Challenges of international goals in the Water Sector: E-Conference Summary Report

Year of publication: 2003

"Challenges of international goals in the Water Sector"

20th October - 7th November, 2003

Content:

• Executive summary
• Organisation of the E-conference
• Topic 1 Actions needed to meet the targets for 2015?
• Topic 2 Obstacles to meeting the targets
• Topic 3 Balance between present day and future demand, sustainability
• Conclusions
• Annex 1 Background paper
• Download PDF-document

Executive summary

The Challenges in the Water Sector e-conference was organized as part of a process where sector stakeholders at decision and implementation levels are consulted for their opinion on further development of the Finnish development policy in the water sector, especially in the main co-operation countries.

A total of 54 participants, 34 from the South and 20 from the North, registered for the e-Conference. One hundred and forty eight e-mail contributions were received during the e-Conference.

The e-Conference was organized into three topics, one per week, as follows:

• Topic 1: Actions needed to meet the targets for 2015?
• Topic 2: Obstacles to meeting the targets
• Topic 3: Balance between present day and future demand, sustainability

A "Background Introductory Paper" was prepared by the e-Conference Co-chairmen and sent to each participant on registration.

The general conclusion, which can be drawn from the discussion, is that countries are in rather different position in responding to the MDGs. Several reasons were given, amongst them the most striking was the difference between talk and deeds. It also has become quite obvious that sanitation targets will be more difficult to achieve than those for water supply.

The general worries about sustainability have not changed much lately. The newest one, IWRM, needs much awareness-raising, as the limits of available water for competing demands have become more and more obvious. There is a real crisis looming in many parts of the world. The challenges of demand management, both in water supply and in irrigation, call for inter-disciplinary approaches and international - basin-wide co-operation.

There appears to be a general understanding that poverty alleviation is a valid issue in the water sector. However, the voice of the poor is not easily heard by those responsible for service delivery and resources management. More real commitment from the professionals and the politicians is called for.

Capacity building and institution building are both continuous challenges. The environment of the water sector (social, cultural, technical, economic and natural) is in constant change. Petrified stands and approaches will soon become obsolete and actually hinder development, and achievement of the Millennium Goals. New challenges call for new skills for all the stakeholders in the sector.

Back to top

Organization of the E-conference

The E-conference was organized into three topics, one per week, as follows:

• Topic 1: Actions needed to meet the targets for 2015?
• Topic 2: Obstacles to meeting the targets
• Topic 3: Balance between present day and future demand, sustainability

A "Background Introductory Paper" was prepared by the e-Conference Co-chairmen and sent to each participant on registration (Annex 1).

A total of 54 participants, 34 from the South and 20 from the North, registered for the e-Conference. One hundred and forty eight e-mail contributions were received during the e-Conference. The conference messages are available for viewing in the Jiscmail at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/IMO.html and files such as the background paper held at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/IMO/

The number of e-mail contributions received per topic was: Topic 1: 78; Topic 2: 46; Topic 3: 24.

Back to top

Topic 1: Actions needed to meet the targets for 2015?

There were five questions to open the discussion. Below the questions and summary answers to them:

1. Are the targets realistic?

The targets were found to be unrealistic. However, there are also opinions, that they are realistic and achievable. They are good tools if understood to be a global vision each country should make their own targets, more realistic but still ambitious, and then work hard to achieve them. They were also found to be top-down, and a bottom-up approach was called for. Another difficulty observed was in the statistics, reliability of the data. Also high population growth in poor countries was mentioned as a factor contributing to non achievement of the targets.

2. On who's terms are the targets being set? What about the poor?

Quite a number of participants say that the MDGs have been set by the donor community, and apply their norms and values. The international forums where they have been discussed have been attended also by the elite of developing countries which may have lost track of reality in their countries due to too high percentage of their time being spent in meetings with the external support agencies. Each ESA appears to have its own agenda. Coping with this situation takes too much of the time of the responsible stakeholders in the recipient countries. The poor are rarely, if at all, consulted.

3. Have you noticed positive trends in real WSS service provision in your country? Do you think they will lead to achievement of the MDGs?

There were mixed messages here. The majority were of the opinion tat the targets will not be met. The trend in sanitation was found worse than in water supply.

4. Has your country's government WSS policy changed or are there signs of initiation of a change?

Also here there were mixed messages. However, it was positive to learn that attempts have been made in some countries. The messages had also doubts about the sincerity of the policy makers. The word lip-service was used and commitment called for real actions.

5. What is to your mind the role of bilateral donors?

The role of bilateral donors was found important. They should work in partnership with the recipients in a demand based way, as well as agree on policies and modes of operation together with the recipients. The time the discussions require of the recipient country authorities was found to be a problem.

Difficulties in reaching the poor were mentioned. Bilateral donors tend to discuss with the relevant authorities, as they should (sovereign states). The problem found is, how to design the interventions to reach the poor also in practise, not only on paper.

Some theme opinions drawn from the answers:

Quality of data and services

The statistical data appears to be in many cases of doubtable quality. There were claims that those making the figures want to please and to give an inflated figures. Another found problem mentioned was the number of non-operational facilities included in the coverage figures. The figures have no connection to quality of service or quality of water.

Sustainability

Many participants are concerned about sustainability of installations and systems. In this connection donor/project dependence was mentioned. Lack of capacity, resources and motivation were presented as reasons for the poor sustainability. In this connection also the problems of knowledge transfer in projects and programmes were discussed.

People orientation and empowerment of the end users of services and installations were presented as keys to sustainability.

Subsidies for irrigation were brought forwards as one cause for over exploitation of the ground water resources. This is a tip of an iceberg of the larger issue: The infinity of water resources is a myth, which has to be counter-fought - now. The looming wave of water conflicts is a real danger for international development.

Pollution of the water resources caused by poor sanitation has been mentioned too. It makes the looming water crisis more probable and drains resources, which could be used more efficiently elsewhere in the sector.

Commitment

Another common point is commitment of decision makers. This has led to a situation where there is much more talking than action for improvement. There is a need for more people oriented integrated approach (competing uses of water) for water resources management and development. The commitment of the decision makers at the political level is emphasised by the need to alleviate poverty. This was highlighted for example in the Johannesburg summit by Mr. Valli Moosa, Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism for the Republic of South Africa and Chair of the Commission session. He said in connection of explaining why consensus was developing over the issue: "Access to freshwater is the single biggest contribution to alleviating poverty."

Poverty alleviation

There is amongst the participants a strong opinion that WSS is a major contributor for poverty alleviation.

In poverty alleviation efforts through the water sector we should remember that the poor have a voice, which can be heard, but do we hear it? The poor also have knowledge and a will. To listen and to have a true dialogue with the poorest segment of the society is vital. The professionals in the sector have a great responsibility when designing and implementing interventions; not to work for the poor but with the poor.

Information gap

A further worry is information gap. It is understood as lack of understandable information to the "grassroots" the ultimate users of water and sanitation. If only "academic" messages and highly sophisticated guidelines are distributed within the sector stakeholders, the end users will be left outside the information flow. Especially, the poor do not have means to invest into anything they do not understand, appreciate and feel beneficial for them. If the end users of WSS are informed properly and empowered to do educated choices, they will participate and invest to their capacity. Possibility for sustainability will increase exponentially.

Balance of investment

The balance of investment between hardware, technology and capacity building is also debated. The capacity building of institutions, organizations and individuals appear to be under the level it should be. Result = wasted investment in technology and hardware.

Privatisation

Discussion on privatisation has resulted in observation that it is not so simple, black and white, yes / no issue, as so easily appears to be in discussions. There is no one-solution- only answer to this question. All depends on situation, environment and tradition of the stakeholders and their geographic area. All options in the spectrum from state/government only via different private public partnerships (PPP) to unregulated market economy option need closer scrutiny in the very case in question before implemented. Key words used are good governance, competent management, social justice.

Sanitation

Sanitation appears currently to be much less appreciated than water supply. However, poor sanitation directly and indirectly influences adversely health, dignity, equity and water resources. Sanitation is clearly in need of enhanced attention by all stakeholdesrs. A quote from contribution (61) by Mr. Sam Mawunganidze says it all: "Prioritizing sanitation is just a strategic choice which we all disregard in our Funding proposals and Policy formulation." No positive discrimination that would mean that discrimination of negatively water issues but a priority of its own, was one opinion. Others said simply yes to question: Doe sanitation need positive discrimination? I understand, however, that both mean the same: Give sanitation its rightful priority. Get it out of the shadow of water supply.

It has also emerged in some contributions, that the institutional fragmentation, the multitude of institutions, having a role and a responsibility in sanitation, hampers progress. The roles and responsibilities tend not to be clear. The old saying; divided responsibility is no responsibility at all; seems to be valid.

Social marketing and change of behaviour

Social marketing and change of behaviour as keys to success in sanitation improvements have emerged in the discussion. They are seen as vital ingredients for sustainable sanitation. In this connection choice of technology, technical options to be used have been debated. Technology and its users must be compatible. It has also been expressed in this discussion that change or behaviour will take time. It is a process, which needs long commitment from both the messengers and the recipients of information.

Culture sensitivity, basing the interventions on the culture and adapting its practices in a modern way for development, was mentioned as a key to success. Not only in the context of sanitation but also in water supply.

Summary points

To wind-up the discussion of the week: A couple of sentences quoted from the discussion:

(36) Tapio S. Katko:"I would say and argue that there is just no shortcut to progress.

Development and related Capacity building at all levels takes time. I personally think that too often in water and any other development sector we have too ambitious expectations and therefore the public, the fundamental payers of development cooperation, may think too much of failures. Thus we should analyse our experiences from long-term. Yet, we have to remember that water is always and everywhere largely a local issue. Therefore, any idea of having "international modes" for water services management will fail. Instead we may have and probably have several good principles that should be followed."

(40) Ekiyor Lewis Prince: "In summary, from the global perspective, the MDGs are quite good and do form a basis for accelerated progress in WSS for all. But the great challenge comes in when it is considered on a country by country basis particularly for the developing countries of Africa where issues of political instability, non-continuity of government policy, corruption, misdirected and poor prioritisation of effort cannot be corrected in the near future."

Back to top

Topic 2: Obstacles to meeting the targets

There were five questions to open the discussion. Below first the questions and summary answers to them:

1. What are the critical international/national policy obstacles?

There were some extremely interesting responses regarding the main issues that should be considered. Many of the e-mails overlapped in terms of the critical issues. The following points were mainly cited:

• Issue of poverty
• Institutional constraints (fragmentation of institutions, inadequate incentives, co-ordination and consensus issues, information and communication constraints, etc.) - corruption at all levels
• Financial management - One issue that stood out was the debate on where actual donor money goes to in terms of benefiting the poor and how much of the donor aid actually reaches the beneficiary communities; At the local level, the issue of municipalities financially mismanaged was cited
• Scaling up obstacles were cited which included the issue of inaccurate assessment of current coverage; unwillingness to accept the scale of the problems on the part of governments and donors alike; adhesion to the DRA approach imposed by donors when demand stimulation is required and over-reliance on the community to do it by itself
• Policy obstacles- centralized and top-down. Also socially and/or culturally unacceptable policies were noted. The issue of strategic political constraints was also cited
• Political less democratic global unfair relations between nations
• WSS policies which are sectoral, not integrated, at national and international level
• Biases of professionals themselves
• Political indifference and biases specifically of politicians (simply paying lip service to WSS issues and failing to implement policies that are agreed to) plus lack of knowledge of politicians

2. What are the institutional issues / capacity building issues that are creating obstacles?

There were again some interesting ideas regarding the issue of institutional and capacity building issues, which included:

• Little community involvement
• Lack of co-ordination
• Lack of a strong WSS base at local government level
• Lack of knowledge- which refers especially to policy makers who do not know the state of the art, and best practices- Henk Holtslag's suggestion is that more emphasis should be placed on best and cheapest options for WSS facilities Peder Hjorth suggests that lack of knowledge should be seen as an indicator of lack of interest in low-cost solutions.

3. What are the major sanitation; water resource; water supplies, water quantity, water quality, water efficiency and integrated water resource management obstacles?

Some of the main points included that:

• The balance tilts much more towards water than sanitation. This in itself is an obstacle especially for sanitation.

• Appropriate low-cost technology affordable to the poor should be adopted for WSS programs in rural communities.

• There is a wrong impression among people that water is free. "There should be intensive mobilisation to the effect that water has a price and should be paid for, no matter how small the amount. Communities should be encouraged to have a regular source of income for O&M and individuals should be ready to contribute when necessary or pay user charges."

• There is a conflicting interest between the users, from very local water source disputes to trans/national river basin / border disputes

Specifically in terms of IWRM and Sanitation, the following was cited:

• In terms of water resource management (IWRM) the concept itself need to be clear. Currently IWRM is not very clear or manageable for those who are supposed to translate policy into action.

• "In terms of sanitation it should be prioritised and its importance given recognition. Yet, sanitation fails to appear in many national or even regional water resource strategies. Wastewater may receive some attention somewhere, not

• environmental sanitation in its wider context even if it clearly has an impact upon the water resources in question. This is certainly one of the major obstacles for sanitation management. It is 'nice' but not that fashionable."

• In terms of sanitation there is clearly a "lack of political will and commitment at national level".

4. What are main solid waste management, school sanitation and hygiene education, hygiene behaviour and promotion obstacles currently being faced?

The following are some of the main points cited:

• At the national level funds from donors to make a national (School Sanitation and Hygiene Education) programme is not easy. At the school level, funds are needed to make it possible to build latrines at schools. Currently in Somalia and Somaliland one finds the ratio is 1 toilet in 200 to 300 students.
• The toilets for girls (especially in Moslem countries) is a serious headache for the older school going girls. Placement (of latrines) must be done in full participation with the girls
• Conflicts with and between NGOs and other organisations on how best to approach school development is also a hurdle.
• "Missiles and motorcades cannot confer prestige on nations without taps and toilets (also in schools)" cited by Dick de Jong and Mariela Garcia.

5. What gender and participation obstacles should be considered more carefully?

Some of the final points focusing on gender and participation included:

• Lack of effective participation by women and children. Women and children are the most vulnerable when water and sanitation facilities breakdown or are absent. They should therefore be allowed to participate actively, particularly in planning, training and capacity building.

• Cultural and religious barriers that prevent women from effective participation in community affairs is an obstacle which should be addressed by community, local government, and religious leaders.
• The idea of a 'rushed' approach in strategic development planning. There is a tension between the need to move forward quickly and securing genuine participatory processes. However, without participation, there can, of course, be no attention to gender issues.

Summary points

All of us who have taken part in this e-conference, continue to translate lessons learnt from field experiences into knowledge that is both practical and strategic. That is the main objective of the whole e-conference and especially this week's theme on 'obstacles to meeting the targets'.

As is clearly cited in this week's e-conference, we have experience and expertise but we are still learning how to face the challenges. This week's responses reflect that we still need to work with others to meet the MDG goals, such as:

• Professionals- who are also working in the water and sanitation sector directly or indirectly (such as in the health and social sector) with their line ministry(ies)
• Politicians, who set policies and budgets- they need to realize how important environmental sanitation and water services are; and
• Whole communities - not just the unserved.

The obstacles will be overcome, not in this e-conference or other conferences, but on the ground- that will be the greatest obstacle/challenge to take forward.

On a final note there are two points, which do need some additional emphasis as these points have come up in a number of e-mails. These focus on the role of:

• Women and children in water and sanitation; and
• Engineers in water and sanitation projects/programmes.

In terms of the first point- the role of women and children in water and sanitation, for millions of women and children around the world, fetching and carrying water is part of their daily routine. The role of collection water is not only physically stressful but also time consuming. Children and particularly girls are required to help their mothers with water collection and other domestic tasks. This means they are not able to attend school and often have little time for 'fun' activities such as playing.

In reference to sanitation, women often have different privacy requirements from men. For example in densely populated urban settlements without adequate sanitation, such as found in India, they are required to use public spaces in the evening or early morning and as a result can suffer health problems related to urine retention. The main point here is that although women are know to play a 'custodian' role of water sources and in hygiene management at the community and household level, they are rarely been consulted in water and sanitation programmes.

In terms of the second point- the role of engineers in water and sanitation work- it is interesting to cite that water supply and sanitation rose up the development agenda more than 20 years ago. Clearly the challenge now is to make a variety of professionals (e.g. engineers, planners, sociologists, etc.) work in water and sanitation projects/programmes together coherently. Partnerships with different professionals, which also implies a variety of organisations, ministries, etc. should remain the driving force towards sustainable water and sanitation services.

Back to top

Topic 3: Balance between present day and future demand, sustainability

Quality of the contributions was very good, although the number, 24 of comments was less than that of the previous two weeks. Let us note the similarity with water resources development in the field. Scarce water is valuable. The discussion proceeded more freely than during the preceding weeks. Below are the summary opinions.

Sustainability

Meeting the present needs without compromising the needs of the future is a continuous process. Both developing and industrialized countries keep working on it, there is an opportunity to two-way learning. A key issue is handing over the responsibility for implementation to the community. Training and technology transfer are important, as well as creation of ownership. Issues have to be addressed pragmatically, intersectorally, efficiently, and for wider benefit of the society. At the end, services have to be paid by the beneficiaries. IWRM approach seems to be very essential, although the requirements are complex and ambitious. To promote ownership, communities should contribute in cash and in kind.

Environmental and social impacts.

It is crucial to realize that environmental and social aspects are interlinked, particularly regarding the health. They require different expertise and skills to appraise the impacts, but should be addressed with equal interest and priority. The attitude of politicians and professionals vary, in accordance to their background and knowledge. Listening to the local people is important, as well as open participation in planning. A minimum of 40 % women is recommended in rural committees.

Poverty.

Most important is to focus the attention of our development policy to the poor. Cost-recovery is a question to be discussed with the elders of the community. There is no general resolution to the problem of providing affordable water and sanitation to everybody. Different cultures can find different technologies and institutional arrangements. Water can be considered both as a free common good and as a tradable product, depending on the facilities and treatment.

Responsibility of wastewater.

Water supply bodies should take care of the wastewater. The municipalities bill also for treatment of solid wastes, and there is often no no other practical way. Drainage as an important element of sustainable irrigation was unfortunately not yet discussed in this context.

Integrated water resources management.

IWRD is a key to sustainable use of water. It is difficult in resource-poor situations, particularly in rural communities and small cities, where the data are insufficient for sustainable planning and management. Money and skills for development are also missing. All the relevant ministries should be involved where necessary. Training is needed at all levels.

Knowledge base.

Access to internet seems to be a true challenge, due to high expenses in the developing countries. The acquisition of data and relevant information is a major problem. Importance of reliable data for proper planning is sometimes poorly recognised. Data collection and monitoring should be based on objective. The project should be evaluated to ensure that it meets the objective. Quality of data is important, sometimes official statistics lack reliability. Data should be collected also from stakeholders.

Institutions.

Institution building seems to be a key for better capacity. However, this discussion remained very general. Nations, cities, tribes, even villages, have their own needs and traditions. Improvements in institutional capacity have to be tailored for each society. National and regional plans should be the starting point. Education and training are key elements, in addition to material resources. May I quote Alfred Mashauri's remark: 'It is all round and lifetime training'. At individual level, it can also be a way out from poverty.

From present to future.

During our first week it was noted that resources for water affairs have declined in most governmental agencies in developing countries. The crucial importance of good drinking water and sanitation has, luckily, been recognized quite commonly by now, but still a lot of prioritizing is needed by the political decision-makers. Our conversation may facilitate the design of better policies, although many important factors need a lot of more work. Climate change may also facilitate the problem. More severe droughts are expected on the areas already suffering from the lack of water. Additional effort is needed for mitigation of flood damages, partly on the same areas as droughts. The most important requirement to meet the future properly is to keep working together.

Back to top

Conclusions

The general conclusion, which can be drawn from the discussion, is that countries are in rather different position in responding to the MDGs. Several reasons were given, amongst them the most striking was the difference between talk and deeds. It also has become quite obvious that sanitation targets will be more difficult to achieve than those for water supply.

The general worries about sustainability have not changed much lately. The newest one, IWRM, needs much awareness-raising, as the limits of available water for the competing demands have become more and more obvious. There is a real crisis looming in many parts of the world. The challenges of demand management, both in water supply and in irrigation, call for inter-disciplinary approaches and international - basin-wide co-operation.

There appears to be a general understanding that poverty alleviation is a valid issue in the water sector. However, the voice of the poor is not easily heard by those responsible for service delivery and resources management. More real commitment from the professionals and the politicians is called for.

Capacity building and institution building are both continuous challenges. The environment of the water sector (social, cultural, technical, economic and natural) is in constant change. Petrified stands and approaches will soon become obsolete and actually hinder development, and achievement of the Millennium Goals. New challenges call for new skills for all the stakeholders in the sector.

Partnerships need reinforcement. This applies to public, private, third sector and community partnerships, as well as to partnerships of different professionals in the sector and adjacent sectors, and at all levels. Options for fruitful co-operation are many and always dependent on the legislation, culture, economic status, environment, and most of all will of the parties involved. The term privatisation is quite often used to describe decentralisation and building of partnerships. It means, however, in the original meaning of the term, transfer of ownership of assets only. If understood just as that, the approach is too narrow-minded and will not lead to optimal outcome. More comprehensive meaning, and real content, has to be accepted. The best possible roles for each actor and stakeholder in the sector have to be sought in each case based on the reality of it on the ground.

Back to top

ANNEX 1 Background paper

Debate:

Background paper for "Challenges of international goals in the Water Sector"

An e-conference on impacts of new thinking and targets on development strategies

Organised by: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre on behalf of the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs

Facilitated by: Heikki Wihuri and Marielle Snel of IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, the Netherlands and Jyrki Wartiovaara of Jywaconsulting, Helsinki, Finland

Introduction

This background paper introduces the challenges of the 21st century to the sustainability of the water sector, in relation to development co-operation. The term ' water sector' in this background paper is used in reference to water resources management, environmental aspects, economic use of water, water supply, sanitation and related health issues, but excluding water as transport media and as a source of energy.

The background paper aims to stimulate your feedback and inputs in the e-conference. This e-conference is meant for project staff, managers and directors of water supply projects and programmes and policy makers dealing directly or indirectly with the water sector at a global, national, state and/or local level. You know the reality of development co-operation in the water sector and are aware of what is needed to make programmes and projects work both more effectively and efficiently. We want to hear from you!

This e-conference renders a possibility to the participants to make their voice heard and to gain an insight to latest developments in thinking inside the water sector stakeholders in many different corners of the world and in numerous and various roles. Simply a great learning opportunity for all of us!

Before we carry on, some clarification should be given regarding the starting position for this e-conference. This e-conference is based on the following assumptions:

• Latest developments in the international forums, with their declarations and goals and the wide acceptance of them, reflected in the commitments of governments, international organisations and NGOs, provide both challenges and opportunities for development co-operation;
• Those actively working in the water sector have hands-on experience which is worth sharing and discussing with other professional; and
• Discussions based on personal capacities best promotes the formulation of policies and action plans as these opinions do not present official stands but rather, they are based on practical experience and academic research.

Developing policies to meet today's challenges

There are numerous successfully implemented water sector development projects that meet the goals either partially or completely. Hence, in this e-conference we may want to highlight efficient resolutions that have worked, but also seek improved components for international co-operation policies .

International goals

A reflection back at the Millennium Development Goals that were reiterated in Johannesburg at the World Summit on Sustainable Development stated the following:

• To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of people who are unable to reach or afford safe drinking water
• To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of people who do not have access to basic sanitation

The WASH campaign of the WSSCC highlights that bringing sustainable water services and environmental sanitation to everybody is not just about statistics, but includes:

• health issues;
• dignity and status;
• the physical and financial burden of having or not having services;
• the social exclusion of vulnerable groups;
• poverty;
• economic factors;
• environmental impacts;
• development;
• and most of all - people!

The Finnish strategy

The Finnish strategy for international development co-operation is very much based on the principles published by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in 1996[1], which has been updated by the Government in accordance to new commitments. The strategy that originates from 1993 sets the following goals:

Alleviate widespread poverty in the developing countries;

• Combat global environmental threats by assisting developing countries in solving environmental problems; and
• Promote social equality, democracy and human rights in the developing countries.

Finland's decisions are increasingly influenced by the operations of the European Union (EU) and the international community in each country. One of the recent commitments is the EU resolution[2] made in 2002, which covers the next 10 years. It does not limit the national authority to deal with countries and communities outside the union. The international dimension (article 9) contains the following goals:

• Ambitious international environmental policy with particular attention to global sustainability;
• International promotion of sustainable models for production and consumption;
• Ensure that policies and actions taken for trading and environment support each other.

[1] Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Department for International Development Cooperation 1996: Decision-in-principle on Finland's Development Cooperation.

[2] EU Resolution 1600/2002/ The sixth environmental action plan.

Gap between local and donor values

Water resources development is closely related to the aspects of poverty, health, environment, and equality. So far, it has been hard to reach the poorest of the poor through international development financing, as the money is filtered through the old power structures of the recipient government.

Sometimes it has been said that westerners are trying to apply their own opinions in different cultures. Others are known to say that poor nations cannot afford the quality of life that has been called for in international conventions. There might be an element of truth in this statement. Nevertheless, the underlying point is that environmental and social requirements of co-operation are considered externalities in economic planning of projects and programs. In financial analysis this might be appropriate, but economic, environmental, and social assessments should address all costs and benefits. The key challenge is therefore the difficulty of quantifying indirect and non-financial parameters.

Financiers of co-operation may neither compromise their ethically justified national or international commitments, nor ignore the taxpayer's will. Recipient countries may not compromise their equally justified opinions of their priority needs. There is an obvious challenge to improve the mutual understanding, and to create a framework for better communication.

According to latest UNDP statistics, 54 countries are today poorer than in 1990, while the world overall has gained wealth. What has gone wrong and how can we rectify this situation? An earlier expectation was that national economic growth would automatically benefit the poor, sooner or later. Nowadays economists know that it is not always true. There are clear indications that poverty can get worse even during a period of strong overall growth.

In addition, one of the obvious problems in some countries is weak human resource base of capable counterparts that can take over the technical responsibilities at the end of projects. Technology transfer, on-the-job training, involvement of schools and universities, and study tours are commonly used to train staff. However, training follow-up remains minimal in many countries. In addition, the lack of relevant positions available for those trained is also a dilemma. How can this situation be turned around to benefit those trained as well as the donors who are sponsoring those being trained?

Finally, do our actions in designing and implementing projects show that we are committed to helping the poor, and honouring principles of gender equity - - or is this largely lip-service? Gender and poverty-sensitive approaches can help projects succeed in achieving their objectives for all: girls and boys, men and women, rich and poor members of the community. However those involved, from the donors to those in the field, should understand some basic aspects of gender and their implications. How can the principle of gender neutrality be upheld?

Themes

As you will see this background paper has produced a number of fundamental points for discussion in this e-conference. In order to facilitate this process we will divide this e-conference into the following three themes which include:

1. Actions needed to meet the targets for 2015?
2. Obstacles to meeting the targets
3. Balance between present day and future demand, sustainability

Let us learn from the good and bad practices, let us learn from each other and from the experiences in different countries. Inform the participants in this e-conference about your opinions and experiences in your project at the local, district, state and/or national level! For only then do we all move forward towards understanding as well as learning about how to solve some of these issues!

Back to top

- Download:

E_conference_summary.pdf (87.2 kB)