MUS - yes we can!

The third day of the symposium focused on replication, scaling-up and taking the MUS approach forward. In the first session we looked into the needs for institutional change to facilitate MUS, and mechanisms to achieve such change. The session was introduced by Barbara van Koppen (International Water Management Institute), who highlighted lessons on this from the MUS Project, which was carried out in 8 different countries. Her presentation identified how different types of actors (NGOs, government agencies, user groups, resource centres) played different roles in facilitating scaling-up. However, none of them can do it alone, as they have complementary roles. Hence, the need to work through so-called learning alliances, or stakeholder platforms which bring together these different sectors.

Her presentation was followed by different case studies, amongst others from Colombia (presented by Inés Restrepo - Cinara) and Nepal (presented by Monique Mikhail - IDE). These presentations highlighted how there was initial resistance to introducing MUS, but how this has been overcome to some extent in these countries through learning alliances. Yet, there is still a lot of work to be done to fully scale-up.

This point was taken up in the subsequent session, which looked into specific actions for the way forward both at country level as well as globally. Activity plans were developed for example for Ethiopia and Nepal by participants working in these countries. In Nepal, for example, one of the identified steps is the establishment of a working group at national level on MUS, bringing together government agencies and NGOs. This would provide further continuation to the learning alliance established under the MUS Project. Another group looked into future research issues, particularly linking to the 2nd phase of the Challenge Programme on Water and Food. Amongst research needs are the need to develop performance and impact indicators for MUS services, and continued efforts on technologies for MUS.

A final group worked on policy recommendations, drawing upon lessons and discussions coming out of the various sessions. These draft policy recommendations were presented in plenary by John Butterworth (IRC) and Jojoh Faal (ODI), and debated to further refine them. The policy statements largely confirmed the hypothesis made in Johannesburg in 2003. Unlike the one developed at the time, this one did not lead to polemic discussions. This showed that as a MUS community, we are probably coming to a much better shared understanding of what MUS is, what it isn’t, and what it can achieve. In addition, the policy recommendations gave a clear message that we now also have a good understanding on how to do MUS. The additional implications of providing MUS services are not insurmountable and are feasible to do in many cases. So, we no longer are limited to advocating for MUS, but can also advocate on how to do MUS. Or to conclude it in a phrase which became popular during the week: MUS; yes we can!