Appendix: Government response
DFID welcomes the International Development Committee's
important report on sanitation and water. We agree with the majority
of the recommendations. The report's focus on sanitation—one
of the most off-track MDGs—is particularly timely given
the big push we are preparing to make during 2008, the International
Year of Sanitation. We also welcome a greater emphasis on the
management of water resources—an issue which will become
even more challenging because of population growth, urbanisation
and climate change. We will continue to do more in both of these
areas.
We are pleased that the report recognises the leading
role DFID has played internationally on water, especially through
the 'five ones' in the Call for Global Action (one report and
one high-level meeting internationally, and, in countries, one
national plan; one coordinating group and one lead UN body).
We agree that more does need to be done on sanitation,
not just by DFID but by the whole international community, developing
country governments, civil society and the private sector. However,
the Committee could have given greater recognition to the leading
role DFID has already played on sanitation, both advocating internationally
and through some excellent country programmes, such as in India
and Bangladesh. These are already reaching tens of millions of
people. We have committed to spending half of our direct aid on
essential services, including sanitation, and to doubling our
support for sanitation and water in Africa to £95 million
per year by 2007/08 and to more than doubling it again to £200
million by 2010/11.
We would also have welcomed more emphasis on the
importance of working through others—particularly the multilaterals.
In this response we highlight our extensive work with the World
Bank and the European Union. The headcount restrictions noted
by the Committee make our efforts to work more efficiently all
the more important.
Our policy update on sanitation and water is due
by the end of 2007. This will build on many of the Committee's
recommendations. We will set up a multidisciplinary Sanitation
Working Group in DFID to take forward the policy recommendations
on sanitation. The group's tasks will include setting out how
DFID will increase the profile of sanitation at international,
regional and national levels during 2008 in order to make progress.
[Paragraph 19] The links between sanitation
and other social sectors, particularly water, health and education,
are self-evident. We commend a multi-disciplinary approach to
the sanitation sector.
[Paragraph 146] For DFID's multi-disciplinary
approach to work effectively, closer links will need to be built
between DFID advisers working on water and those working on health.
We recommend that water and sanitation be mainstreamed across
DFID's new health strategy to be published later in 2007, underpinned
by explicit strategies to promote co-working between advisers
working on water and advisers working on health.
[Paragraph 154] DFID's multi-disciplinary approach
should ensure that water, sanitation, gender and education issues
are mainstreamed across DFID's forthcoming health strategy.
We agree. A multi-disciplinary approach to
sanitation is vital: efforts need to be made in sectors such as
health and education to achieve the MDG target. DFID already fosters
close links between advisers working on water and other issues.
We have multi-disciplinary teams working on policy formulation,
and developing programmes with partner countries. Water and governance
advisers are currently working together to improve understanding
of governance issues in the sector. As set out in DFID's memorandum
to the Committee, some of DFID's largest and most successful water
and sanitation programmes have focused foremost on sanitation
and hygiene behaviour change.
DFID's multi-disciplinary working group on sanitation
will examine how DFID can work more effectively towards sanitation
goals through our health and education programmes.
DFID's new health strategy, published on June 5 2007,
explicitly recognises the links between health, water and sanitation.
It commits us to ensuring that investments in other sectors, including
water and sanitation, lead to maximum health gains. It also recognises
the importance of working with health ministries to address sanitation.
[Paragraph 20] DFID needs to be proactive in tackling
the stigma around sanitation and should draw on lessons from the
successes in tackling the stigma around HIV and AIDS.
We agree. DFID has invested considerable effort in
raising awareness of HIV and AIDS and tackling the stigma attached
to it. We agree that important lessons could be drawn from this
work to break the silence around sanitation and initiate hygiene
behaviour change. However, whilst there are similarities between
the issues, there are also important differences. For example,
AIDS is often associated with already stigmatised populations,
such as sex workers, who experience multi-layered stigma which
requires work to address different issues at the same time. Therefore
approaches may not be fully transferable. We will establish what
lessons are transferable through the sanitation policy update.
[Paragraph 22] We recommend that DFID make its
sanitation investments more transparent by disaggregating funding
given to the sanitation and water sectors, and by encouraging
the multilateral institutions to which it contributes funds to
do the same.
We will explore the usefulness of disaggregating
funding to sanitation and water, as well as the feasibility of
doing so, as part of our general update in 2008/09. Most projects
and programmes combine sanitation with water, education and health
and exploit the synergies to be gained from this approach. It
is therefore difficult in many programmes to differentiate sanitation
investments from other interventions. We would also need to consider
the extra reporting burden this would impose on our partner governments.
[Paragraph 23] A multi-disciplinary approach to
sanitation and water will only work if the two sectors are given
equal attention. Sanitation is currently neglected within DFID.
The complex distinctive challenges inherent in reaching the sanitation
Millennium Development Goal target require proactive measures
on DFID's behalf to raise the profile of sanitation within its
work on sanitation and water, including the creation of a separate
sanitation strategy.
We agree that sanitation has been given insufficient
attention by donors and developing country governments as a whole,
but we do not agree that DFID neglects sanitation. DFID played
a leading role in the development of the MDG target on sanitation
in 2002 and has been a key supporter of the Water Supply and Sanitation
Collaborative Council, the main international advocate for sanitation.
DFID has also actively supported and promoted pioneering work
on Community-Led Total Sanitation. DFID will continue to work
with development partners to increase profile and coverage, especially
during 2008—The International Year of Sanitation. DFID's
forthcoming policy update will place particular emphasis on sanitation
and what should be done differently to increase the effectiveness
of work in this field. We recognise that a global doubling in
effort is required to reach the MDG target. The sanitation working
group will ensure that important policy recommendations are taken
forward.
[Paragraph 29] DFID's support for research into
the replicability of the Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)
scheme is important and should continue along with support to
other promising approaches such as social marketing. The widespread
success of CLTS in Bangladesh and emerging lessons from uptake
elsewhere suggest that there are huge potential gains from the
scheme.
[Paragraph 30] The growing uptake of the Community-Led
Total Sanitation scheme and social marketing approaches will require
DFID staff working on sanitation to be adequately trained in the
techniques needed for these approaches, so that they can advise
governments and other development partners on how to design and
invest in such programmes.
We agree. An increasing number of DFID staff do have
knowledge and experience of Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS).
At least three advisers in DFID have worked on the WaterAid programme
in Bangladesh, totalling five person years of expertise in this
field. DFID also recognises social marketing as an essential tool
for generating demand for sanitation. We will ensure that sanitation
marketing is included as a component of sanitation programmes
wherever appropriate, and will hold a session on CLTS as part
of this year's infrastructure advisers retreat.
[Paragraphs 36-37] Different skill sets are required
for the sanitation and water sectors: the former requires people-based
skills and health and social development expertise, as opposed
to the more technical solutions needed for water supply. We welcome
DFID's decision to carry out a review of its sanitation policy.
Under the review, we recommend that DFID reconfigure its sanitation
expertise. Sanitation must become an integral part of health advisers'—and,
where possible, social development advisers'—work within
country programmes. Within DFID's Policy and Research Division,
the Water, Sanitation, Energy & Transport Team should contain
health and social development advisory capacity.
We agree that sanitation and water must be tackled
in different ways, and will assess our capacity in the policy
update. However, DFID water advisers, and other staff, already
have many of the skills needed for sanitation and have used them
effectively in the water sector for some time. Their expertise
has delivered successful sanitation projects in the education
sector in Malawi, and programmes in Bangladesh and India. For
example, in Bangladesh DFID is supporting a £36 million Sanitation,
Hygiene Education and Water Supply Programme, implemented by the
Government of Bangladesh and UNICEF. This has a particular focus
in improving hygiene practices in water scarce areas. The programme
has delivered improved sanitation to 7 million people in its first
five year phase and will improve sanitation to a further 30 million
and 7,500 schools in the second five year phase. Moreover, sanitation,
particularly for the urban poor, can still present significant
technical problems. Simple on-site solutions may not be appropriate
in dense urban areas or where ground conditions do not make latrines
appropriate. Without proper attention to disposal of waste products
there is a risk of polluting water sources and of outbreaks of
disease.
We are strengthening the links between water and
health advisers both in the UK and in overseas offices. The joint
water, sanitation and health programme being developed in Sierra
Leone is an excellent example of this, as has been the joint working
on our sanitation policy.
[Paragraph 41] Sanitation provision in slums is
constrained by institutional fragmentation, insecure land tenure
and residents' lack of political influence. We recommend that
DFID revisit its prioritisation of rural over urban support as
the global urbanisation process continues. The Department needs
to work with governments to raise the issue higher up the political
agenda, seek solutions to provision in informal settlements that
are appropriate to and designed in consultation with local communities
and create an institutional home and effective co-ordinating mechanisms
for urban sanitation provision.
We agree that given the pace of urbanisation, climate
change and population growth, urban service delivery is a growing
challenge for governments. This challenge is directly linked
to poverty reduction as the poorest usually live in the most vulnerable
parts of informal settlements. However given that 2 billion out
of the 2.6 billion people lacking adequate sanitation live in
rural areas, DFID has focussed on bringing access to these people,
to try and meet the MDG target by 2015.
DFID will work through multilateral and bilateral
channels to support governments to respond to the urban challenge.
37% of DFID's water and sanitation spend in 2005-06 was through
multilateral organisations including the World Bank, the Asian
Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development. These have strong urban expertise and allocate considerable
funding to urban issues. Through organisations such as the multi-donor
Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP) we are already paying increasing
attention to service delivery in informal settlements. For example,
through the Domestic Private Sector Participation Initiative (DPSPI)
DFID is supporting 23 projects in 15 countries to enable the domestic
private sector to deliver affordable and sustainable services
to the poor, such as introducing innovative management models
through partnerships between utilities and informal/small providers
in Kenya and Tanzania. Bilaterally, DFID has significant activity
with large urban services programmes in India and Sierra Leone.
[Paragraph 44] We recommend that DFID support
the wide promotion of lesson-learning about successful low-cost
urban sanitation schemes such as the Orangi Project in Pakistan.
We agree that lesson learning about successful low-cost
urban sanitation is important. We have done this in the past (e.g.
through the WELL factsheet on urban sanitation) and will continue
to do this through our new Environment and Water Resource Centre.
The Orangi Pilot Project (OPP) in Karachi, Pakistan has long been
recognised as an example of how communities can take action to
alleviate their sanitation problems. Indeed, it was used as a
case study in DFID's Water Target Strategy Paper of 2001.
However replicating the
OPP model has not proved easy. The
OPP model depends on strong independent community efforts with
limited engagement from government. This approach does not tap
into the resources that governments can, and should, make available
to enable programmes to deliver at scale. For long term sustainable
results governments need to work with communities, as in the case
of the Faisalbad Area Upgrading Project (FAUP) which DFID has
supported. The FAUP helps communities to build their own social
and physical infrastructure while maintaining links to government
and receiving government funding for service provision along with
their own contributions.
[Paragraph 45] Sanitation needs international
champions to reverse decades of neglect—and, with some reprioritisation
and staff reconfiguration, DFID could and should be one of these
champions. We recommend that DFID act now to push sanitation far
higher up the global political agenda. If progress towards the
sanitation Millennium Development Goal target is not rapidly stepped
up, the attainment of all the other MDGs will be compromised.
We agree that sanitation needs international champions.
DFID has already played a major role in advocating sanitation
and will continue to do so.
DFID's call for global action on water and sanitation
calls for one high level annual meeting and one annual report.
In 2008, the International Year of Sanitation, the annual report
will prioritise sanitation which will be the focus of the first
annual meeting. This will push sanitation up the global political
agenda and help accelerate international action. DFID's policy
paper on sanitation will set out further ways to increase the
focus within the international community and developing countries.
We will set up a sanitation working group to take forward the
recommendations from the IDC and the sanitation policy paper.
[Paragraph 51] DFID deserves credit for the leadership
it has demonstrated through its proposed Global Action Plan for
water and sanitation. We were pleased to hear that some progress
has been made on securing international agreement to the Plan.
We exhort DFID to continue with urgency its high-level engagement
on the Plan to ensure that the five objectives are agreed and
launched by the end of 2007, to ensure sufficient progress is
made towards meeting the MDG targets by 2015.
We welcome this recognition. Real progress was made
towards reforming the way the sector is organised internationally
at a World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings Side Event. This progress
was in line with the Secretary of State's `five ones' in the call
for global action. This is a priority for DFID and we will continue
our high-level engagement.
The Secretary of State and officials are working
with those countries and agencies that attended the Spring Meetings
to emphasise the role of each party in taking forward the call
for global action. This will continue with the same level of urgency
as before. DFID officials are working with UN-Water and others
to take forward the one annual meeting and one annual report for
2008. The next significant milestone will be Stockholm Water Week
in August 2007, at which the outline and sample sections for the
2008 annual report will be presented and the best opportunity
for the first annual meeting in 2008 will be identified.
[Paragraph 52] Whilst pursuing global progress
on the effectiveness of financing for sanitation and water, DFID
must at the same time ensure that its own house is in order when
it comes to providing long-term, predictable and co-ordinated
financing to the sectors. Predictability of financing is particularly
important for the water sector, where a reliable source of funds
is needed to build and maintain infrastructure.
[Paragraph 56] Where decisions to withdraw planned
aid are made, DFID needs to ensure it is accountable to poor people
by being fully transparent about decisions and
by publicly announcing to parliamentarians and civil society the
reasons for changes in policy and the planned remedial course
of action. We recommend that DFID ensure that its aid to sanitation
and water is predictable. Any rapid scaling-back of aid should
be a last resort, but where it is unavoidable—for example
following political events that are beyond its control—DFID
should publicly communicate changes to its policies to civil society
and parliamentarians to ensure proper accountability. We reiterate
the recommendation we made in our report on DFID's Departmental
Report 2006 that DFID should examine the long-term viability of
Poverty Reduction Budget Support before it is introduced and put
contingency plans in place prior to PRBS being withdrawn.
We agree. DFID has in place mechanisms to ensure
transparency and predictability of aid allocation. We are continuing
to improve this. DFID does not impose policy conditions through
its aid. All aid agreements with partner governments are made
in writing and their details are published on our external website.
To ensure the predictability of our bilateral aid,
we aim to disburse Poverty Reduction Budget Support to partner
countries within the first 6 months of their fiscal year. Payments
to non-governmental partners are made as scheduled, subject to
satisfactory progress. We use 3-year rolling programmes of financial
support, and have signed 10-year development partnership arrangements
with 5 countries, with a further 6 due to be signed in 2007/08.
A significant amount of DFID support is delivered
through the multilateral system and this is due to expand. DFID
is encouraging the World Bank and regional development banks to
improve the predictability and transparency of their instruments.
[Paragraph 60] For budget support to work effectively
as an aid mechanism for the sanitation and water sectors, DFID
needs to assist the 'voice' of the sectors by helping to strengthen
the 'institutional homes' for sanitation and water and support
the building of capacity at local government level. This is especially
true for countries with decentralised government where spending
decisions are made by regional and local officials. We recommend
that DFID support a complementary strategy to strengthen the role
of parliamentarians and civil society in scrutinising budgets
and policies and articulating demand for sanitation and water
services effectively.
We agree that, in many countries, more needs to be
done to ensure that the importance given to sanitation and water
services by poor people is prioritised in government budgets,
policies and practice. DFID is putting the spotlight on this at
the international level through our call for global action, and
nationally through initiatives such as the EU Water Initiative
country dialogues, as well as through our core work on good governance.
For states to work effectively for poor people, good
governance needs to extend to local government. DFID is providing
significant support for local government capacity-building through
multilateral programmes such as the World Bank's $2 billion community-driven
development approach. Our bilateral efforts include the Protection
of Basic Services programme in Ethiopia. A recent review showed
that government spending on basic services has grown substantially,
service provision has increased and information about budgets
is being made publicly available.
[Paragraph 63] The UK's recognition of the human
right to water is a positive first step. However, DFID should
encourage developing countries to go beyond recognition to quantify
and legislate for the right to water. Only then can citizens hold
their providers accountable for their entitlement to water. This
should include a complementary strategy of increasing demand for
water services by helping to raise public knowledge of existing
entitlements, as well as of gaps in legislation and policies.
We are committed to supporting partner countries
to ensure that people enjoy their human right to water. How we
do this will depend on the country context. Where appropriate,
we will work with partner governments to define people's right
to water, support efforts to increase people's knowledge of their
entitlements, promote greater accountability in water services
and strengthen the mechanisms by which people can claim their
right to water.
[Paragraph 71] DFID needs to engage with other
donors to ensure that the Commission for Africa's recommended
donor spending on infrastructure of US$10 billion a year up to
2010 (and, subject to review, a further increase to US$20 billion
a year in the following five years) is secured.
We agree. In response to the Commission for Africa
recommendation to increase investment in infrastructure for development,
DFID led the establishment of the Infrastructure Consortium for
Africa (ICA). The Consortium will increase the level of investment
in sustainable infrastructure and address issues that are hampering
progress.
[Paragraph 72] We recommend that DFID prioritise
engaging with the EU Water Initiative's Africa Working Group so
that gaps and overlaps in funding for sanitation and water in
Africa can be addressed.
[Paragraph 73] DFID has shown leadership on the
EU Water Initiative from the outset. It now needs to use this
position to seek more active participation from other donors so
that improved co-ordination of EU member states' aid to sanitation
and water can be facilitated.
[Paragraph 75] DFID has played an essential role
in the first successful EU Water Initiative (EUWI) Country Dialogue
in Ethiopia. It should proactively share lessons learned with
other pilot countries so that the effective factors within the
Ethiopian Dialogue can be emulated elsewhere. The Department should
encourage other donors within the EUWI Africa Working Group to
increase their involvement in Country Dialogues.
We agree. DFID has already increased its engagement
with the EU Water Initiative's (EUWI) Africa Working Group (AWG).
We participated in the group's April meeting in Ouagadougou with
the African Ministers Council on Water. DFID is active in the
group of three Member States who lead the AWG, and will chair
this group in 2008. DFID will also lead for Member States at the
Africa Regional Meeting on Water, which we expect will take place
at the Commission for Sustainable Development in April 2008.
DFID has played a leading role in the EUWI from the
start, and recently, along with Germany, funded a comprehensive
review to make it more transparent and effective. We will finalise
the recommendations with other stakeholders in August 2007. A
DFID seconded expert at the European Commission has been instrumental
in galvanising support from Member States for the EUWI and has
provided strategic direction to its implementation and reform.
The Country Dialogue in Ethiopia has catalysed stakeholder
support for the government's Universal Access Plan to provide
universal access to water and sanitation by 2012. DFID has been
the main supporter of the Dialogue with our secondee to the Ministry
of Water Resources playing a critical role. As a first step to
sharing the lessons from Ethiopia these two secondees will lead
a session on the Country Dialogue at the infrastructure retreat
in July 2007.
[Paragraph 77] We agree with DFID's view that
the EU Water Facility should be reformed and better linked to
the EU Water Initiative so that it is more strongly integrated
into national and local planning. The tenth round of the European
Development Fund (EDF), to be finalised in 2007, provides a window
of opportunity for DFID and other donors to seek the reform of
the EU Water Facility.
We agree. DFID, along with a number of other Member
States, is calling for the tenth EDF to include funding for an
extension of the Facility. DFID will push for this new Facility
to be more explicitly linked to the EU Water Initiative and to
be designed so that projects which receive funding are included
in national planning, rather than establishing a parallel process.
[Paragraph 79] DFID's support to the African Development
Bank's Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative (RWSSI) is
important. In order to maximise this investment and the success
of the RWSSI, we recommend that DFID engage with the Bank to ensure
that capacity-building of rural local government bodies is a major
priority for the Initiative, and does not become subsumed amongst
the RWSSI's competing priorities. DFID should also support the
Bank's own capacity to target and spend funds effectively.
We agree. An important objective of the RWSSI must
be capacity-building at the local level—this is the best
way to make investments sustainable. We are already providing
£6 million of technical assistance to help get this ambitious
initiative started. We will consider further funding when we are
confident it can efficiently deliver rural programmes at scale.
Financial and technical support for local government must go alongside
political support for local officials and effective devolution
of decision-making and financial resources. The support which
DFID is providing to the RWSSI will strengthen the AfDB's own
capacity to target and spend funds effectively. DFID is also funding
a financial expert in the AfDB's African Water Facility (AWF).
In a number of countries the AWF is used to assist governments
to develop proposals for the RWSSI.
[Paragraph 84] Limited service and management
contracts can be mutually beneficial for the private sector and
public water providers, but only if contracting procedures are
transparent, include provision for training and capacity-building
within local communities, performance targets are publicly known
and contracts include effectively monitored pro-poor requirements.
We agree. It is especially important to ensure that
contracts incentivise expansion of services to the poor. Where
DFID is directly engaged it ensures that contracting procedures
are transparent and that a pro-poor focus is maintained. DFID
also supports partner organisations to improve service delivery
to the poor. For example, the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory
Facility (PPIAF) responds to requests for advice from developing
countries to ensure that their citizens get the most out of private
sector involvement in infrastructure services.
The local private sector has an important role in
filling the gap when public utilities fail to provide services,
which is often the case in informal settlements. DFID has funded
a major programme implemented by the Water and Sanitation Programme
(WSP), to work with small-scale local providers to improve service
provision for the poor. This has included linking these providers
with utilities to serve urban areas.
[Paragraph 87] NGOs and communities themselves
are important water providers, but to work effectively they must
operate within government frameworks so that legitimacy and sustainability
are ensured. We recommend that DFID encourage partner governments
to engage in NGO and community schemes so that co-ordination and
sustainability of water provision schemes can be maximised.
We agree that NGOs should operate within government
frameworks. It will sometimes be right for DFID to encourage
greater government engagement in NGO or community activity, but
this will depend on the circumstances. If the policy framework
set up by the government is in itself flawed then NGO engagement
will not ensure greater legitimacy and sustainability.
Light coordination and regulation of NGOs by government
can help by ensuring an even spread of coverage and a measure
of quality control. In fragile states, where government failure
is greatest, the role of NGOs and Community Based Organisations
(CBOs) is likely to be bigger. In these countries, the gradual
development and eventual implementation of a policy framework
for NGOs can be an important part of state building.
[Paragraph 94] Public utilities are responsible
for the vast majority of service delivery. Reform of public utilities
is essential if they are to operate more effectively and efficiently
and increase service coverage for poor people. We recommend that
DFID investigate the promotion and funding of 'public-public partnerships'
between public water operators, which can help utilities in developing
countries support each other, share knowledge and learn from each
other's successes.
We agree. We are supporting water operator partnerships,
but they should not be limited to public sector providers. Public
utilities are responsible for the vast majority of piped service
delivery, although their direct reach is often limited. This is
particularly true when it comes to reaching the poorest people
who tend to be served by a variety of intermediaries. Sanitation
is usually on-site for the poorest, with very few people reached
by utility sewerage systems. It is important that utility reform
increases service coverage to reach more poor people.
DFID supported the participation of water utilities
and regional institutions in workshops in Africa and Asia to develop
and benefit from the Water Operators Partnerships (WOPs). The
WOPs, as proposed by the UN Hashimoto Action Plan (2006), are
partnerships to support public utilities. DFID is committed to
ensuring that the WOPs are demand driven, results orientated and
lead to improved services for the poor. DFID is also facilitating
lesson learning from successful partnerships which have contributed
to utility reform, to feed into the design of regional WOPs.
[Paragraph 96] Tackling corruption is of core
importance to improving governance of the water sector. Corruption
is less likely if utility employees do not need to supplement
their pay through bribes. We recommend that DFID encourage partner
governments and the private sector to prioritise paying water
sector staff a decent wage.
We agree that addressing corruption is an important
part of improving water sector governance. However, it requires
a broad range of measures, including stronger public financial
management and increased transparency and accountability. Evidence
shows that, whilst low pay can demotivate staff and stimulate
corruption, increasing wages does not, in itself, decrease corruption.
It must be carried out as part of a package of public sector reforms
to build capable, accountable and responsive government.
DFID is supporting efforts to understand more fully
the nature and scope of corruption in the sanitation and water
sectors, as well as the incentives that lead public officials,
and those in the private sector and civil society, to engage in
corrupt practices.
[Paragraph 100] We recommend that DFID work to
ensure that improved accountability and transparency mechanisms
are built into national decision-making processes. This will facilitate
a clearer voice for consumers and civil society, and help to ensure
that water systems are based on the realities of poor people's
needs. This should include looking at the length of donor funding
cycles which, if too protracted, can compromise the mutual trust
that should be at the heart of the supplier-provider-community
relationship.
We have set up a new £100 million Governance
and Transparency Fund to strengthen civil society to help citizens
hold their governments to account. This will complement other
work to support greater accountability and transparency in national
decision-making processes. For example, our support for NGOs to
engage with the budget process in Indonesia, Burkina Faso, Malawi,
Bolivia, Mozambique, and Ethiopia, and our support for transparent
annual public expenditure reviews and citizens' access to parliamentary
debates in Tanzania.
[Paragraph 104] We recommend that DFID do more
to strengthen capacity in sanitation and water to provide policy
support and technical advisory services for national governments
and development partners. One route towards this would be increased
support to regional, national and sub-national resource centres
in Africa and Asia. The centres could support knowledge transfer,
develop appropriate training courses, provide policy advice and
encourage the development of locally appropriate solutions to
sanitation and water. Centres should be established in a way that
is sustainable and allows them to attract business and function
as financially viable entities.
Effective African and Asian institutions are vital
to ensuring long-term sustainable progress on sanitation and water.
The suggestion of regional, national and sub-national resource
centres in Africa and Asia is an interesting one. We need to assess
likely demand and explore this in the light of what others are
doing. This would build on our former resource centre for water
and sanitation, WELL, which supported six centres of excellence
in Africa and Asia (Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Zimbabwe, India
and Bangladesh).
[Paragraph 105] DFID should build a more formal
relationship with professional water associations, which can assist
in brokering expertise between countries experiencing similar
technical problems in their water systems, using methods such
as responsive twinning and mentoring to provide support for water
operators in developing countries.
Professional associations have an important role
to play in building technical capacity, setting standards, and
developing good practice. DFID is supporting utility managers
and professional associations in both Africa and Asia to get together
and decide whether they want to form regional partnerships to
share expertise. We are also funding lesson-sharing about successful
partnerships between utilities. We have recently agreed a further
£1 million funding to Partners for Water and Sanitation,
a not-for-profit partnership that draws on the skills of UK government,
private sector and civil society to provide advice and support
to projects in Ethiopia, South Africa, Uganda and Nigeria.
[Paragraph 107] DFID's decision significantly
to boost its own research capacity on water and sanitation is
welcome. We particularly support the focus on building local capacity
for research. The Department needs a clear strategy for deciding
in which areas research is required and how findings will be communicated
and used within partner countries.
We agree. DFID is developing a strategy for future
water research. This will build on the water and sanitation-related
research carried out in the, now completed, Engineering and Knowledge
and Research programme. The strategy will focus on getting research
into use within partner countries through adaptation, dissemination
and mainstreaming.
[Paragraph 111] While money is part of the solution
to reaching the sanitation and water MDGs, and we very much welcome
the increase in DFID's allocation, it is not sufficient on its
own. Developing countries have an urgent need for technical advice
and capacity-building in the water sector, which will require
increased human resources within DFID. DFID must address its own
tendency to focus too heavily on financial inputs without adequately
assessing the necessary human resource requirements for efficient
expenditure of funds.
We agree that DFID's increased resources must be
used efficiently to increase access to basic water and sanitation
services. We also agree that there is an urgent need for capacity-building
in the sector, especially at the local level. We assess issues
of capacity as part of our standard institutional appraisal and
when necessary our support includes a capacity-building component.
We also support a range of institutions and initiatives which
have capacity-building at the core of their work. In particular,
DFID:
- funds capacity-building networks
such as the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council
and the Global Water Partnership;
- works closely with UNICEF at the country level
in both Africa and Asia as well as centrally with their head office;
- funds programmes to strengthen research networks
in developing countries (e.g. the RiPPLE (Research-inspired Policy
and Practice Learning in Ethiopia and the Nile Region) programme);
- will build on the work it has done supporting
centres of excellence in Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Zimbabwe and India;
- is working through the Water Sector Development
Programme and with WaterAid Tanzania to support local government
reform;
- is providing over £1 million of additional
funding for the Partners for Water and Sanitation capacity-building
initiative;
- works with others to build capacity e.g. DFID
supports the World Bank's Community Driven Development Programme
and we are likely to provide funding for another World Bank programme
building Woreda (district) level capacity in Ethiopia.
[Paragraph 112] Headcount restrictions—within
DFID and other donors—risk leaving a void within in-country
donor advisory capacity just at the time when progress is urgently
needed on the sanitation and water MDG targets. We recommend that
DFID urgently carry out a needs assessment of staffing requirements
until 2011 and work on a strategy for a co-ordinated response
to the possible weakening of in-country donor advisory capacity.
DFID is currently carrying out a Strategic Workforce
Planning process to determine what resources are available, where
the demands are likely to be over the next five years and how
best to match resources to need. To inform this process, data
is being updated on adviser numbers and posts, and a series of
discussions have been held with Directors, our human resource
department and Heads of Profession (including those for infrastructure,
environment, health and education).
We are reducing staff numbers in line with cross
government headcount restrictions. This is challenging us to act
smarter—to move away from engagement in individual projects
to working in ways that have broader influence on a bigger scale
and to equip non-specialist advisors to work effectively in the
sector (Tanzania provides an excellent example of this). Nevertheless,
we recognise there are some advisory specialist gaps to fill in
key countries where we need to deliver on sanitation and water
specifically. The Strategic Workforce Planning will ensure this
expertise is deployed to best effect.
[Paragraph 117] We recommend that DFID encourage
the global community to reaffirm the missed 2005 target for all
countries to have Integrated Water Resources Management Plans
and Water Efficiency Plans in place. As part of this reaffirmation,
national-level coordination mechanisms, with appropriate monitoring
and reporting components, should be established so that countries
can put robust water resources management strategies in place
within a set time period.
Water Resource Management is crucial to development,
however, we do not believe that reaffirmation of the 2005 target
is a useful way to make progress. The IWRM target did not generate
the same resources or action as other targets set by the MDG process.
Extending the timeline on a target which has failed to generate
political urgency is unlikely to result in renewed action. In
addition there is a risk that the plans (as opposed to the process
of producing them) become the end in themselves and fail to catalyse
change at a higher political level or support wider development
goals.
The challenge is to ensure that key elements of IWRM
are taken up in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and national
development plans, and then adequately funded and implemented.
This is why we will push for a new, more effective international
target, which links IWRM with development outcomes and promotes
equitable allocation of resources, with measurable achievements
in key water-using sectors (such as agriculture). DFID will set
out what we think is required, and how we propose to promote this,
in the background paper on water resources management which is
being prepared as part of our sanitation and water policy update.
[Paragraph 119] As the only international partnership
on Water Resources Management (WRM), the Global Water Partnership
(GWP) needs to do more than promote dialogue: it must develop
clear strategies for donor co-ordination and support countries'
development and implementation of WRM plans. DFID should work
with other donors to ensure that this change takes place. If the
forthcoming evaluation suggests the Partnership cannot fulfil
this role, a new and far better resourced global mechanism needs
to be established by donors as a matter of urgency.
The Global Water Partnership (GWP) is a highly influential
network, contributing to policy impact and outcomes that go beyond
promoting dialogue. This was highlighted by the multi-donor funded
external review in 2003. Ongoing work by the GWP on performance
monitoring also clearly demonstrates that the network has moved
beyond promoting dialogue to helping implement better water management
as well.
GWP has recently initiated a strategic planning process
to develop its future direction for its 2009-2014 strategy. 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 its comparative advantage.
At this stage it would not be useful to pre-empt the findings
from the evaluation. However, we would not agree that setting
up yet another new global mechanism would help harmonise the international
effort, which is already overcrowded. What is needed, here as
elsewhere, is effective action on the ground rather than more
international bodies or initiatives.
[Paragraph 123] Given the increasing constraints
on water resources, it is imperative that DFID substantially scales
up its limited work on Water Resources Management (WRM). DFID's
funding of the Research-inspired Policy and Practice Learning
in Ethiopia and the Nile Region (RiPPLE) programme has been a
positive step. The Department now needs to ensure that knowledge
developed under the programme is used and communicated widely.
In conjunction with other bilateral donors under a reformed global
partnership for WRM, clear processes of support must be established
to help countries develop Water Resources Management Plans and
Water Efficiency Plans, which should be embedded within Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers and include monitoring mechanisms.
We agree. Although the RiPPLE programme is
primarily focussed on governance in water supply and sanitation
it includes research on the linkages between service delivery
and growth. This is directly related to wider water resources
management concerns. In addition, building water research capacity
and working with the Ministry of Water Resources in Ethiopia will
have benefits across the sector. Ensuring the uptake of research
is a fundamental principle of the RiPPLE programme. This has been
built into its design through action research, involving potential
end-users and a focus on capacity-building at all levels.
DFID's new water research strategy will include other
programmes with a specific focus on water resources management.
The uptake of research will remain central to the design of these
programmes. We see a useful role for the Global Water Partnership
network in disseminating research.
[Paragraph 125] As part of an increasing package
of support to Water Resources Management (WRM), donors should
ensure that professional capacity to measure availability of water
and collect data on hydrological and meteorological patterns is
adequately supported. DFID should look for opportunities with
other donors to support research into identifying a minimum set
of data that could act as a series of basic indicators on WRM
and climate change.
[Paragraph 106] DFID should encourage partner
governments to boost staff numbers and develop training programmes
to improve the collection of accurate hydrological data, which
is essential to pinpointing water access and management needs.
We agree that lack of finance and capacity for data
collection and monitoring at national, regional and international
levels is currently a significant constraint to progress. Where
partner countries identify this as a priority we will work with
others to find ways to support them in capacity-building, through
technical co-operation if appropriate.
However, it is important to recognise that in most
cases the critical gap is weak institutional capacity to use data
effectively in planning, monitoring and enforcement, rather than
inadequate technical capability for data gathering. The best response
depends on need and varies widely with local context.
Data requirements are highly context specific and
therefore any generic set of data is unlikely to be very useful.
However, we agree that research is required on some of the data
and capacity issues around water resources management. DFID has
been appointed the co-ordinator of European members' research
into water and sanitation for developing countries, (ERA-NET)
and is tasked to identify joint programmes—the effect of
climate change on water resources management has already been
identified as an area of future co-operation.
[Paragraph 127] We recommend that DFID work with
other UK government departments, including the Department of Trade
and Industry and the Export Credits Guarantee Department, to increase
UK stakeholders' adherence to the World Commission on Dams' (WCD)
Guidelines for Dam-building. Organising a multi-stakeholder forum
on the Guidelines would help promote the participation of industry
and other relevant actors.
DFID supported the processes leading to the production
of the WCD Report "Dams for Development" in November
2000. We subsequently co-funded the first phase of the Dams and
Development Unit, which was set up to help countries implement
the WCD recommendations.
In October 2002, the UK Government (DFID, FCO, DEFRA,
DTI and ECGD) produced a Consultation Draft Response to the Report
of the World Commission on Dams, entitled 'World Commission on
Dams —Towards a UK position'. The document includes a section
on next steps to ensure that we actively promote WCD principles
and implement the recommendations. The draft was put out for consultation
and a one-day national multi-stakeholder seminar was held in 2003.
We do not therefore believe it is necessary to hold another forum
at this stage. We will work with other government departments
to update and finalise the UK position document, with further
consultation if necessary. DFID will aim, with other Whitehall
Departments, to finalise the Position Paper by December 2007.
[Paragraph 133] DFID's work on climate change
adaptation in relation to Water Resources Management is relatively
new and we received no evidence on the impacts of its work so
far. But it is clear that DFID is putting the foundations in place
to move forward its own and development partners' work on climate
change adaptation. We are greatly encouraged by DFID's leadership
on climate change adaptation in relation to water resources management,
internationally and across Whitehall, and its support for research
on this subject. We expect to see DFID translate this leadership
into substantive policies and frameworks for action in the near
future. The importance of DFID's work in this area must be recognised
and properly funded under the Comprehensive Spending Review process.
We agree. DFID's bid under the Comprehensive Spending
Review has prioritised climate change both in terms of helping
developing countries adapt, and helping them adopt cleaner development
processes. Water resources management is a key part of DFID's
water and sanitation policy update.
DFID is a leading donor to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change adaptation funds, which provides
financing to help developing countries develop knowledge of climate
change risk and develop adaptation strategies in priority sectors.
The UK Contribution to the Fourth Replenishment of the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) is £140 million over four years
(£35 million each year). GEF is the designated financial
mechanism for the international conventions on biodiversity, climate
change, persistent organic pollutants and desertification. GEF
also supports projects that protect international waters and the
ozone layer. The UK has also established an £800 million
International Environmental Transformation Fund for the purpose
of reducing poverty through environmental management and helping
developing countries respond to climate change.
[Paragraph 138] As water availability becomes
constrained, the risk of conflict over water resources is growing.
Donors can help pre-empt such conflicts by supporting joint hydrometric
monitoring of shared rivers and trans-boundary river commissions.
DFID's funding of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) has been important,
and we recommend that the Department continue to support the development
of the current transitional arrangement into a permanent framework.
DFID should continue to look at the viability of establishing
a similar initiative within the Congo Basin.
We agree, and will continue to work with other donors
to manage water to reduce the risk of conflict and promote regional
coherence as an important aspect of DFID's work on water resources
management. The NBI has been a long and strategically successful
process, with impact beyond just water.
There is much useful experience from the NBI that
we can transfer to other basins, including the Congo Basin. DFID
has recently committed £50 million to the Congo Basin Forests
Trust Fund which covers 10 riparian countries, including DRC and
Rwanda. DFID will work with others, including the World Bank and
African Development Bank, to consider how we can build on this
support to develop a broader basin initiative similar to the NBI.
It is important however, that African institutions take the lead
on this.
[Paragraph 153] DFID's education strategies do
not do enough to stress the importance of sanitation and water
promotion within schools. This needs to change if DFID is to deliver
a properly integrated sanitation and water strategy. DFID should
also work with education ministries on curriculum development
and teacher training so that curricula include a water, sanitation
and hygiene component.
We disagree. Through our bilateral programme, we
work with ministries of education to improve access to water and
sanitation, and some of the multilateral agencies that we support
play a major role in school water and sanitation issues. For
example, the World Bank and Regional Development Banks have large-scale
school construction programmes in many countries and UNICEF has
special programmes that promote water and sanitation in schools.
In Sudan, DFID has provided approximately £2 million to
assist UNICEF education programmes in the conflict-affected areas
of the country, providing books and materials to over 2000 primary
schools and supporting the construction of water and sanitation
facilities. In most cases school and teacher training curricula
already include an element of health education. DFID's role is
advisory, supporting government-led curriculum reform on request.
DFID's Girls' Education Strategy, published
in January 2005, commits us to support governments to promote
cross-sectoral programmes including clean water supply and sanitation
facilities. The first progress report, published in December 2006,
highlighted the support that we are providing in several countries,
where access to basic facilities such as school toilets and safe
drinking water is improving the quality of the school environment
and resulting in better learning outcomes for girls.
[Paragraph 155] DFID has not given adequate attention
to the impact of women and girls' water-fetching burden in its
education strategies. The Department needs to help governments
develop strategies addressing the time burden associated with
collecting water that keeps girls out of school. These should
encompass tackling wider social inequalities that perpetuate women
and girls' water-fetching burden, expanding water supply so that
journey times are reduced and practical school-based strategies
such as flexible timetabling.
We disagree. DFID supports countries' education sector
plans, where possible contributing to the budget for the whole
sector. This involves analysis of all the gender issues affecting
girls' participation in education. Water carrying is a widely
recognised barrier, alongside other domestic responsibilities.
In the 2006 White Paper, we said that we would give
greater priority to work in support of gender equality and women's
rights. Our Gender Equality Action Plan sets out how we will implement
this commitment.
[Paragraph 159] Whilst we are supportive towards
DFID remaining highly focused on sanitation and water, it is important
that the use of water for agriculture is mainstreamed across the
Department's water and sanitation strategies.
[Paragraph 162] We are concerned that DFID's water
strategy does not sufficiently address agriculture, and equally
that DFID's agriculture strategy makes little mention of water.
DFID's focus on achieving the sanitation and water Millennium
Development Goal should not be to the exclusion of focusing on
water for agriculture, an essential component of meeting MDG1
which seeks to halve the number of people suffering from hunger.
Strategies for promoting the productive use of water for food,
including irrigation, should be pursued both through high-level
donor engagement—particularly seeking the achievement of
the Commission for Africa's recommended increase in funding of
irrigation by 50% before 2010—and through national water
resources management strategies which encourage the efficient
use of water at the community level.
We agree that more efficient use of water for agriculture
is important. In the 2006 White Paper we have committed to help
countries make efficient use of water (including for agriculture)
as part of our approach to sustainable growth. DFID's 2005 Agriculture
Strategy also identifies improved access to land and water resources
for poor people as one of eight priorities for DFID's support.
While it is clear that more extensive and more efficient
irrigation will be central to pro-poor growth in Africa, this
has significant implications for water management. Our focus is
therefore on supporting countries to improve water resources management
so that water is allocated fairly, in support of agreed national
development priorities, and that use is balanced with environmental
sustainability. This is even more important in the context of
population growth, urbanisation and climate change. DFID has committed
to do more on water resources management as part of a range of
strategies for climate change adaptation.
Department for International Development
26 June 2007
| 
