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.

Water, Sanitation Funding Opportunity for Refugees in Thailand and Malaysia

FY 2013 Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO Programs Benefiting Burmese Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Thailand and Malaysia. Funding Opportunity Announcement Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration April 19, 2013 FY 2013 Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO Programs Benefiting Burmese Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Thailand and Malaysia. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 19.511- Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for East Asia Announcement issuance date: Friday, April 19, 2013 Proposal submission deadline: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 at 12:00 p.m. noon (EDT). Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered. ADVISORY: PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to allow time to address any difficulties that may arise. Proposed Program Start Dates: June 1 – September 27, 2013 Eligible Applicants: (1) Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with IRS, other than institutions of higher education; (2) Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) status with IRS, other than institutions of higher education; and (3) International Organizations. International Organizations (IOs) should not submit proposals through Grants.gov in response to this Funding Opportunity Announcement. Rather IOs such as UN agencies and other Public International Organizations (PIOs) that are seeking funding for programs relevant to this announcement should contact the relevant PRM Program Officer (as listed below) on or before the closing date of the funding announcement. Duration of Activity: Program plans from 12 to 24 months will be considered. Applicants may submit multi-year proposals with activities and budgets that do not exceed 24 months from the proposed start date. Actual awards will not exceed 12 months in duration. Continued funding after the initial 12- month award requires the submission of a noncompeting continuation application and will be contingent upon available funding, strong performance, and continuing need. In funding a project one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the project in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term funding possibilities. Please see the Multi-Year Funding section below for additional information. PRM will prioritize project proposals that demonstrate strong coordination and integration of services with other NGOs. Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Refugees in Thailand: PRM will prioritize funding for proposed NGO activities that best meet the Bureau’s priorities in Thailand for Burmese refugees in camps along the Thailand-Burma border as identified below. Health (including curative, preventative, reproductive health, mental health and psychosocial care), Water and Sanitation, and Gender-Based Violence: PRM will accept proposals from NGOs for activities that focus on the following priorities in Mae La, Umpiem, Nu Po, and Ban Don Yang camps: a. Improved access to quality health care services, including reproductive healthcare, with a particular emphasis on the health and nutritional needs of children under five and pregnant and lactating women and improved access to services for persons with disabilities (PwDs) and their families; b. Improved camp water and sanitation and other environmental infrastructure, including protection and development of the water resource in Mae La and in the host villages in Tak Province; c. Improved quality of life of refugee populations by addressing their psychosocial needs and developing income-generating activities, with an emphasis on the development of skills and vocational training to achieve a measure of self-sufficiency and a reasonable livelihood; and d. Strengthened community capacity to prevent Gender-Based Violence (GBV) and better respond to the health, psychosocial, safety, and justice needs of GBV survivors. Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Internally Displaced Persons on the Thailand-Burma Border: PRM will accept proposals from NGOs that focus on the following priorities: a. Improved network of services for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) and their families through provision of specialized and support services; b. Strengthened physical and functional rehabilitation services and responsive networking with preventive camp health care services that are broadened and made disability-inclusive. c. Inclusion of PwDs in selected key mainstream stakeholders’ services related to livelihoods, water and sanitation, and schools by reducing social and physical barriers. d. Conduct mine-risk education, where possible, inside Burma and with refugees on the Thailand-Burma border. Activities should include conducting mass information campaigns among target populations, developing tools, such as training packages for use by local staff. Trainings may include small scale training for key community leaders and influential persons who may act as message multipliers within their spheres of influence, larger-scale trainings including lectures, demonstrations, simulations, and small group discussions for the most at-risk groups. Trainings should be led by and include women leaders as appropriate. Proposed activities should demonstrate direct or indirect link to and/or coordination with other Mine Risk Education activities underway in Burma. Such interaction should support an increase of Burmese refugees’ awareness of and ability to influence national and local mine action services and institutional initiatives in Burma. Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Malaysia: PRM will accept proposals from NGOs that focus on the following priorities: (1) Healthcare: a. Improved primary healthcare, medical services, mental health and psychosocial support to the urban Burmese refugee population in Kuala Lumpur and Klang Valley, including the implementation of mobile health clinics; b. Provision of nursing facilities and caretakers for refugee patients requiring recuperation and post-hospitalization nursing care; and c. Health-based training and education focusing on general health care, communicable disease prevention, treatment adherence, reproductive health, and nutrition. (2) Gender-Based Violence (GBV): a. Improved knowledge of GBV within refugee and host communities; b. Improved capacity of target communities to identify and effectively respond to GBV through healthcare (including reproductive health), psychosocial, safety, justice and other services that involve refugee and host community members in their design and implementation; and c. Improved capacity of service providers to incorporate GBV prevention and response activities, including multi-sectoral referral services. Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Rohingya in the Region: PRM will accept proposals from NGOs for activities that focus on the following priorities for the stateless Rohingya in the East Asia region: a. Strengthened dialogue between relevant actors in Burma, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia and elsewhere in the region on the humanitarian situation facing Rohingya populations; b. Engagement of affected governments in the region, either directly or indirectly, and solicitation of support from Rohingya leadership to facilitate the development of a comprehensive regional solution to address the Rohingya plight; c. Provision of education, including technical support, comparative knowledge and expertise, to concerned parties. Proposals must have a concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and reliable, time-bound and trackable (SMART), have established baselines, and include at least one outcome or impact indicator per objective; objectives should be clearly linked to the sectors. Proposals must adhere to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance. See PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for a complete list of sector-specific standards. PRM will accept proposals from any NGO working in the above mentioned sectors although, given budgetary constraints, priority will be given to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate: • a working relationship with UNHCR, current UNHCR funding, and/or a letter of support from UNHCR for the proposed activities and/or overall country program (this letter should highlight the gap in services the proposed program is designed to address); • a proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in the sector and specified location; • evidence of coordination with international organizations (IOs) and other NGOs working in the same area or sector as well as – where possible – local authorities; • a strong transition plan, where feasible, involving local capacity-building; • a budget that demonstrates co-funding by non-US government sources. Funding Limits: In FY 2013, project proposals must not be less than $100,000 and not more than $1,000,000 or they will be disqualified. As stated in PRM’s General NGO Guidelines, PRM looks favorably on cost-sharing efforts and seeks to support projects with a diverse donor base and/or resources from the submitting organization. Proposal Submission Requirements: Proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov. See “Applicant Resources” page on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements (http://www.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp). Please also note the following highlights: • Do not wait until the last minute to submit your application on Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the deadline as it can take up to two weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to get the required registration numbers). To register with Grants.gov, organizations must first receive a DUNS number and register with the System for Award Management (SAM) which can take weeks and sometimes months. We recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered. PRM partners must maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which they have an active federal award or an application under consideration by PRM or any federal agency. • Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems. • If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or by calling 1-800-518-4726. Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties and who have reported the problem to the Grants.gov help desk, received a case number, and had a service request opened to research the problem, should contact the relevant PRM Program Officer to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate. • International Organizations (IOs) should not submit proposals through Grants.gov in response to this Funding Opportunity Announcement. Rather IOs such as UN agencies and other Public International Organizations (PIOs) that are seeking funding for programs relevant to this announcement should contact the relevant PRM Program Officer (as stated below) on or before the closing date of the funding announcement. • Pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001, stated on OMB Standard Form 424 (SF-424), the Department of State is authorized to consolidate the certifications and assurances required by Federal law or regulations for its federal assistance programs. The list of certifications and assurances can be found at: http://fa.statebuy.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=161&menu_id=68 ) Proposal Content, Formatting and Template: This announcement is designed to accompany PRM’s General NGO Guidelines, which contain additional administrative information on proposal content and formatting, and explain in detail PRM’s NGO funding strategy and priorities. Please use both the General NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that your proposal submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements and that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities. Proposal submissions that do not meet all of the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered. PRM strongly recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available upon email request from PRM's NGO Coordinator. Please send an email, with the phrase “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line, to PRM's NGO Coordinator. Single-year proposals using PRM’s templates must be no more than 20 pages in length (Times New Roman 12 point font, one inch margins on all sides). If the applicant does not use PRM’s recommended templates, proposals must not exceed 15 pages in length. Organizations may choose to attach work plans, activity calendars, and/or logical frameworks as addendums/appendices to the proposal. These attachments do not count toward the page limit total. To be considered for PRM funding, organizations must submit a complete application package including: • Proposal reflecting objectives and indicators for each year of the program period. • Budget and budget narrative for each year of the program period. • Signed completed SF-424. In addition, proposal submissions to PRM should include the following information: • Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator. Wherever possible, baselines should be established before the start of the project. • To increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding, include specific information on locations of projects and beneficiaries (GPS coordinates if possible). • Proposals should outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding. If an organization believes that publicly acknowledging the receipt of USG funding for a particular PRM-funded project could potentially endanger the lives of the beneficiaries and/or the organization staff, invite suspicion about the organization's motives, or alienate the organization from the population it is trying to help, it must provide a brief explanation in its proposal as to why it should be exempted from this requirement. • The budget should include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization. PRM strongly encourages multilateral support for humanitarian programs. • Proposals and budgets should include details of any sub-agreements associated with the program. • Copy of the organization’s Code of Conduct (required before an award can be made). • Copy of the organization’s Security Plan (required before an award can be made). • Most recent Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), if applicable. • NGOs that have not received PRM funding since the U.S. Government fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 must be prepared to demonstrate that they meet the financial and accounting requirements of the U.S. Government by submitting copies of 1) the most recent external financial audit, 2) proof of non-profit tax status including under IRS 501 (c)(3), as applicable, 3) a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and 4) an Employer ID (EIN)/Federal Tax Identification number. • Organizations that received PRM funding in FY 2012 for activities that are being proposed for funding under this announcement must include the most recent quarterly progress report against indicators outlined in the cooperative agreement. If an organization’s last quarterly report was submitted more than six weeks prior to the submission of a proposal in response to this funding announcement, the organization must include, with its most recent quarterly report, updates that show any significant progress made on objectives since the last report. Multi-Year Funding: Applicants proposing multi-year programs should adhere to the following guidance: Applicants may submit proposals that include multi-year strategies presented in 12-month cycles for a period not to exceed 24 months from the proposed start date. Fully developed programs with detailed budgets, objectives and indicators are required for each year of activities. These can be updated yearly upon submission of continuation applications. Applicants should note that they may use PRM’s recommended multi-year proposal template for this application, which is different from the single year template. Multi-year funding applicants may also use PRM’s standard budget template and should submit a separate budget sheet for each project year. Multi-year proposals using PRM’s templates must be no more than 30 pages in length (Times New Roman 12 point font, one inch margins on all sides). If the applicant does not use PRM’s recommended templates, proposals must not exceed 25 pages in length. Organizations may choose to attach work plans, activity calendars, and/or logical frameworks as addendums/appendices to the proposal. These attachments do not count toward the page limit total. Multi-year applications selected for funding by PRM will be funded in 12- month increments based on the proposal submitted in the initial application as approved by PRM. Continued funding after the initial 12- month award requires the submission of a noncompeting continuation application and will be contingent upon available funding, strong performance, and continuing need. Continuation applications must be submitted by the organization no later than 90 days before the proposed start date of the new award (e.g., if the next project period is to begin on September 1, submit your application by June 1). Continuation applications are submitted in lieu of responding to PRM’s published call for proposals for those activities. Late continuation applications will jeopardize continued funding. Organizations can request multi-year funding and continuation application templates by emailing PRM's NGO Coordinator with the phrase “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line. Reports and Reporting Requirements: Program reporting: PRM requires quarterly and final program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. It is highly suggested that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended program report template. To request this template, send an email with the phrase “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line to PRM's NGO Coordinator. Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement; a final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within ninety (90) days after the expiration date of the agreement. For more details regarding PRM’s reporting requirements, please see General NGO Guidelines. Proposal Review Process: PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement. A review panel will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced proposal evaluation criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding. PRM may request revised proposals and/or budgets based on feedback from the panel. PRM will provide formal notifications to NGOs of final decisions taken by Bureau management. Branding and Marking Strategy: Unless exceptions have been approved by the designated bureau Authorizing Official as described in the proposal templates that are available upon email request from PRM's NGO Coordinator, at a minimum, the following provision will be included whenever assistance is awarded: As a condition of receipt of this assistance award, all materials produced pursuant to the award, including training materials, materials for recipients or materials to communicate or promote with foreign audiences a program, event, project, or some other activity under this agreement, including but not limited to invitations to events, press materials, event backdrops, podium signs, etc. must be marked appropriately with the standard U.S. flag in a size and prominence equal to (or greater than) any other logo or identity. Subrecipients and subsequent tier sub-award agreements are subject to the marking requirements and the recipient shall include a provision in the subrecipient agreement indicating that the standard, rectangular U.S. flag is a requirement. In the event the recipient does not comply with the marking requirements as established in the approved assistance agreement, the Grants Officer Representative and the Grants Officer must initiate corrective action. PRM Points of Contact: Should NGOs have technical questions related to this announcement, they should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to proposal submission. (Note: Responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.): For Thailand-Burma and Regional Proposals, Contact PRM Program Officer Hoa Tran, TranHT3@state.gov, 202-453-9289, Washington, D.C. For Malaysia Proposals, Contact PRM Program Officer Jennifer Handog, HandogJG@state.gov, 202-453-9286, Washington, DC. Regional Refugee Coordinator Andrea Doyle, DoyleAL@state.gov, U.S. Embassy Bangkok, Refugee and Migration Affairs, Bangkok, Thailand.

Skoll World Forum 2013: Where Have I Been the Last Decade?

 

Having spent the better part of last week in Oxford at the tenth running of the Skoll World Forum, my first thought was “Where have I been the last ten years – under a rock? It took me a decade to figure out that this is my tribe?”

A few quick reactions on the flight home:

Thinking: There is more genuine, on-the-fly thinking at this event than at any other I have attended recently, perhaps ever. I don’t often do well when there are over six people involved in a conversation. But even with over 900 attending the Forum, there was ample opportunity for quiet sidebar conversations, legitimate interactions with the panelists, time to then digest and respond, and a clear path to remain in contact online and off. It strikes me that Skoll is the one talkshop who takes seriously the perpetual recommendations about big conferences: more time for networking (there was plenty), thinking (nonstop), unscripted conversations (from well before the start to after the Forum ended), and opportunities for participants to get their messages heard (informal, delegate-led lunch sessions – well done, Anna Demant  - and topic-specific breakfast gatherings). One example I’d offer is The Evolving Role of Media in Social Progress, powerfully and unobtrusively chaired by Alberto Ibarguen of the Knight Foundation, who had his hands full with David Bornstein (Dowser Media), Peter Koechley (Upworthy), Pat Mitchell (Paley Center for Media) and Joaquin Alvarado (Center for Investigative Reporting). A close second was Not So Strange Bedfellows: Influencers and Enablers though I remain unconvinced of the forced dichotomy between the two.

Risk: Most folks out to save the world say they welcome heightened levels of risk, and my role has been at times to call their bluff. This is only my first year at Skoll, but I sense more real risk-taking on the part of the conference organizers, the delegates, and Skoll Foundation itself. It’s less about “OK to fail once, just don’t do it again,” and more akin to Thomas Edison’s “I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT make a light bulb.” Risk, failure, extreme openness – all are welcome at Skoll. I went to the Skoll World Forum looking for social innovations that will help minimize the risk that political leaders all over the world must take to prioritize what they already want to do (i.e. provide basic social goods like water and health to their people). In my work in strengthening political will for water and sanitation around the world, there are a lot more failures than successes, but the successes – when they happen – truly make a difference. Where politics meets global development challenges is a risky road even at Skoll, but I found the most receptive, interested, and helpful audience of any such convening.

Creativity: the secret to creativity is not necessarily to create anything new. Creativity may simply involve pushing and pulling together extant pieces of a puzzle in new configurations. To prepare for the Forum I read Raising the Hunley. The Hunley was the world’s first attack submarine, sunk off the coast of South Carolina in 1863. Although we don’t know yet exactly how the Hunley sunk, all the pieces of the puzzle are likely there. Nautical archaeologists need simply to put those pieces together in different, creative combinations to figure out the answer. Inspired by another Forum participant (thanks, Gannon of Tostan), I was struck by the parallels to the global safe drinking water and sanitation challenge. We do not for the most part need to invent anything new to accomplish 100% access to safe drinking water and sanitation for everyone on the planet. We have done it already in many parts of the world (so just try to tell me it’s not solvable). To get to the remaining 800m or so, we need to find new, creative ways to configure and amplify what we already have. I work at an advocacy organization because, to misquote Al Gore, "You can't just change lightbulbs. You have to change the laws." The real accelerators of longterm, systemic change are upstream. The design of the Skoll World Forum intrigued me well before I arrived, and the event indeed proved to be less about direct service provision (water, ARVs, schoolbooks, laptops), and more about creative ways to create the type of systemic, empowering change for which we all strive.

Disruption: On a related note, I’m not entirely convinced that “Disruption” is a suitable theme for the entire conference. One doesn’t need to throw everything out the window to be creative. A revolution is not necessarily required. The best thing to do may be the simplest: increase the RPM of the evolutionary process which will lead to success at scale in a compressed timeframe. In my work, creativity leads to more effective upstream activity at the political level; this leads to important, sustainable changes in service delivery, e.g. passing legislation in India to allow (or mandate!) rainwater harvesting in Indian cities to adapt to climate change and urbanization. At times this is highly disruptive but it does not have to be.

To be sure, the event did have its downs: A couple of the plenary speeches were subpar (do we actually need plenaries anymore?). One panel on foreign assistance – initially quite encouraging - deteriorated into a whining session about how wasteful (stronger words were used) all foreign assistance is, oblivious to the pointed questions of audience members looking for solutions (come on, guys - more light, less tunnel). An awardee or two caused a bit of cringing throughout the New Theatre on George Street (but one can never avoid that sort of thing, and it was actually pretty fun). And some of the sessions were a bit too techno-utopian for my taste. Technology is not always the answer, and social entrepreneurs will not succeed in the absence of a healthy enabling environment, the responsibility for which lies squarely in the hands of the elected leadership of any given country.

It’s really too early for suggestions for next year, but a couple:

• Skoll World Forum 2014: Inspired by Ken Brecher (I literally held my breath through his talk), next year’s theme could well be “Let’s Just See How Strong We Are.” Let’s make next year’s Skoll World Forum slightly less about tech- and entrepreneur-driven scalability and slightly more about scale. Ask me more about that.
• Get stronger with Cisco at continuing the conversations throughout the year. The value of these conversations can be amplified with a bit of support from Skoll throughout the calendar year.
• More Rwandan drummers, and invite me for 2014!