Memorandum submitted by Dr Rob Hope, Oxford
University
INTRODUCTION
The UK Department for International Development
has adopted the Millennium Development Goals as part of its underlying
mission to reduce global poverty. Inadequate access to a sufficient
quantity of drinking water and sanitation is a common manifestation
of poverty. However, providing more and/or better water quality
is unlikely to reduce poverty in its widest sense. What should
concern the International Development Committee is whether DFID
is effectively responding to the priorities of poor people and
if DFID can ensure sustainable delivery of improved water and
sanitation access services over time.
THREE QUESTIONS
TO PONDER
1. Is a lack of improved water access and
sanitation a cause or a symptom of poverty?
2. Do the poor want limited development
funds allocated to improved water and sanitation, and if so, where
is the evidence?
3. Will the international community maintain
water and sanitation systems that they build in perpetuity?
DISCUSSION
The relationship between water and poverty is
complex. The assumption that improving water and sanitation will
reduce poverty is problematic for a number of reasons. First,
arguing that every human should have access to such basic needs
(rights-based approach) is different from stating that more water
will reduce poverty.[190]
There is a body of evidence that questions this relationship (eg
Allan, 2004 and 2003) though such voices are generally muted by
an instinctive and understandable moral response of the public
and a wary scientific community that may be penalised for coming
up with unpalatable facts. Second, there is more convincing evidence
that economic growth that produces jobs, raise taxes, improves
esteem and many other multiplier effects is the key to poverty
reduction and, thus, sustainable water and sanitation supply.
However, there are many constraints to achieving economic growth,
some, in part, due to countries like France, India and USA being
unable to effectively address trade and fiscal distortions, particularly
in agriculture. This narrows the range of "politically-acceptable"
development interventions.
Water has long been a popular development intervention
as it is politically popular locally ("wins votes"),
has minimal demand on available water resources ("doesn't
hurt") and donors are ready to fund such investments ("cash
available"). However, given past failures at such initiatives
in Africa (Thompson et al, 2001; White et al, 1972)
and emerging evidence that even South Africa is struggling to
maintain its water services (Hope, 2004; Wellman, 1999), care
must be taken in understanding the likely impacts and longer term
implications of the allocation of scarce development funds against
alternative approaches. Many people in developing countries obviously
want and need more water but water service implementation should
be measured by operational sustainability in the long term not
counting taps in the short term.[191]
Generally, water service policy identifies a certain quantity
demand (say, 50 litres per person per day) within a prescribed
distance of the home (say, 200 metres) of an acceptable quality
standard and level of reliability. However, there are few studies
that have explored these "standards" in terms of the
priority of poor people (Hope, 2006). This raises concern that
well-meaning interventions may actually not be what poor people
want, though poverty still might be reduced if the voices of people
counting taps are only heard. Without clearer evidence that the
MDGs meaningfully respond to the priority needs of poor people
there is a danger that more time and money will be lost as the
key drivers of poverty are not meaningfully tackled condemning
another generation to a life of under-achievement, want and hunger.
Getting development right is no by no means simple but, without
evidence to inform defensible policy decisions, chances of success
seem slim.
References
Allan, J A (2003) IWRM: A new sanctioned discourse?
SOAS/KCL Water Issues Group, Occasional Paper No 50, London.
Allan, J A (2004) Viewpoints: The Water Debate.
BBC news online. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3752590.stm
Hope, R A (2004) Water policy and poverty reduction
in a semi-arid catchment. PhD thesis, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
UK.
Hope, RA (2006) Evaluating water policy against
the priorities of the rural poor. World Development 34 (1): 167-179.
Thompson, J, Porras, I T, Tumwine, J K, Mujwahuzi,
M R, Katui-Katua, M, Johnstone, N and Wood, L (2001). Drawers
of Water II: Domestic Water Use in East Africa. International
Institute for Environment and Development. IIED, London.
Wellman, P (1999) Sustainability of South Africa's
"water miracle" questioned. The Water Page, available
at: http://www.africanwater.org/SAWSProblems.html
White, G F, Bradley, D F and White, A U (1972)
Drawers of Water: Domestic Water Use in East Africa. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
October 2006
190 I will focus on water as that is my knowledge
area. Back
191
An alternative measure might be fall in mortality/morbidity
that can be linked to improved water provision, preferably matched
against a non-treatment population. Evaluation methods do exist
to objectively measure impacts of interventions if (a) an impact
indicator is identified, (b) the evaluation process is an early
part of the intervention, (c) a treatment group can be compared
with a control group, and (d) capacity exists for data collection,
management and analysis. Counting taps is not an acceptable measure
of social impacts. Back
|
