Earth Summit 2002   Review of Supply Strategies

What's New ?
IC Event
Sustainable Energy

IC Process
Stakeholder Forum
Site Map



Multi-stakeholder Review of Global Water / Sanitation Supply Strategies


DRAFT RAW Workshop Output



Workshop Purpose 

Workshop Objectives 

Workshop Agenda 

Session Guidelines 

Workshop Summary 

Opening Context Presentation 

Is there a Requirement for a Global
Review Process? 

Review of the Scope 

Reviews or Studies Happening Now 


Identified Risks 

Identifying a Champion 

Communication & Promotion 

Workshop Participant Details 



Workshop Purpose

To develop a work plan for a multi-stakeholder review of water/sanitation supply strategies to include:


Data to collect and use

Review criteria

Communication & promotion plan


Workshop Objectives

Assess the requirement for a global review process, if YES then:

A workable plan for a multi-stakeholder review

Documented possible variables, data to collect and relevant criteria to use

Next steps and way forward documented


Workshop Agenda

  1. Facilitator’s Introduction – Gary Austin

  2. Opening Context Presentation – Felix Dodds. Stakeholder Forum

  3. Review of Existing Plan

  4. Assessment of the requirement for a Global Review Process

  5. Identify Scope (inclusions/exclusions)

  6. Identify Major Milestones/Actions

  7. Review Timescales

  8. Review and Confirm Roles & Responsibilities

  9. Identify Associated Issues & Risks

  10. Plan Way Forward post IC

  11. Develop Presentation of Outcomes

  12. Review Workshop & Close


Session Guidelines


Switch off Cell phones

Ensure Consensus

Be respectful of the Views & Opinions of Others

Participate Actively


Workshop Summary

At the Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future Implementation Conference held on the 24th – 26th August 2002 just prior to the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) a group of multi-stakeholders attended and participated in an Action Plan workshop to assess the requirement for a Global Review Process of Water/Sanitation Supply Strategies. A design and participatory process for the workshop was managed and facilitated by a professional process Facilitator.

The participants having agreed that a global review process was required then identified the necessary components of an ongoing action plan to put a Global Review Process in place and in a position to start.

Subsequent work will be needed by a core management team to concrete the identified milestones/actions and to identify responsibilities and timescales.

The starting point or basis for a global review would be the Bonn Agreement on reviewing the Private sector, the World Bank recommendations to broaden any review to include any/ALL water/sanitation suppliers and the Millennium Goals on Water and Sanitation.

A high-level first cut purpose/vision was identified for a review process, draft words read:


“To carry out a multi-stakeholder review of water/sanitation supply strategies provided by all sectors (private, public, community based organisations and others) to provide improved and increased information and data to enable improved decision making in choice of supply strategies for water service delivery.

Any such review will be an inclusive and participatory multi-stakeholder process that will be reviewed and modified through continuous improvement, building on what we already know”


Outcomes from the Action Plan Workshop were as follows:

There is a need to identify a high profile and acceptable champion for this Action Plan/Project

A core ‘management’ team needs to be established to take forward the review process

An interim ‘secretariat’ was identified to manage the review moving forward this was the IWA

The Stakeholder Forum should continue to facilitate the review process along with IWA until a champion is identified and in place

A high level Action Plan was created to put a review in place

Other stakeholders were identified that needed to be included (see actions list)

Other review initiatives/programmes were identified as potential sources to collect data from (see actions list)

The scope of such a review process could include:

o      All sectors and suppliers of water service delivery

o      Governance

o      Finance

o      Best practices/principles and success stories

o      Building capacity

o      Institutional structures

o      Skills, technology and resources

The gathered workshop participants then agreed to promote and publicise the review and its purpose to other potentially interested parties at the WSSD to encourage increased multi-stakeholder participation/consultation.

It was also recognised that other stakeholders needed to be consulted and be part of the review process in order to make it a more representative group and to give both the group and the review process increased legitimacy. With this in mind a list of additional stakeholders was created

It was finally concluded that a joint effort to take forward and promote the review process and to assist in identifying a champion for this Action Plan/Project would be facilitated by both the Stakeholder Forum and IWA.


Opening Context Presentation

Given by Felix Dodds of the Stakeholder Forum, captured as bullet points.

There is no evidence yet that multi-stakeholder collaborative action actually works, this is why we are here to prove that it can

There are international agreements in place that have not been met or measured; namely the Millennium Declaration, Dublin, Rio etc

Today we are reviewing the requirement for a Global Review Process, tomorrow if we agree there is a need for a review we will plan a way forward

We need to question the capacities of the different utilities

We need to start to collect many variables and share between different approaches

We need to look at what different data we could collect

Identify how to promote and communicate such a review

And develop proper programmes of action as according to Jon Turner, there is US sponsorship available, some of this will be additional or new funding


Is there a Requirement for a Global Review Process?

What followed was a discussion and dialogue around if a review was needed. It helped bring all participants on to the same page and provided more context.

The Bonn conference suggested a review of the Private sector involvement in water, is this a good or bad thing to just focus on one Sector?

By expanding the review you have a much broader discussion as only 5 or 6% of water is delivered by the Private sector and there has been a recommendation by the World Bank to widen any review to cover other sectors/issues.

But we do need to explore ways in which the Private sector can be involved, in particular as the Private sector may have new or innovative ways of fundraising.

Access to water and sanitation is a basic human right; the portion of Official Development Assistance (ODA) needs to be increased.

There are many ways the Public sector can retain access to water with the Private sector delivering it, the key is forming partnerships, and this way the Public sector does not lose control.

We should also not forget the Trans-boundary countries where water is controlled at a country level, i.e. multi-national control.

Why can’t the Public sector borrow money like the Private sector?

Where does the borrowing come from and who can borrow?

Money will need to come from different sources.

It can be done where the water operator takes the financial risk as opposed to the developing country.

Are we actually ‘barking up the wrong tree’ trying to get money from the usual sources?

Is the money even out there?

Should the review be just about financial structures or wider?

With a review such as this we are faced with a vastly complex issue where the potential scope is very broad!

What is common and what is different between the Public and Private sectors, has anyone ever really looked?

Sometimes you can feel like you are caught up between the two and not naturally sit or work with one or the other but somewhere in the middle.


With regards to the scope of a review:

We should identify who the intended audience is for such a review?

And what is the problem we are trying to solve with such a review?


Perhaps a proposal is that we could review one supply strategy of each:

One private

One Public

One ‘in-between’

Learning and sharing from each to improve supply strategies?


NB – The Melbourne discussion?


We could review at a family level and through different a progression, an evolutionary process, understand the boundary conditions such as review one household, one village, one town etc And look for the different constraints at the different scales present.


Is the purpose of such a review ‘To provide better and increased information and data to enable improved decision making in choice of supply strategies for water service delivery. This will be done by an inclusive and participatory multi-stakeholder process that will be reviewed and modified through continuous improvement building on what we already know’ ?


Is this more of a problem of governance than scarcity. There is ineffective governance at different levels:





With ineffective decision making at each level!


Should the review cover both governance and finance?

How can we incorporate the different perspectives, i.e. Public Sector not working well in the Dominican Republic and working well in Europe? How can we share the learning’s and best practice? It is important to get the words right so as it is not misunderstood when being read by someone not directly involved (we had originally used the word failed as opposed to not working well).

Could we carry out a review starting with an individual and how they get water, then a family etc and move out in a concentric circle?

Why was there a consensus that water access and delivery should be held by the Public sector and what has happened to change this view, if in fact it has changed?

There is a need for a review but it must make concrete recommendations and actions

This collected group does not necessarily carry out the review but in fact facilitates the review happening, doing one step at a time, possibly collating data and information from the many reviews already taking place and also ‘filling any identified gaps’ where data is not being collected?

Could we look at a review as identifying the patient, the illness and the required medicine? The patient could be the political decision maker and we can identify how to provide data to help them. The illness could be defined as things like the Millennium, objectives but would need to cover both the Humane and Environmental objectives.

Would the purpose of a review be a monitoring role for civic society or be an implementing role? There appears to be political will to meet targets how can we ensure they do meet the targets?

Is there an information supply problem to overcome, a data gap that needs closing by a bringing together of different reporting strategies and creating one cohesive and collated set of data?

A review should also review the capacity of Governments to deliver?

Could we review by country, how people do or do not get water, identifying the obstacles?

You could start with the countries that expressed political will at Bonn?

Collate data, identify good/best practice and create toolkits to enhance and improve supply strategies and provide a range of options that communities can use

But we do need to use the international agreements as the basis for a review

And are we trying to change the World Bank and donor policies through the provision of such a review?


Review of the Scope

Each workshop participant was asked to identify what they perceived the scope of such a review would cover; the output fell into four high level areas



The political process and Governance

Governance, finance, roles and responsibilities, institutional structures, human resource and technology, legal systems, the life cycle and rupture points

Constraints on deliver of water and sanitation



Building capacity on the local government to deliver the services

Capacity building of CBOs (Community Based Organisations)

Identifying how to enhance the potential of the different ‘actors’



Best practice principles and initiatives common to Public, Private, community etc and success stories



A more defined Private sector role

A change in the institutional cultures in order to facilitate dialogue between stakeholders


Additional commentary on scope

Why couldn’t a review use the Millennium goals as a framework or reference point along with the Bonn commitment on sanitation, these would be the Goals of a review and help delivery of both

The review should not just be about collecting data and or case studies bit must include dialogue to create a shared understanding

Is the uniqueness of such a review the fact that it is coming from a set of stakeholders?


Reviews or Studies Happening Now

Asian Development Bank

Two multi stakeholder projects:

-       Water in cities

-       Water and the poor (poverty)

Dialogues for the third world water forum

World Bank

A review of:

- Institutional structures

- Regulatory frameworks

- Governance issues

World Bank

Business partners development, building partners for development

-       impact on partnerships

-       facilitation of resources

Global Water Partnership

Dialogue on governance

World Water Council

Commission on financing water infra-structure

World Business Council

Creating the enabling environment (governance)

-       looking at partnerships

-       using case studies

World Bank/Netherlands Partnership

Investigation of governance for water service provision

Water and Sanitation Programme

World Bank initiative:

Case studies where water/sanitation fits in with poverty reduction

Water Aid and ODI complimentary studies (20 countries in Africa covered)

Reviewing conditions the World Bank have put in contracts: to review contracts, looking at ‘on the ground’ initiatives through the PPIAF


Water campaign working with local municipalities for capacity building

Water Utilities Partnership

Links to World Bank

Capacity building between utilities (Public)

Experience is stronger in the African Francophone countries (SEAWUN)

World Water Council

Website containing inventory list of world water actions/programmes/projects

Country Specific Initiatives?

Many and varied!

Public Service International?

Possible review of Private Sector backed by German Government, proposed by David Boys (PSI)




 Listed below are identified Milestones or Actions for carrying out or putting in place a Multi-Stakeholder Global Review of Water/Sanitation Supply Strategies.






Identify a champion for this Action Plan, suggestions include:

Klaus Toepfer (UNEP)

Gro Harlem Brundtland (WHO)

Nelson Mandela

Bill Clinton

J. Chrétien (Canada)

Desmond Tutu

Prince of Orange (Netherlands)

Margaret Catley-Carlson (GWP)

Bill Cosgrove (WWC)

David Hales?




Finalise the scope of such a review and create a scope statement




Identify and create a review management team




Identify key representatives that need to be included in the review process/group to ensure legitimacy and a true multi-stakeholder representation.


An initial cut at this list includes the people/organizations that were present and the following:

ICLEI (IULA); small scale providers

Water Sanitation Programme; local municipality authorities

GWP (catchment management)

Regulators (IWA & single regulators)

African Environment Agency

Fresh Water Corp (NGOs)


Community Organisations (Jean Aladjou Togolese Consumers Association. See IC database for contact details)

Representative consumer groups

Gender Water Alliance

Public & Private Sectors/Utilities (WUP)

Trade Unions (PSI & ICFTU)

Professionals & Academics?

Industrial/agricultural water users

Energy companies

Farmers (Nora’s group?)


And at a later stage in the review Donors and US Agencies




Identify the resources to carry out such a review




Each representative at the workshop to review with their own organisations their level of participation in  a global review of this kind




Identify the methodology for a review




Identify the target audience for a review




Budget a global review




Identify funding for a review




Hold a stakeholder consultation with the beneficiaries of a review to confirm the need and gain buy-in to the process




Identify appropriate locality, environments etc for a review




The scope and work of the review needs to be communicated more widely to increase participation




Establish a knowledge database… a set of agreed statistics, central repository of shared information




Identify if ‘like’ reviews have been done in other sectors that we could learn from




Identify if other reviews like this have been done in other sectors that we could learn from




Review the Millennium Objectives country by country (available now but in very rough draft)




Carry out a review of each of the identified studies taking place to confirm what they are covering




Ask each party (Private, Public, Community etc) to provide examples or where it has ‘worked’




Review one or two exemplary studies (Jack Moss knew of at least one)




Identify areas of common agreement




Identify what the gaps in our knowledge are




Run road shows on different countries showing best practice




Run pilot projects in cities; to work with local people post review (perhaps use one or two Type 2 plans?)




Identify a good technical team backed up by money




Identify how continued participation can be managed




IC Workshop documentation distributed to all workshop participants




Review Process Team to review actions above, allocate responsibilities and timescales




Review Team to identify Risk Management strategies for identified and documented risks




Review Team to complete communications plan





Identified Risks


Risk Management

Lack of reliable information, numbers, money available to do a review


Lack of capacity and technology to make choices on lots of different options

Lack of necessary skills, resources and political will


Lack of proper information based tools to manage the continued participation process

Insufficient resources; human and money

Who follows up and how? How is the group linked with the Summit process?

Lots of different processes that are already in place

Loss of ownership of the review initiative by stakeholders (dialogue!)

Fail to gain a champion

Putting a review in place without proper stakeholder representation

Local communities do not get involved

Legitimacy and representation of this group

Insufficient ownership outside this group


Ministers of Water are totally dependent on aid


The scope of this being ‘just’ a review


Risk of being prescriptive (buy-in)


Reporting fatigue for developing countries

Duplication with other initiatives


Too much noise post-Summit gives weak support and funding and insufficient time locally to carry out a review


Ministers of Water totally dependent on aid


Lack of clarity of change/outcomes from this process


Potential conflict re. focusing on water for the poor and not looking at the environmental goals as well


Review being stillborn, low on credibility and low on usefulness!


Review is hijacked by ‘dogma’


The process is too much Northern dominated


Fails to gain legitimacy

Unbalanced stakeholder participation produces an outcome that will not be easily accepted/appropriated

Top down not bottom up


If IWA takes the process forward as interim secretariat would the trade unions take exception?




Identifying a Champion

Towards the end of the time available for the workshop the participants spent some time reviewing the options for identifying a potential champion for a global review process.

The following are the bullet points that came out of this discussion:

An offer was made by the International Water Association (IWA) to take the review process forward as the interim ‘secretariat’ especially as it could be an extension of what IWA is currently already doing anyway, a review of ALL professional water suppliers

Stakeholder Forum would continue to facilitate the process and act as interim champion until a ‘proper’ champion was identified and in place

The review process could be linked up with the Kyoto Forum (run by GWP) and also the Utility Leaders Forum as well?

The secretariat would provide a ‘chair’ for the review and a core ‘management team’, made up from those present at the Action Plan workshop plus a few other key representatives not present, would be put in place. This management team would then assign a team to actually carry out a review; this would include involving politically sensitive reps.

NB. There is a concern re the lack of Trade Union representation, see risk re IWA as secretariat. It was also acknowledged that there are more than one trade union bodies (other than PSI) that could be involved as Stakeholders

Once a champion is in place they would ‘facilitate’ the involvement of all other stakeholders, perhaps though Stakeholder Forum could facilitate the Stakeholder Consultation piece?


Communication & Promotion

Due to running out of available time this session of the workshop was not covered in detail and would need further work by the review management team. The following were collected as the workshop proceeded but nor further discussion took place on these or any other suggestions/recommendations.

You could hold public awareness campaigns put in place to outline the findings of a review, would these be sufficient or not?

You could hold road shows in different countries

Let’s not reinvent promotions or communication campaigns/programmes that are already in place but piggy back with them

Communication needs to be clear and transparent very early on


Workshop Participant Details



Jethro Monareng

AWARD (Association for Water And Rural Development)

Al Fry


Jim Lamb

Strategic Environmental Management

Orhan Esen

Istanbul Water Initiative

Umesh Natha

Umgeni Water

Rubens Born

Vitae Civilis Institute

Dave Ramsey

Water Services Cape Town

Ludo Jacobs


Jack Moss


Simpiwe Mpontsana

Westonaria TLC Gauteng

Nick King

IWA (International Water Association)

Natan Zaidenweber

Fulcrum Ecosystems Inc.

Felix Dodds

Stakeholder Forum

Jim Oatridge

Severn Trent

David Jones

BPD Water & Sanitation

John R. Gaigan

UNA Dominican Republic

Anna Heydenreich

University of St. Gallen

Dr. Bancy Mati

KRA (Kenya Rainwater Association)

Malick Gaye

ENDA tw. (Environment & Development in the third world)

Gary Austin (Facilitator)



NB. Some other people came and went throughout the three days at both the IUCN Building and the Indaba Hotel; none of these additional participants were recorded on the participant list.

Stakeholder Forum Homepage