Conclusions and Recommendations

While based entirely on the results of eleven case studies from around the world, this review has identified a number of important issues in drinking water and sanitation supply, and integrated water resource management. The case studies represent a number of approaches, scales, and philosophies for DWSS and IWRM and come from widely differing socio-economic, natural, and cultural environments. Together they present many of the issues and constraints faced in applying IWRM principles to DWSS, and in starting to integrate DWSS into IWRM strategies.

The review highlighted the ongoing successes in the implementation of DWSS projects at the grassroots level, and how these are bringing about genuine community empowerment through the development of feelings of ownership and responsibility. However, it also highlighted how this success at the grassroots level is failing to be built upon at the district/regional/catchment level, with the result that genuine stakeholder involvement in IWRM remains elusive. This is partly due to the fact that while the ideas underlying involvement and empowerment of communities have been current for some time, IWRM is still a fairly recent concept and much remains to be done in terms of developing methodologies for its practical implementation. In many places IWRM is (of necessity) attached to a process of decentralization requiring governing structures that are slowly developing.

Technical (and particularly hydrological) aspects of IWRM did not receive a lot of attention within the review, yet are among the most important areas underpinning IWRM. Without reliable data informed decision making is impossible. The lack of comment on this aspect reflects the localised DWSS focus of most of the projects as well perhaps, as the make-up of the review participants. Given in particular the interdisciplinary nature of IWRM, this important aspect should have received more attention.

1. Overall conclusion

IWRM principles are internationally accepted but not yet truly applied in DWSS

• There is general international acceptance of the IWRM principles discussed in this review, and these are being addressed by many national governments through the development of legislative frameworks. Awareness that water is a limited resource is now high at all levels (national, regional, local). However, movement from acceptance and enshrining of principles to practical application of IWRM strategies remains poor. Few countries have implemented enabling legislation, and even fewer have started the necessary work of internal institutional reorganization and capacity building.
• DWSS continues to be poorly integrated into wider IWRM strategies, while the principles of IWRM are only partially present in DWSS programmes. Principles that are widely practised revolve around aspects such as stakeholder involvement in project management, issues not specific to the IWRM arena.
• DWSS continues to take the supply of water at a local scale as a given, and to concentrate on distribution to, and management of the distribution system by a community. Until it takes cognisance of the need to address the larger problems of supply to and allocation between communities the sector will continue to operate in isolation.

2. Conclusions specific to the eight principles of IWRM

The following section presents the main conclusions from the review of the case studies in light of the eight principles selected for the analysis.

Water source and catchment conservation gains recognition but requires further work

• Water source and catchment conservation is increasing. However, national frameworks to ensure the necessary degree of communication and cooperation between sectors and levels are often lacking.
• Physical protection measures in DWSS projects frequently remain limited to the water source and its immediate surroundings. For communities to become involved in catchment conservation activities the link between the deterioration of the water source and its causes must be plainly visible. Best results are achieved by actively involving communities in both problem and solution identification. Interventions should where possible harness existing beliefs, custom, and practice.

True stakeholder involvement in water allocation decision making remains limited

• While the concept of stakeholder involvement is generally accepted in theory, the reality of different (and conflicting) interest groups is often overlooked. Different interpretations exist of who is a stakeholder, sometimes to the exclusion of communities. Where stakeholders are involved in IWRM it often continues to be at an information and not a decision-making level. Where stakeholders are involved in decision making poor and diffuse users are often at the mercy of large, well organized lobbies. Links between local, regional and national fora are rare but essential for IWRM.
• What comes through strongly from the two case studies that mentioned the technical aspects of IWRM is that detailed and accurate hydrological information is crucial for making allocation decisions that will be accepted by stakeholders (particularly where there are conflicting claims to the resource).

The framework to allow management at the lowest appropriate level is often not available

• In general governments are promoting the concept of decentralisation. However, the lack of clear legal frameworks enshrining rights and responsibilities often causes confusion. The decentralisation of responsibility is too often not accompanied by the decentralisation of power, leading to people becoming disenchanted and refusing to become involved.
• While community-based approaches are now accepted as the norm, the necessary capacity to support them does not generally exist at the higher levels (district, regional and catchment).

Capacity building is promoted but not at all levels and its effectiveness is not monitored

• Most governments officially promote capacity building, often through legislation aimed at decentralisation or community management. However, the major emphasis tends to be at the community or national level, frequently leaving out the intermediate levels of local government and regional sector agencies. In addition, the effectiveness of capacity building elements within programmes is not monitored, leading to variable effectiveness.
• Too little emphasis is placed on providing an enabling institutional environment for individuals to whom new tasks and responsibilities are given. This means trained people often cannot fully apply what they have learned.
• Local authorities require much more support to be able to properly cope with their new roles in a decentralised structure. Capacity building, especially at this level, needs to be made a central focus of IWRM and DWSS programmes.

Stakeholder involvement is growing but is still too limited and too narrow in focus

• Community involvement in the operation and management of DWSS schemes continues to show encouraging results, with all projects subscribing to the principles of participation and empowerment. However, where communities find the promised empowerment to be illusory they will quickly cease their involvement.
• Communities currently remain uninterested in taking part in wider IWRM for a number of reasons, including lack of ownership or control over decisions; lack of real power to make allocation and use decisions; high transaction costs of involvement; and poorly developed frameworks by which the views of large communities can be represented at stakeholder fora.
• National and regional level fora frequently use community involvement in a purely consultative or "window dressing" role, leading to disillusionment and withdrawal of collaboration. In addition, even where involvement is more meaningful decision-making processes frequently lack the transparency to engender trust.
• Stakeholders have multiple perspectives and interests. The skills needed to reconcile these interests are lacking, and where mechanisms for conflict resolution are in place they are ineffective. Stakeholder conflict is a major obstacle to the uptake of IWRM, making stakeholder analysis a necessity.

Efficient water use is gaining attention but requires much more emphasis

• Water use efficiency (and demand management) is gaining attention, particularly where water is seen as a scarce resource. However it remains clear that much more guidance is needed to ensure that efficient use becomes centre stage.
• There is often a lack of guidance on water use efficiency at a national level, with the result that local initiatives are ad-hoc and unenforceable. Losses remain unacceptably high, and a general culture of efficiency and demand management has yet to be developed.
• Inefficient water use is frequently linked to an exclusively individual or local focus, which ignores the cumulative effect of "small" losses; people concentrate solely on their own tap or standpipe and see only a small "insignificant" leak. Because their point of view is local they do not see the effects of all the small leaks taken together. As a result poor behavioural practices are allowed to continue unchallenged.
• Water is generally valued more where it is scarce, or where tariff structures make waste expensive. Tariff structures can be developed to ensure positive enforcement of resource conservation and demand management objectives. While bearing in mind the need to ensure adequate provision to cover basic human needs, excessive use and wastage can be penalised, and efficient sectoral allocation encouraged.

Water is increasingly viewed as having an economic and social value

• Increased emphasis is placed on water having an economic value. In many programmes discussions are underway on the modalities of charging for water use. However, it remain critical to ensure that in the rush to introduce cost recovery and community O&M the nature of water as a social good is not overlooked, and that tariff structures are so developed as to ensure protection of people's fundamental rights.
• Revenue raising by incremental tariffs is a promising approach which not only raises money for O&M, but also helps to encourage more efficient use while protecting the rights of the poor.

Striking a gender balance often is taken as enhancing women's involvement

• The case studies show a narrow view of gender. The focus is primarily on the role of women, with few addressing the roles of men and women separately. Other equally important aspects of community dynamics such as wealth, age, class, etc. are not included in project strategies. While the original reference to gender in the Dublin statement had a similarly narrow focus, since then it has become widely accepted that "gender" should consider all the aspects that make a community heterogeneous. This broader understanding was reflected in the definition adopted for this review (see Chapter 2). The fact that it failed to come through in the individual case studies reflects the gap that exists between the "international policy level" and daily routine where people have absorbed the concept.

3. Change is needed

While progress has been made in implementing IWRM principles in DWSS programmes, this remains mainly at the local level and reflects general principals of community and stakeholder involvement that are not particular to IWRM. The key conclusion must be that the general view of DWSS by both practitioners and recipients is of a sector in its own right, in which wider IWRM has almost no visible presence. DWSS and IWRM projects continue to develop in isolation from each other in many countries, with IWRM programmes largely focussing on the development of legislative frameworks and carrying out of resource inventories.

Change is needed in integrating DWSS into IWRM, with the key focus being the intermediate levels between the national and the local, this being the major area where the allocation and use decisions that underlie IWRM are made. As one of the most politically important areas of water resource management, and one where the most funding is currently available, DWSS offers an ideal entry point for building IWRM. Particularly at the community and intermediate levels DWSS programmes can provide an arena in which to put into practice the participatory, stakeholder focussed ideals of IWRM while providing the capacity building in regional and sectoral support agencies that this review highlights as being essential to successful IWRM.

Participants in the case studies and in the concluding workshop presented a number of ideas for follow-up activities. In view of the gap between policy and practice, prime emphasis in these suggestions was on awareness raising and advocacy. These suggestions include:

• Organizing a number of participatory case studies to review different projects within the same country and discuss these in a national workshop with the "stakeholders";
• Establishing national or regional workshops to enhance stakeholder analysis and explore IWRM issues with the stakeholders;
• Including IWRM better in existing training activities to encourage projects and programmes to adapt their practices, and particularly include training at the level above the community;
• Re-visiting the participating projects in one or two year's time to explore the effect of the participatory review and the new experience in applying IWRM recommendations;
• Including monitoring of IWRM principles in ongoing programmes.

Taking these ideas a step further we have identified some key areas for the development of programme activities that can help to close the gap between policy and practice.

Matching DWSS and IWRM at the intermediate level

The review clearly indicated the need to strengthen the intermediate level between the national and the local. IRC is now in the process of developing a participatory action research project together with partners that will take place within the framework of ongoing and well-established community DWSS projects. The project will adopt a learning approach and work with both communities and support agencies in identifying and overcoming the barriers that prevent active participation at higher levels of decision making. It will aims at developing and testing tools and approaches that enable communities to interact with a wide cross section of user and interest groups and to solve conflicts related to IWRM.

Two specific areas that will be addressed concern:

• Management, sharing and use of hydrological data and knowledge
  Informed decision making for IWRM relies on access to appropriate and reliable data and knowledge about the hydrological system. The research programme would focus on the development of an integrated knowledge management system for IWRM, based on monitoring, analysis, and dissemination tools appropriate to each level of decision making. Particular emphasis will be placed on the provision of adequate and understandable data for the communities.
• Stakeholder analysis and the mainstreaming of gender and equity considerations
  There is a clear need to develop the necessary skills to undertake stakeholder analysis and conflict resolution, both by support agencies and by stakeholders themselves. In particular support agencies need the necessary facilitation and advocacy skills to support participation by weaker and more marginalised groups. An important aspect that will be covered in this respect concerns equitable tariff setting. Equally the means by which large diffuse user groups can be satisfactorily and realistically represented at regional/catchment level fora will be further developed.

To further develop this programme IRC is interested in identifying additional partners and support agencies. If you are interested you are invited to contact Patrick Moriarty at IRC: