International Water Management Institute, Colombo.
EC, 1998. Towards Sustainable Water Resources Management: A Strategic
Approach. European Commission, Luxembourg.
EC, 2002. Project Cycle Management Handbook. Evaluation Unit of the
EuropeAid Co-operation Office.
Ensink, J.H.J., Simmons, R.W., van der Hoek, W., 2004. Wastewater use
in Pakistan: The cases of Haroonabad and Faisalabad. In: Scott, C.A.,
Faruqui, N.I., Raschid-Sally, L. (Eds.) Wastewater Use in Irrigated
Agriculture: Confronting the Livelihoods and Environmental Realities.
CABI Publishing, London. Chapter 8.
FAO, 2001. Project Cycle Management Technical Guide: Socio-Economic
and Gender Analysis Programme. United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Friedler, E., 2001. Water reuse — an integral part of water resources
management: Israel as a case study. Water Policy, 3: 29–39.
Hamilton, A.J., Stagnitti, F., Xianzhe, X., Kreidl, S.L., Benke, K.K.,
Maher, P., 2007. Wastewater irrigation: The state of play. Vadose Zone
Journal, 6: 823 –840.
Hartley, T.W., 2006. Public perception and participation in water reuse.
Desalination, 187: 115 –126.
Hawkins, R., 2003. ICRA Learning Materials — Stakeholders — Key
Concepts. International Centre for Development Oriented Research in
Agriculture (ICRA), Netherlands. http://www.icra-edu.org/objects/
anglolearn/Stakeholders-Key_Concepts.pdf
IWA and UNEP, 2002. Industry as a Partner for Sustainable Development:
Water Management. International Water Association and United
Nations Environment Programme, UK.
Jayakody, P., Gunawardana, I., Guneratne, S., Clemett, A., Dissanayake,
P., 2007. Wastewater agriculture in Kurunegala City, Sri Lanka.
WASPA Asia Project Report 8, IWMI, Colombo. http://www.iwmi.
cgiar.org/waspa/publications.htm
Jayakody, P., Amin Md. M., Clemett, A., 2007b. Wastewater agriculture
in Kurunegala City, Sri Lanka. WASPA Asia Project Report 9, IWMI,
Colombo. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/waspa/publications.htm
Kalbermatten, J.M., Julius, D.S., Gunnerson, C.G., Mara, D.D., 1982.
Appropriate Sanitation Alternatives A Planning and Design Manual.
The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA.
Kar, K., 2003. Subsidy or self-respect? Participatory total community
sanitation in Bangladesh. IDS Working Paper 184, Brighton.
Kar, K., Pasteur, K., 2005. Subsidy or self-respect? Community led total
sanitation: An update on recent developments. IDS Working Paper
257, Brighton.
Laban, P., Barghout, M., Moriarty, P., Sarsour, S., 2005. Stakeholder
dialogue and concerted action for Integrated Water Resource Management.
EMPOWERS Working Paper No. 6. http://www.empowers.info/page/
1092
Lawhon, P., Schwartz, M., 2006. Linking environmental and economic
sustainability in establishing standards for wastewater re-use in Israel.
Water Science and Technology, 53: 203 –212.
Lundy, M., Gottret, M.V., Ashby, J., 2005. Learning alliances: An
approach for building multi-stakeholder innovation systems. ILAC
brief no. 8. Institutional Learning and Change. Rome, Italy. http://
www.cgiarilac.org/downloads/Briefs/Brief8Proof2.pdf
Mara, D.D., 2003. Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Developing
Countries. Earthscan, London, UK.
Merrey, D., Drechsel, P., Penning De Vries, F., Sally, H. 2005. Integrating
‘livelihoods’ into integrated water resources management: Taking the
integration paradigm to its logical next step for developing countries.
Regional Environmental Change, 5: 197–204.
Moench, M., Dixit, A., Janakarajan, S., Rathore, M.S., Mudrakartha, S.,
2003. The Fluid Mosaic, Water Governance in the Context of
Variability, Uncertainty and Change: A Synthesis Paper. Institute of
Development Studies, Nepal.
Molle, F., Berkoff, J., 2006. Cities versus agriculture: Revisiting intersectoral
water transfers, potential gains and conflicts. Comprehensive Assessment
Research Report 10. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Moriarty, P., Batchelor, C., Laban, P., 2005a. The EMPOWERS Participatory
Planning Cycle for Integrated Water Resources Management.
EMPOWERS, Amman, Jordan.
Moriarty, P., Fonseca, C., Smits, S., Schouten, T., 2005b. Background
Paper for the Symposium: Learning Alliances for scaling up
innovative approaches in the Water and Sanitation sector. IRC
International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, The Netherlands.
http://www.irc.nl/page/16676
National Water Supply and Drainage Board, 2005. Initial environmental
examination report: In respect of Greater Kuruneghala Sewerage
Project. Sri Lanka: Ministry of Urban Development and Water Supply.
Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) http://www.planotes.org/about.html
Raschid-Sally, L., Tuan, D.D., Abayawardana, S., 2004. National
assessments on wastewater use in agriculture and an emerging
typology: The Vietnam case study. In: Scott, C.A., Faruqui, N.I.,
Raschid-Sally, L. (Eds.) Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture:
Confronting the Livelihoods and Environmental Realities. CABI
Publishing, London. Chapter 7.
Rees, J.A., 2006. Urban water and sanitation services; An IWRM
approach. TEC Background Papers No. 11, Global Water Partnership
Technical Committee (TEC), Global Water Partnership, Sweden.
Scott, C.A., Faruqui, N.I., Raschid-Sally, L., 2004. Wastewater use in
irrigated agriculture: Management challenges in developing countries.
In: Scott, C.A., Faruqui, N.I. and Raschid-Sally, L. (eds.) Wastewater
Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting the Livelihoods and
Environmental Realities. CABI Publishing, London. Chapter 1.
Seppälä, O.T., 2002. Effective water and sanitation policy reform
implementation: Need for systematic approach and stakeholder
participation. Water Policy, 4: 367–388.
Smits, S., Moriarty, P., Fonseca, C., Schouten, T., 2007. Scaling up
innovations through learning alliances: An introduction to the
approach. In: Smits, S., Moriarty, P., Sijbesma, C. (Eds.) Learning
Alliances: Scaling up Innovations in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene.
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre (Technical Paper series;
no. 47), Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 3–18.
Thomas, J-S., Durham, B., 2003. Integrated Water Resources Management:
looking at the whole picture. Desalination, 156: 21–28.
UNDP, 2006. Human Development Report 2006. Beyond scarcity: Power,
poverty and the global water crisis. United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP).
UNFPA, 2007. UNFPA State of World Population, 2007: Unleashing the
Potential of Urban Growth. United Nations Population Fund.
World Health Organization, 2006. WHO Guidelines for the Safe Use of
Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater: Volume II Wastewater use in
Agriculture. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, FAO, UNEP.
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations