Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for International Development (DFID)
1. DFID staffing to cover the water sector
(including a breakdown of advisory capacity), and a history of
the numbers.
SUMMARY
— DFID employs fewer advisers focusing
on single sectors than it used to in recognition of the cross-cutting
nature of development—most of the challenges we face require
a multi-disciplinary approach.
— DFID retains a high level of capacity
to respond to water issues, especially through its use of infrastructure,
livelihoods and environment advisers employed both in country
offices and at HQ and staff seconded to strategic positions in
developing country governmental departments or international organisations.
— DFID has specific water expertise
in 10 countries in Africa and six countries in Asia. Centrally,
there are five professional advisers that focus on water in Policy
and Research Division, and a further two in Pan-Africa Strategy,
one in South Asia Division and two in Europe, Middle East, the
Americas and East Asia Division.
BACKGROUND
1. In almost all cases (with the exception
of the London-based policy team) where someone works mainly on
water they are an infrastructure adviser. There are currently
38 accredited infrastructure advisers with relevant water experience—of
these 10 have a formal qualification from the Chartered Institution
of Water and Environmental Management, and 22 have Institution
of Civil Engineering qualifications which can be equally relevant.
2. Non-infrastructure advisers (almost always
livelihoods or environment) also lead on water, although they
do so alongside other priorities.
3. The knowledge and experience of infrastructure
advisers in general is relevant to our work on water; this is
not just the domain of our specialists. The overall trend for
infrastructure advisers is:
Not all of these have relevant experience in
water (some are energy advisers or physical planners etc).
4. Focusing on head count is only a part
of the story. DFID capacity in water and sanitation is more about
prioritising the sector, establishing a lead presence where we
need to (including by making the most of relevant contributions
from other disciplines), and making more of donor-sector harmonisation.
5. Experience shows that there must be a
lead or champion at the country level, within DFID or the donor
community. Cross-cutting advisers (economics, governance, social
development) have an important contribution to make but it is
almost always sector specialists (infrastructure, environment
or livelihoods advisers) who end up taking forward initiatives.
Strengthening the capacity of these specialists with cross-cutting
skills is something we actively work on. We do this through the
annual Retreat, guidance documents, training briefs and by using
our Resource Centres. The Resource Centres also operate enquiry
services for individuals or organisations working in development.
6. DFID has been particularly successful
at placing advisers in important positions in partner-government
Ministries or international organisations, such as in Ethiopia
(Ministry of Water Resources). Previous placements include Nigeria
(UNICEF), the Government of Bangladesh to help address the arsenic
crisis, and the Ministry of Finance in Uganda to help develop
water sector investment plans and joint donor collaboration.
7. A more detailed breakdown of numbers
is given below.
WATER ADVISORY
CAPACITY IN
POLICY AND
RESEARCH DIVISION,
LONDON
|
| Name | Grade
| Position/Location |
|
| G Briffa | A1
| Team Leader |
| P Swann | A1
| Senior Water Adviser |
| A Macqueen | A2
| Water and Environment Adviser |
| B Parkes | A2
| Governance Adviser |
| M Patel | B1D
| Economist |
| A Robbins | A2
| Communications Specialist |
| C French | B1D
| Statistician (half time) |
|
INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORS
LEADING ON
WATER
Africa Division
From November 2006 infrastructure and associated advice will
be provided through eight posts within Africa Division and six
other posts in Africa (mixture of secondments and project related).
Infrastructure advisers in DFID posts providing inputs on water
|
| Name | Grade
| Position/Location |
|
| B Baxendale | A1
| Divisional Adviser—East Kilbride |
| I Curtis | A1
| Adviser—Africa Policy Department, London
|
| S Wijesekera | A2
| Adviser—Ghana |
| M Baird | A2
| Adviser—Sierra Leone |
| C Barrington | A2
| Adviser—Africa Equatorial Department, London
|
| S Kenny | A1
| Adviser—Ethiopia |
| A Duff | A2
| Adviser—Sudan |
| S McGeever | A2
| Adviser—Democratic Republic of Congo
|
|
Of the six infrastructure staff in seconded and project specific
posts, three provide inputs on water
|
| Name | Grade
| Position/Location |
|
| M Harvey | A2
| Seconded to Ministry—Ethiopia
|
| E Warambwa | A3
| Project Engineer—Swaziland
|
| A MacLean | A2
| Project Engineer—Malawi
|
|
In addition, three infrastructure advisers hold non-sector
posts providing limited inputs on water
|
| Name | Grade
| Position/Location |
|
| E Jones | A1
| Pro-Poor Growth Adviser—Mozambique
|
| R Dyer | A2
| Livelihoods Adviser—Rwanda
|
| K O'Toole | A2
| Food and security Adviser—Zambia
|
|
NB. The DFID secondee to UNICEF has now moved post and DFID
Nigeria is currently arranging for a half-time input from an external
consultant (who was a key member of the recent water and sanitation
review team) over the next six months to develop the way forward
in the sector.
Asia Division
Infrastructure advisers in DFID posts providing inputs on water
|
| Name | Grade
| Position/Location |
|
| Y Biot[27]
| A2 | Asia Division (London)
|
| S Young | A1
| India |
| J Crowder | A2
| Bangladesh |
| C Shrestha | SAIC
| Nepal |
| S Smets | A2
| China |
| A McCoubrey | A2
| Pakistan |
| S Lucas | A2
| Vietnam (seconded to World Bank)
|
|
EUROPE, MIDDLE
EAST AND
AMERICAS DIVISION
Infrastructure advisers in DFID posts providing inputs on water
|
| Name | Grade
| Position/Location |
|
| M Banasiak[28]
| A2 | Infrastructure and Environment Adviser
|
| P Fernandes-Cardy | A2
| Infrastructure Adviser |
|
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE
ADVISERS LEADING
ON WATER
In some cases non-infrastructure advisers lead the DFID contribution
to the water sector. Typically they allocate a small proportion
of their time—one day a week or less—to sector working.
Usually these are livelihoods advisers (South Africa, Zimbabwe,
India(4), Bangladesh(2), Indonesia, Cambodia, South East Asia
regional) or environment advisers (Kenya, China(2), Bangladesh).
|
| Advisory Group | Water related core competencies
|
|
Environment
(19 advisers) | — Environmental aspects of water resource management, land use and planning etc.
— Key environmental aspects related to service delivery of water supply and sanitation (networked and non-networked).
|
Livelihoods
(46 advisers) | — Integrated water resource management (especially small and large scale agriculture and industry).
— Water for household needs.
|
|
Tanzania provides a useful example of how work in the water
sector can be promoted by a non-infrastructure adviser. DFID supported
a sector review process and then used its influence as a major
budget support donor to scale up sector contributions by other
donors. The African Development Bank and the World Bank have now
provided major additional investment in the sector ($230 million
over five years), the key to which is government commitment and
a robust sector planning, financing and monitoring framework.
The social sector adviser in Tanzania commits about 30% of his
time to water and sanitation.
In other cases non-infrastructure advisers provide cross-cutting
advice related to their own core competencies, as below.
|
| Advisory Group | Water related core competencies
|
|
Economics
(120 advisers) | — Economics of the water sector. Including sustainable financing (operation and maintenance coverage, tariffs and subsidies), fiscal and sector reform and budgeting and exploring the comparative role of the private and public sector in pro-poor service delivery.
|
Governance
(125 advisers) | — To implement pro-poor policy and to raise, allocate and account for public resources accordingly. This helps in getting WSS into Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and public sector financial planning and implementation.
— To strengthen voice, demand and accountability and to guarantee the equitable and universal provision of effective basic services.
— To develop honest and accountable government that can combat corruption.
|
Social Development
(75 advisers) | — Social analysis to support the design and implementation of programmes—exclusion, access, gender, context, political economy etc.
|
Health
(59 advisers) | — The critical links between water, sanitation, hygiene and health.
|
Statistics
(21 advisers) | — Find new uses for and improve the quality of existing data, and maximise the statistical potential of new sources.
|
|
2. THE RIPPLE
PROGRAMME—ADDITIONAL
DETAILS
1. RiPPLE (Research-inspired Policy and Practice Learning
in Ethiopia and the Nile Region) is a £3.82 million five-year
research programme consortium aimed at advancing evidence-based
learning on water supply and sanitation. The consortium is led
by ODI with a consortium director based in Addis. WaterAid Ethiopia,
International Water Research Centre (IRC-Netherlands) and the
University of Addis Ababa are core consortium partners. The consortium
is supported by a broader network of partners including the Ethiopian
Ministry of Water Resources, International Water Management Institute
(IWMI) and Practical Action. The programme was launched in August
2006.
2. RiPPLE will analyse how to increase the flow and efficiency
of funds to the water sector, and how to ensure that strengthened
capacity in planning leads to more sustainable service delivery.
This, in turn, should support pro-poor growth and human security
outcomes. RiPPLE plans to work in six districts (woredas) in three
regions in Ethiopia (Oromiya, SNNPR and Beni-Shangul-Gumuz). The
main components of the research programme are:
— The establishment of "Learning and Practice
Alliances" (LPAs) in each of the districts and regions, and
one at national level.
— Six Longitudinal Action Research studies (LARs),
which will provide the thematic scope of RiPPLE—so far three
themes around finance flows, growth and participatory planning
have been selected.
— Six major case studies will be completed.
— Capacity building for LPA participants and others
on communication and media.
— In parallel, RiPPLE will build linkages to networks
and partnerships within other Nile region countries.
3. Central to the strategic aims of RiPPLE is a long-term
approach to training and capacity building. The programme will
reinforce the development of research capacity in Ethiopia and
the Nile region, and is committed to transferring programme leadership
to Ethiopian partners in the longer term. The LPAs will be important
in bringing together and supporting the needs of local researchers,
officials and practitioners, which includes identifying and addressing
data requirements. The programme will also develop a wide range
of training materials and tools, as well as supporting institutional
exchanges between partners. In addition, RiPPLE will sponsor 30
graduate students from the three regions to study for MAs at the
University of Addis Ababa, to help build a new generation of development
thinkers and practitioners working on water.
4. RiPPLE is one component of the new DFID Water Research
Programme, which is likely to amount to around £18 million
in total.
3. THE GLOBAL
WATER PARTNERSHIP
(INCLUDING DFID'S
FUTURE PLANS
FOR SUPPORT)
What is the Global Water Partnership (GWP)?
1. GWP is an international network of over 1,000 organisations
involved in water resources management. It promotes integrated
water resource management (IWRM)[29]
both through the creation of global, regional and national level
fora directed at facilitating change, and also through the creation,
accumulation and dissemination of the knowledge to support the
process of change. GWP was established by the World Bank, UNDP
and SIDA in 1996, with a mission "to support countries
in the sustainable management of their water resources".
2. GWP has a secretariat of around 20 in Stockholm which
supports the network and fosters synergies across GWP. A technical
committee of nine water experts act as a think tank for the network.
At a regional level, core funds support one or two paid staff
in each of 14 regions, who manage the activities of regional and
country "water partnerships". A small amount of funding
for these activities comes through the region from the core funds,
while the remainder is raised locally. Partners also provide significant
time on a voluntary basis.
3. Following an external evaluation of GWP by the principle
donors, completed in March 2003, a new Strategy and Work Programme
was developed for the five-year period 2004-08. The Strategy moved
GWP towards increased focus on the application of IWRM principles
in the regions and countries.
DFID support to GWP
4. DFID has supported GWP since its outset in 1996. We
currently provide core funding of around £1.8 million per
year in support of GWP's 2004-08 Strategy and Work Programme.
The DFID Water Action Plan (January 2004) confirmed DFID's continuing
support for GWP to improve coordination of international action
on water management. DFID is the largest core donor to GWP, with
Swedish and Dutch Development Agencies (SIDA and DGIS respectively)
as the other main donors also providing significant core funds.
The core funding (around US$10 million per year in total) leverages
around US$6.5 million per year of specific programme support to
national governments for IWRM planning as called for by the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002. This includes
large EC and Canadian funded programmes in West and East Africa.
Funds raised regionally under the GWP umbrella vary, but amounted
to around US$2 million in 2006 (excluding in-kind contributions).
5. At the international level, our contribution to GWP
is currently our main expenditure, specifically on policy and
advocacy around water resources management. We influence strategic
direction through membership of the Steering Committee (which
acts as the GWP Board of Directors) and the Finance Partners Group
(donors). We have also supported China and Southern Africa Regional
Water Partnerships directly in the past.
GWP achievements to date
6. GWP is the only entity solely focussed on sustainable
water resources management and development. It is also the only
entity structured as a partnership that provides a neutral platform
to bring together people from water use sectors (agriculture,
domestic, industry, health, environment etc) and different interest
groups, both profit and non-profit. GWP has helped to shift thinking
within the water sector towards the non-technical aspects of water
management, in particular the political, governance and institutional
aspects that were previously neglected. GWP also provides the
opportunity for bilateral donors and the international financial
institutions to coordinate and harmonise concepts and policies
related to water resources management.
7. Most of GWP's impacts take the form of influencing
decision-makers, building local capacity and skills, developing
and sharing knowledge, and improving institutional frameworks
and legislation for better water resources management. This makes
direct attribution of outcomes to GWP difficult; however there
are many clear examples of GWP influence at all levels. These
include: the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) target
reflecting consensus around the importance of integrating water
considerations into overall national development processes; China
Water law based on IWRM and water allocation reform; Association
of South East Asian Nations working group on water resources;
support to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS);
Ouagadougou Declaration for shared river basins in 12 West African
countries made effective. GWP continues to work on ways to monitor
and capture impacts more effectively.
8. A formal in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness
of the GWP was carried out by the bilateral donors in June 2003.
It concluded: "In just six years GWP, as a donor-instigated
initiative, has set up a global network that has already made
an effective and significant contribution to the global recognition
of integrated water resources management. GWP has influenced policy
and brought about change in legislation in the governance and
management of water." The report emphasised that, "GWP
had achieved this in a cost effective way with very limited resources
and represented very good value delivered for the investment made."
9. In 2003-04, the OED (Operations Evaluation Department)
of the World Bank prepared an evaluation report of the World Bank's
global programmes "Addressing the Challenges of Globalization".
GWP was one of 26 case studies. The report provided much positive
feedback, including the statement: "The GWP network is effectively
developed and managed." Some criticism of GWP has arisen
from the misinterpretation of reflections made in the OED report
that in fact referred to the Bank's oversight and management of
its own global programmes, and the need for the Bank to provide
additional financing to make programmes such as GWP more effective.
GWP could, however, be criticised for its relatively narrow focus
on IWRM plans and a previous weakness in capturing outcomes, although
this has been at least in part at the behest of the donors and
reflects the original context in which GWP was launched.
DFID's "game plan" for GWP
10. In the short term, DFID intends to continue funding
GWP, recognising its key role in taking forward commitments made
by the international community on water resource management planning.
We envisage slightly reducing our contribution, since current
levels reflect an increase for activities arising from Commission
on Sustainable Development 12 and 13 which focused on water and
tracking of the WSSD target on IWRM for 2005. A reduction to previous
levels will bring DFID's contribution more in line with levels
of funding for GWP from other donors.
11. GWP has recently initiated a strategic planning process
to develop a clear future direction and vision for the network.
In parallel with this, DFID and other donors are commissioning
a new independent evaluation which will look at GWP governance,
activities and impacts, as well as the comparative advantage that
GWP has in the context of what others are doing. Our future approach
will be determined to a large extent by the findings from this,
and we are working with GWP in their own strategic planning processes.
12. Without pre-empting these processes, we want to see
GWP moving forward from what has become a somewhat academic debate
around IWRM principles and leading an increased focus on using
what has been learnt to help address the broader development issues
that are underpinned by a requirement for fair and sustainable
water management. This is likely to require the continued decentralisation
and strengthening of GWP capacity at the regional and country
level. Regional capacity building will also need to be combined
with better alignment of the technical outputs of Technical Group
and GWP headquarters with regional demand. We believe that the
added value of GWP continues to be as a facilitator of high-level
multi-stakeholder dialogue rather than as an implementer, but
the network will need to continue to work to ensure the best balance
is maintained.
January 2007
27
Livelihoods cadre. Back
28
Environment cadre. Back
29
IWRM means promoting the coordinated development of water, land
and related resources in order to maximise resultant economic
and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising
the sustainability of vital ecosystems. Back
| 
