Sustainable Water Solutions and the Rule of Law

I'll have the pleasure of moderating a panel at the World Justice Forum tomorrow (July 10) in The Hague: 

Sustainable Water Solutions and the Rule of Law

In anticipation of that event, a couple of thoughts on WASH and the rule of law follow: 

 

Safe drinking water for everyone on the planet is not a controversial issue. Every political leader in every country, province, or municipality wants each of his/her constituents to have access to the safe, affordable, and sustainable drinking water they need to survive and improve their lot in life. Yet even though the world has never been richer, smarter, or more abundant than it is in 2013, there remain over 783m people without access to safe drinking water, and 2.5 billion people without a safe place to go to the bathroom.

So why does this fundamental global safe drinking water and sanitation challenge continue to exist, when we have known how to solve this problem for millennia? Why do hundreds of millions of women around the world continue to be exploited as water and wastewater infrastructure, and why do millions of children under the age of five die from preventable waterborne diseases each year?

My answer: a lack of political will. And that answer is typically the quickest way to end a conversation, as most people look at politics and elected officials only as part of the problem, not as a key part of the solution.

Politics are indeed problematic in many instances, yet if there are to be permanent and sustainable solutions to the world’s most pressing development challenges, politics and political leaders must drive the solution, not just be invited to ribbon-cutting ceremonies to new water treatment facilities.

I had dinner a couple of years ago with a handful of other non-profit leaders and the former prime minister of a sub-Saharan African country. I asked the prime minister: “What made it possible for you to strengthen policies and increase your national budget for safe drinking water, sanitation and basic public health while you were in office?” He told me that to do so he needed two very simple things:

•  He needed to hear about the problem from his own people.
• He needed to see how the problem is solvable.

Using that as a benchmark, how can we make it possible for each government around the world to prioritize safe drinking water and sanitation? I suggest - as the prime minister said – that we in civil society, in developed and more importantly in developing countries, must let our governments know this is an important issue for us - their constituents - and that the challenge is solvable. And let’s take it one step further: to strengthen political commitments and rule of law for water, we need to show our governments not just that the problem is solvable, but that it is already being solved, and we simply need their support to solve it more quickly, equitably, and sustainably. We need politicians not so much to lead on this but simply to follow what their constituents are already doing by supporting and complementing our efforts with stronger policies and increased budgets.

Water is a non-controversial issue, and this approach to building political will and commitments has proven successful around the world and across the ages. Former U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt was president of the United States in the 1930s and 1940s. In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, progressive leaders came to President Roosevelt and asked for various concessions, including new pro-worker policies as part of the effort to turn the economy around. President Roosevelt was quite progressive and pro-union, and he is reported to have said: “I want to do what you are asking me to do, but I can’t do it politically yet. I need you to go out there and make it possible for me to enact those policies.”

So the union leaders did just that:  In 1937 there were thousands of labor actions whose impact on the economy made it possible for President Roosevelt to do what he already wanted to do.

We do not need to strike for water and sanitation. I do however assert that the job of civil society – including my organization - in the developed and developing world is to demonstrate to governments that what was once unavoidable (millions of deaths due to waterborne disease) is now unacceptable. That simple equation will provide those elected officials with the political cover they need to do what they already want to do, and progressively realize the human right to water and sanitation to everyone on the planet in a tighter timeframe.

Today, the risk of making massive political commitments to water and sanitation remains for the most part too high, because water and sanitation compete with so many other important development priorities (roads, schools, hospitals, jobs) that are in many cases in higher demand.

The rule of law community and the water and sanitation community have an opportunity work together to be a highly catalytic part of the solution to the world’s water crisis. Access to safe drinking water strengthens rule of law, in that local water and sanitation committees often provide citizens in developing countries – particularly women – their first opportunity to be involved in a democratic process that concerns their own well-being. And as local leaders across the globe provide more clear guidance about water and sanitation governance and legal underpinnings, their constituents will have access to drinking water that is safe, affordable, sustainable, and equitable. Access will be universal and equitable, pricing will be fair for all users, infrastructure will be sustainable, and the rule of law will be strengthened as governments provide services and citizens uphold their end of the social contract.

My ambition is that rule of law and water communities will find more ways to work together across a number of platforms, and that both communities will emerge stronger from those collaborative efforts.

Participatory Local Democracy survey / June 25 deadline

Hi everyone,

My friend John Coonrod at The Hunger Project is circulating this survey on participatory local democracy, which I think is an interest/expertise of many who read this blog. John and I would like to have water and sanitation civil society groups well-represented in this survey.

Here is a bit more (and please do circulate to others in your networks as appropriate):

Our key milestone is to collate and publish country rankings of participatory local democracy, and present our first annual report in September. To do this we need your help! Please invite everyone interested in this issue to fill out our 15-minute survey here, in either English, Spanish, or French.

Announcing the new Participatory Democracy Index

Responsive local governance is key to meeting human needs, yet it is not a high global priority. To raise the profile of this issue, The Hunger Project (THP) and UN Democracy Fund have launched a two-year initiative to compile a multidimensional Participatory Democracy Index, and publish an annual State of Participatory Democracy Report. The index has two components: legal provisions for local governance, and perceptions on implementation. THP requests that you support this effort by taking the 15-minute online survey at  http://localdemocracy.net/the-scorecard/.

Many thanks for carving out a few minutes of your time to either participate in this survey or send it to the right folks across the globe.

All the best,

John

From: John Coonrod, Executive Vice President [mailto:John.Coonrod@thp.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:23 PM
To: John Oldfield
Subject: Participatory Local Democracy Weekly Update

Email forwarded to you by a friend? Click here to sign up for our email list. Trouble viewing? Click here to see this message in a browser. Dear John, Progress with the survey! Now in French, Spanish and English; be on the lookout for a Portugese survey soon! Read about our two featured organizations/networks below.  John Coonrod, Executive Vice President, The Hunger Project Latin American and Caribbean Network for Democracy (REDLAD): REDLAD is a network of organizations, civil society members, academics and activists all committed to strengthening participatory local democracy. The network recognizes the importance of strong local democracies for sustainable community development projects, and they hosted their third assembly in May. The assembly attracted over 300 civil society members from both national and international organizations to discuss themes relating to inclusive democracy. Read more about REDLAD here!  Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centers (SPARC) SPARC is a large NGOs working in India on the issue of urban population growth and urban housing and infrastructure development. Working together with the National Slum Dwellers Federation and Mahila Milan , the three organizaions are known as the Alliance. The Alliance works to build capacity and organization within communities and then engages the government and local and regional authorities to undertake housing and sanitation projects led by the community. To read more about SPARC and The Alliance click here!  Help us Score the World! Our key milestone is to collate and publish country rankings of participatory local democracy, and present our first annual report in September. To do this we need your help! Please invite everyone interested in this issue to fill out our 15-minute survey here, in either English, Spanish, or French. Join us on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest to support local democracy in the Post-2015 Agenda!  The Hunger Project - DC Office 2121 Decatur Place, NW, Washington, DC 20008 Tel: +1-202-527-9505 localdemocracy.net  |   Unsubscribe

nonprofit software

White House / Safe Water / WASH Advocates / USAID

Hats off to my colleague Ben Mann - excited to see him on the agenda.

Friday June 7: Conference call with the White House on USAID's new Water Strategy.

Twitter Chat: May 23, 12 noon eastern time, with USAID's Global Water Coordinator Chris Holmes & Development Innovation Ventures

Please join this twitter chat tomorrow (May 23) if you are interested in the new USAID water strategy:

Media Advisory: USAID Releases its First Water and Development Strategy

Media Advisory: 

USAID Releases its First Water and Development Strategy

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

USAID Press Office

202-712-4320

USAID Water and Development Strategy, 2013-2018 (pdf - 2 MB)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On May 21, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Rajiv Shah will join Senator Richard Durbin, Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Congressman Ted Poe to release the U.S. Government’s first Water and Development strategy.
This strategy will address global water-related development needs by providing a clear understanding of USAID's approach to water programming, emphasizing how sustainable use of water is critical to saving lives. To achieve this goal, the Strategy sets two strategic objectives:

• Water for Health – Improve health outcomes through the provision of sustainable Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH).
• Water for Food – Manage water for agriculture sustainably and more productively to enhance food security.

Globally, over 780 million people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.5 billion people lack access to sanitation. Projections are that by 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population could be living in severe water stress conditions. This strategy reflects the commitment of the U.S. government to work in partnership with the global community to meet these challenges.
To view the entire USAID Water and Development Strategy, please click on this link:  http://www.usaid.gov/documents/1865/usaid-water-and-development-strategy-2013-2018

WHO:	USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX)
WHAT:	Celebration of the launch of USAID’s water strategy
WHEN:	Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10 a.m. – 11 a.m.
WHERE:	Kennedy Caucus Room Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC

RSVP:  Press must RSVP by Monday, May 20^th to the USAID Press Office USAIDPressOfficers@usaid.gov and Max Gleischman Max_Gleischman@durbin.senate.gov. To follow and discuss the event on Twitter, use hashtag: #WaterStrategy

USAID’s new water strategy: Pros, Cons, and What’s Next?

The U.S. Agency for International Development has recently soft-launched its first-ever five-year water strategy. We’ve all been waiting a long time for this, so some initial and mostly positive reactions follow:

First of all, congratulations to USAID and its many partners for getting this out the door. Any such strategy involves a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, particularly so for an issue as wide-ranging and multidisciplinary as water challenges across the globe. So congratulations to USAID (Chris Holmes, John Pasch, many others). A great number of nonprofits, Hill allies, and concerned citizens deserve kudos for their involvement and support as well over the past couple of years.

What I like about USAID’s water strategy

• It focuses on safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), and does so in a way that also elevates and institutionalizes Integrated Water Resource Management and water for agriculture. The strategy also strongly positions water as foundational to sustainable progress across many other vital development challenges including health, food, education, HIV, gender equality, and climate change. I also welcome its increased emphasis on sanitation, especially since USAID joined the Sanitation and Water for All Partnership in 2012. “In countries that are off track to meet the [Millennium Development Goal] for sanitation, and where diarrheal disease and under-nutrition are prevalent, Missions must add sanitation as a key element of their water, health, and nutrition activities.” That’s some strong language. Inadequate sanitation - water contaminated with human feces - is what really kills and sickens kids, not simple water scarcity. Those millions of kids are dying because of waterborne illness, not simple thirst, and USAID’s renewed emphasis on sanitation positions the agency to save and improve kids’ lives across the globe.
• The strategy draws much of its philosophy from USAID Forward, the agency’s attempt to transform itself and develop new models for development. The water strategy provides a refreshed vision of what USAID could/should look like in action across the board, with its focus on decentralized decisionmaking and ownership, local capacity strengthening, behavior change, and stronger monitoring and evaluation. This is perhaps the most important part of the strategy, and will hopefully be a big part of its implementation: the document leans forward into the sort of foreign assistance we should be supporting - less focused on direct service provision, and more focused on strengthening local capacity so that communities and countries will no longer require foreign assistance.
• There are hints in the strategy of stronger monitoring and evaluation, and even language which indicates they will do so “beyond the typical USAID Program Cycle and . . . . enable reasonable support to issues that arise post implementation.” This is good news, and I am all ears as to how this will be implemented. I know Susan Davis, IRC, SustainableWASH.org, WASH Advocates, Water For People and many others have ideas.
• Integral to the strategy are a number of smart, flexible, approaches to solving development challenges – approaches which also provide USAID much-needed leverage for its work: innovative financing (e.g. through USAID’s Development Credit Authority), policy reform, strengthening enabling environments, strengthening and building local capacity (e.g. through USAID’s Development Grants Program) and more opportunities for real partnerships like those with Rotary International and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
• Priority countries, selectivity and focus: the three tiers of countries make sense (with concerns noted below), as do the different levels of involvement envisioned in disparate countries and regions. Fewer countries (again, with concerns noted below) could provide increased opportunities for meaningful impact at scale, up to and including 100% coverage of WASH within certain discrete geographies (e.g. municipalities, provinces, even countries). This would obviate the debates about how to reach the poorest of the poor, gender focus, outlying farmers, distant huts, and so on. 100% is 100%, as inspired by Water For People’s Everyone Forever.

Perhaps most importantly, this strikes me as a learning strategy, a living document which has the potential to vastly improve USAID’s water programming in ways unforeseen at its launch. One example of something to be learned by the agency is how to differentiate between programming which focuses on first-time access to WASH and that which focuses on improved access, a distinction sometimes lost in DC but vitally important in the developing world. Another opportunity is to figure out how to best make sure that projects continue to function as intended long after the program has technically ended.

Areas on which I look forward to continuing to work with USAID

• The numbers are under-ambitious: a five year strategy to get safe drinking water to only 10 million people and sanitation to only 6 million? In FY11 alone, the figures were 3.8 million (water) and 1.9 million people (sanitation). I fully expect USAID to blow these numbers out of the water, both by providing more services, and by strengthening the capacity of local organizations across the globe to solve their own challenges.
• The strategy does a great job of segmenting its approach into “transformative impact,” “leveraged impact,” and “strategic priority” countries. I get the distinctions, but I remain concerned that there is little in the strategy to prevent the vast majority of resources from going to a small handful of strategic priority countries that may or may not suffer from water and sanitation scarcity. I would have preferred that a clear, specific and high percentage of funds be explicitly directed to countries and communities where water and sanitation coverage is the lowest in the world, and I look forward to continuing to work with USAID and the Hill on that front. Diplomacy and security concerns often trump development, and the strategy could have leaned further forward into this debate. An added benefit is that a more pro-poor approach to the implementation of the water strategy would more closely align it with the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005, which focuses clearly and explicitly on the world’s poorest countries.
• On a related note, I’m all for selectivity and focus leading to a smaller number of program countries for the water strategy. Dissipation is the enemy, but cutting from 62 countries to perhaps a couple dozen countries overnight is drastic, and will leave dozens of WASH-poor countries - with strong enabling environments (viz. “opportunity to succeed”) - high and dry. Country selection based on need and ‘opportunity to succeed’ requires very careful management. And a continuing omission is that, outside of Haiti, no country in the Western Hemisphere is a priority country for the Water for the Poor Act implementation. There are vast pockets of need in Latin America and the Caribbean, and I hope USAID takes this into account.
• With the exception of one key paragraph on page 15, the two Strategic Objectives (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene and Water and Food Security) are inadequately linked. I would have liked to see the nexus of water, sanitation, and nutrition/food security highlighted. The problem is clear: repeated bouts of waterborne diarrheal disease lead to physical stunting and poor cognitive development of kids all around Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The solution is more integrated programming: making sure that children and families have safe drinking water with which to consume their food so that it is properly digested. I know USAID understands this and am surprised this linkage is not more prominent in the strategy. There are other solutions which would tackle concomitantly both Strategic Objectives (rainwater harvesting comes to mind) which aren’t included at all. 

What’s next?

Once the strategy is formally launched, USAID and its many partners across the U.S. and the globe have five years to make this work. The implementation phase of the strategy will build on many of the successes outlined above, and provide further guidance on the strategy’s shortcomings. The implementation of this strategy needs to closely align with the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 and maintain and increase USAID’s focus on its core mission, “the eradication of extreme poverty and its most devastating corollaries, including widespread hunger and preventable child death.” 

Shortly after the strategy is launched, we can expect implementation guidance to better explain how to implement projects aligned with the strategy. That implementation guidance will very much color how the strategy will roll out over the coming years, the number of lives it will positively impact, and the return the U.S. taxpayer gets on his/her dollar.

I intend to make sure that the right people in both developed and developing countries are aware of and supportive to the extent possible of this strategy, and are positioned as allies for USAID as it works through the next five years. I envision better donor coordination, and I envision increased demand and supply for water assistance across the globe. I envision USAID reaching out to its philanthropic partners to leverage the taxpayer dollar, and I see millions of lives saved and improved.

Congratulations again to USAID – looking forward to the implementation phase.