|
|
|
ACTION PLAN: Multi-stakeholder Review of Global Water / Sanitation Supply Strategies
DRAFT RAW Workshop Output
Contents
To develop a work plan for a multi-stakeholder review of water/sanitation supply strategies to include:
Assess the requirement for a global review process, if YES then:
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:
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
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.
Given by Felix Dodds of the Stakeholder Forum, captured as bullet points.
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:
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?
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
One 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
Two 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’
Three Best practice principles and initiatives common to Public, Private, community etc and success stories
Four 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
Listed below are identified Milestones or Actions for carrying out or putting in place a Multi-Stakeholder Global Review of Water/Sanitation Supply Strategies.
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:
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.
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. |
|
|
