Memorandum submitted by James Dent[163]
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
DFID CONSULTATION PAPER
These comments relate primarily to the section
on "Water Resource Management". They are the author's
view, and not necessarily those of any organisation with which
I was engaged at the time. They are made from experience on numerous
projects over the last 30 years, in a number of countries in South
and South-east Asia, South Pacific and Africa.
1. Observation Networks
These are fundamental to water resources and
water management, and are set up to provide information on rainfall,
water level and river discharge, groundwater and weather/climate,
ie all aspects of the hydrological cycle. The status and capacity
of networks in most developing countries are very poor, and this
decline has been progressive in the post-colonial era. DFID has
failed to appreciate the importance of this problem and hence
address it in effective ways since the abandonment of "hard"
technical assistance (TA) projects.
The sections following are all in some ways
linked to the need for hydrological and meteorological (Hydromet)
observations.
2. Opportunities for New Technology
Many national Hydromet networks in developing
countries are based on manual rather than electronic instruments
and methods. Much of the manual equipment is now obsolete, so
spares and replacements are difficult to obtain. Most instruments
used in developed countries and therefore available through international
suppliers, eg raingauges, water level recorders, use digital and
electronic technology. Although these reduce the dependence on
visits by observers, they are by no means fully automatic and
require consistently good levels of maintenance, which in turn
require some higher levels of appreciation by operating staff.
Being electronic based, the equipment requires
high reliability of power supplies, and though batteries and solar/wind
power are appropriate options, these in turn require service.
Both the equipment items and support entail greater capital cost
than their manual predecessors. DFID needs to appreciate the cost
of these items, as well as their usefulness: with greater investment
it becomes imperative to back this with appropriate allowance
for continued maintenance and support, and this is discussed below
under "Sustainability".
3. Modelling
Sophisticated computer models are an integral
part of modern hydrology and water resources management. However,
these are not black boxes and require care in setting up, calibration,
maintenance and upgrading. Too often models and software systems,
eg for data processing and management, are handed over through
donors to recipients with no arrangement for support. Apart from
the problems mentioned above, operation of models requires facilities
for reliable computer operations. This must range from basics,
such as power supplies to the availability of back-up services,
software and hardware maintenance, etc. Although a given in-country
situation may have improved greatly in recent years with the rapid
expansion of IT, this capacity has not always been achieved by
government sectors because of persistent under-funding.
The lack of proper data and the ability of local
operators to update and recalibrate models used in hydrology,
combined with the more physical problems lead to a situation where
these facilities quickly become redundant. The introduction of
models often mean that manual processes and skills are abandoned,
so the end situation is worse than before "modernisation"
had taken place.
Even in the UK within a national organisation
like the Environment Agency, there are problems with updating
and recalibration of models. Without updating, models simply become
a "snapshot" of a situation, and their usefulness is
thus severely constrained. Updating requires the import of new
data, recalibration, and in some cases re-configuration of the
programme. This requires contributions from observations, skilled
modellers and interpretation. These are skills that can only be
developed by extended experience.
4. Institutional Support
In recent years this has also been referred
to as "Institutional Strengthening". The concept is
somewhat nebulous, and although deriving from a sound idea that
a properly managed organisation is the basis of a successful operation,
the exercise is all too often theoretical. Management is not solely
dependent on the paper qualification of the individuals involved,
but the experience, facilities and capacities they have at their
disposal. In practical terms, the strength of an institution depends
on the attractiveness of a public service posting. With private
sector work in many developing countries offering graduates and
professionals well-remunerated employment, the former attraction
of sinecures, pension and subsidised housing are no longer appealing.
All too often government posts are poorly paid and attract low
quality staff at the general level, where the only attraction
is to have access to procurement. It has been my personal experience
that science-based and technical posts are least attractive because
staff are not in a position to benefit from deals with contractors.
The situation outlined above is also unattractive
from the point of view of motivation. If a Hydrometric unit is
well financed and supported, and has an active work programme,
then staff become enthusiastic and feel that they are realising
potential. This however requires long-term support, rather than
is too often the case where institutional strengthening consists
of short-term specialist inputs at the higher managerial-organisational
level, rather than the practical. The latter can offer the "doers"
with motivation, in that they are absorbing practical, up-to-date
skills. This then gives the managers and senior administrators
the practical basis and material on which the institution can
be developed. Institutional support cannot be effective without
the means to provide sustainability, which is discussed in the
following section.
5. Sustainability
This requires investment in staff, facilities
(buildings, vehicles, equipment) and financial support. Too often
this is lacking from the home government, and has been lacking
since the demise of broad-based Technical Assistance projects.
Even so, Technical Assistance projects often failed to realise
potential through lack of sustainability, both from in-country
support and support provided after the main project had been completed.
I have worked on projects where funds had to be found in order
to pay local staff salary and allowances for fieldwork, as well
as providing fuel for vehicles, although these items were expected
to be provided as the recipient's local contribution to the project.
The lack of sustainability after project completion
is one of the most depressing aspects of many aid funded projects
with which I have had experience. Not only are external support
funds no longer available, but the home government funding dwindles
through economic stagnation. An example from personal experience:
In the 1980s, Papua New Guinea had a thriving
and developing hydrological service in the support of new water
resources and environmental legislation and awareness. Contract
expatriate staff trained local officers, many being sent abroad
for professional and technical training. Government and international
funds provided field and other technical equipment and there was
funding for mobility, which in the difficult terrain often meant
using light aircraft and helicopter. By the mid 1990s there were
insufficient funds even to purchase fuel for vehicles, staff numbers
had dwindled, no further training was available, and high quality
monitoring and data processing facilities were not replaced, unmaintained,
and hence useless. All this against a back-drop of growing environmental
concern over ecologically sensitive mineral extraction, illegal
logging and climate change.
It would appear to me that behind water resource
management there has to be:
— functional organisational.
The minimum standard of these to provide a viable
service should be relatively easy to define. Where these fall
short of acceptable standards, support is needed. It may well
be that provision of support in part may offset the need for reactive
intervention after critical situations or disasters have taken
place. The presence of an effective water management service would
also help the recovery actions, by providing a framework for interventions,
and for lessons and capabilities to be learned and retained, rather
than just providing short-term relief.
6. Post-project Evaluation
In my experience, this has been almost entirely
lacking. Thus there are limited means of reviewing project performance
and "lessons learned". Project reviews are carried out
by funding and implementing agencies during and at the close of
projects. This may allow some immediate actions to take place,
but there needs to be a means of referencing project performance
reports, both by implementing agencies and consultants well after
the end of a project. This might prevent "re-inventing the
wheel" when preparing or implementing a project after many
years have elapsed.
7. In-country Awareness of Aid Opportunities
Government agencies, eg a meteorological service
or water agency, often seem poorly equipped to take advantage
of aid funding. This may in part be due to the layers of bureaucracy
and process applied by the supporting agencies (multi-lateral
or bi-lateral) which potential recipients may find daunting. There
are also difficulties within government services where a strong
hierarchical structure exists and the decisions needed or approaches
to be made are difficult to sanction. For instance, the Voluntary
Contributions Programme (VCP) carried out by the Met Office requires
that an application is made by the in-country service, but frequently
the potential recipient cannot put together a cogent project formulation
or budget request.
Additionally, potential recipients seem unaware
of the changing programme focus of donor and implementing agencies.
This may not be the case say between DFID and higher level government
policy makers and administrators, but information often does not
reach line departments. Thus an irrigation development or flood
protection project may appear to a line agency as a viable candidate
for support, but this may no longer be considered as relevant
to the DFID in-country programme.
October 2006
163 Independent Consultant, Hydrology and Meteorology. Back
| 
