Piers Cross: Reflections on World Water Week in Stockholm: Making History

For Piers Cross, Special Advisor to Sanitation and Water for All, the 2013 Stockholm Water Week was heavy with history.

My Generation

The Stockholm World Water Prize this year was awarded to Peter Morgan for the genius of his innovations in on-site sanitation, ecological sanitation and water devices for rural Africa, developed over 4 decades. It was his innovations that bred the confidence that creating clean water and a hygienic environment for everyone forever might be achievable. A big idea in the 1970s.

Peter was a great Stockholm Water Prize awardee. It could not have happened to a more deserving, genuine or humble man. Seeing him in his tuxedo, beard all trimmed was a bit of a shock. No shorts, no dusty veldskoens, no notebook in his top pocket. His speeches were modest and accessible, reflecting a life’s love of Africa and his commitment to simplicity and mother earth. As he generously reflected, the award was also recognition of the fellow-travellers of that era. I found it very emotional: the award honoured a generation.

A Long and Winding Road

Peter’s inventions enabled a vision in which millions of rural African families, just as they built and repaired their homes, could get fresh water for domestic use and water their gardens and animals. It was not to be, this rural idyll, emerging from Southern Africa’s inglorious past, was devastated by another corrupt political class, which destroyed the economy and plunged rural Zimbabweans back into poverty, cholera, hardship and indignity.

Keep on Truckin’

It was also a week with another historic landmark: Malin Falkenmark’s last World Water Week; another selfless and incisive mind that changed the thinking of a generation. Malin has been the intellectual inspiration of Stockholm’s World Water Week since its inception. As Torkil Jens-Clausen observed, not only did she set the norms for water management, but her vision of managing blue and green water flows and her analysis of the interactions between land and water, changed the way we think about water. She also mastered the inspirational water sound-bite. In her last closing address she produced another wonderful image:“water is the bloodstream of the biosphere”. Malin retired in 1991. I’ll say that again: she retired in 1991. And then had two more decades of saving the planet. Fling off the shackles and retire early, I say.

Come Together

Co-operation was the word in the family this week: an echo over many decades. In March 1977, thirty-six years ago, the first United Nations Water Conference in Mar Del Plata, Argentina, reported that participants committed themselves to “increased international co-operation” and called on UN agencies to increase mutual co-operation and to better support governments. Who was the rapporteur that day? Malin Falkenmark.

Water is integral to so many life-strands – health, food, ecology, energy. Co-operation between the strands of this many-headed hydra is no mean task. The list of water uses is endless, though our water resources are not. Water is the element that connects us all. As the closing speakers concluded: water  is the nexus.

Bridge Over Troubled Water

So what’s new? As the future global development framework is being shaped, there is now a concerted effort for the water community to build momentum for a specific water Sustainable Development Goal whilst also developing water targets in energy, food production, nutrition and growth. Ironically, co-operating with other sectors may be water’s best shot at getting the recognition it deserves.

Jumpin’ Jack Flash

The sanitation and water service delivery sector is taking co-operation a significant step forward by establishing an accountability framework. This framework – the Sanitation and Water for All partnership – is supported by a growing number of partners (nearly a hundred so far) from across the world. Its central hypothesis, its theory of change, is that: giving sanitation and water a higher political priority, a clear evidence base and sound country processes will generate more attention and resources for WASH and create a larger and more measurable impact from investment. Showing more impact should ignite a virtuous cycle- a rolling stone gathering moss – building momentum to reach sustainable universal access to water and sanitation.

So what does this mean in non-development-speak? The idea is to replicate some of the great success stories. Nelson Mandela’s government decided in the 90s to build the water infrastructure that was never built during apartheid. Political will resulted in a huge increase in sector financing and the government was held to account by a new electorate. Similarly, the President of Rwanda lead the clean-up of his country and to the situation where Rwanda is probably the only poor country in Africa to have met the sanitation MDG.

So if leaders in, say, Liberia, Ghana, Benin or Kenya made high-level commitments to address open defecation, improve rural water maintenance, provide services to informal settlements, they would be held to account and other SWA partners would commit to help them to achieve these goals. SWA is a bold set of ideas and will be tested at the next High-level meeting to be held in April 2012.

Stand By Me

At the heart of this accountability framework is the recognition – so sharply brought into focus by the tragedy in Zimbabwe – that good governance is our best assurance that services will be sustained. Integral to sustainability is the growing consensus that strong country systems, reaching down to the local level, are essential for sanitation and water services to last. This means coming together behind country leadership and good governance. A sign of maturity in the week was the recognition that we need to be more honest and open about failures and better analyse blockages. The information age, spatial planning, mobile to web technology, social networking can undermine power asymmetry, empower stakeholders and help target inequity to give us all a safe water future.

I left Stockholm hugely optimistic for the water sector.

Darren Saywell: Sanitation Smörgåsbord: politics + evidence + commitments = accountability

Darren Saywell, WASH/CLTS Technical Director at Plan International USA & SWA Vice Chair, shares his impressions on the SWA session at World Water Week in Stockholm 2013

 

I grew up in the UK in the 1970’s watching The Muppet Show. Beyond the more popular characters of Kermit and Miss Piggy, I fell in love with The Swedish Chef – an incomprehensible preparer of foodstuffs. He was hilarious. All Swedish Chef sketches begin with him in a kitchen, waving some utensils while singing his signature song in a trademark mock Swedish. His commentary is spiced with the occasional English word to clue the viewer in to what he is attempting to cook. These clues are necessary as he frequently uses unorthodox culinary equipment (firearms, tennis rackets, etc.) to prepare his dishes. All deeply politically incorrect, but fun nonetheless.And so whenever I’m at Stockholm Water Week, I think of him and smile. More so this year, as I’ve been struck by the vast array – a bit like a Smörgåsbord-of preconditions and factors needed to achieve better cooperation in the WASH sector –hence the title of this blog.Whilst the degree of information circulating can be a bit bewildering at times, the Sanitation and Water for All session gave some clarity amidst the overload. In a fully seated session focusing on Elevating the Political Dialog, a series of thoughtful ‘outside – insider’ presenters in our sector provided insights into what’s working to get political traction for sanitation and water for all:· Study success: focus on countries that made successful changes – at policy level, or in budget allocations, for instance – and appreciate the process that was behind this success; how were bottlenecks to reform overcome?

· Understand the ‘science of delivery’: what’s our best evidence about practice that achieves the scale of operation that countries need? How strong is that evidence and how critical is it filling policy and practice gaps?

· Make (serious) commitments on sanitation: and track them; use an influential, international High Level Meeting once every 2 years to drive a continual discussion locally about monitoring those commitments. It’s not the number of commitments that matter – it’s the follow through on them that is key…

· Map influencers locally: identify, study and package advocacy and communications to those at national and sub-sovereign levels to build the right type of political momentum for change, in a way that decision makers can translate into policy and practice

· Guard against separation: Stockholm was dominated in large part by discussions about the post-2015 agenda this week; any focus on how to elevate political traction for sanitation cannot afford to be separate from the anticipated outcomes of that agenda. The indicators post-2015 will set the framework for our work towards 2030.

Like the Swedish Chef, some of these ideas are unorthodox ways to reach our common goal. Unlike the Swedish Chef, it is clear to me that we need more common language and consistent messaging to drive into sustained practice these critical lessons learned.

See photographs from the SWA session

Sanjay Wijesekera: A great African statesman and one of the nicest people you could ever meet

 Sanjay Wijesekera, Chief of WASH, UNICEF talks about H.E. John Kufuor’s visit to World Water Week in Stockholm

It is a great honour to be at World Water Week in Stockholm with HE John Kufuor, especially as he was President during my time in Ghana between 2005 and 2008.  Not only is he a great African statesman, but he is one of nicest people you could ever meet.  The President is Chair of Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) and Special Envoy to the Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases, and these two initiatives have particular resonance at this, the world’s foremost annual gathering of water and sanitation experts.  The Global Network for NTDs seeks to bring attention to a group of diseases that continue to cause immense pain and suffering

in developing countries, most of which can only be eliminated if there are improvements to sanitation and water.  And the Sanitation and Water for All partnership was created to increase the political will around making those improvements, and to help countries achieve better use of their resources.

This speaks strongly to the mission of UNICEF, and our dedication to protecting the rights of children and helping them to achieve their full potential.  Many of the neglected tropical diseases take a terrible toll on the lives of children.  Trachoma, for instance, causes blindness, and intestinal worms sap children’s strength, leaving them listless, poorly nourished and unable to learn at school.  It is estimated that almost half of the primary school-age children in developing counties carry intestinal worms – an incredible burden of ill-health and lost opportunity.  Better sanitation, safe water and good hygiene practices can help eliminate or control many neglected tropical diseases, and other equally serious health problems such as diarrhoeal disease.

H.E. Kufuor is challenging governments to make water, sanitation, hygiene and the elimination of the diseases they cause a top political priority.  The Sanitation and Water for All partnership will hold its third biennial meeting in 2014, and countries will report to each other on the progress they have made against the commitments they have previously made towards achieving universal access to water and sanitation.  I feel there is cause for optimism that these essential foundations to children’s health and well-being are gaining the highest attention, and that diseases such as trachoma and worms may soon be a part of history.

McLawrence Mpasa: A form of collaboration, support and entry points: the SWA partnership

Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) is a partnership put in place some two years ago in a bid to help countries currently off-track in attaining the MDG targets on sanitation and water. These countries are mostly those in the underdeveloped and developing regions of the world and mainly in the sub-Saharan African and South Asian regions.

There is a virtuous circle of at least six processes through which the SWA partnership can support and collaborate with governments. These are: assisting the national leadership; helping governments ensure  good governance, and that effective institutional frameworks are in place; assisting governments in securing funding for sanitation and water-related programmes; helping with planning, monitoring and reporting; ensuring the existence of effective coordination between sector actors and harmonization of efforts and targeting of resources; and finally, supporting learning at country, regional and even global level and assisting governments in adaptive management.

Considering that each country has its own unique and peculiar situation and challenges, and at the same time its own level of preparedness, my perspective is that SWA can support and collaborate with governments by facilitating peer reviews and in some way providing technical assistance. This support and assistance could be in the form of 1) helping and guiding governments in the preparation of National Planning for Results and in 2) monitoring and impact evaluation.

In supporting the development and review of National Action Plans, the SWA partnership could come in and provide guidelines on how to develop such plans. It could also coordinate technical assistance and help build capacity to ensure sustainability. These National Action Plans could be developed in line with the existing policies, legislation and institutional frameworks. Once developed and adopted by all stakeholders and key sector actors, they would become tools for mobilizing resources, and even lobbying and advocacy. The  Country Water and Environmental Sanitation NGO networks, CSOs, and the SWA partnership could come in to assist with the lobbying and advocacy.

Once the plan is being rolled out, it will form the basis for focusing sector actor support, ensuring coordinated and consistent approaches, and harmonization of policy and actions. It would also form the basis for monitoring progress and, finally, evaluation of impact.

The SWA Partnership would also have a facilitation role in the identification and linking of implementing countries with financing institutions. My take is that the role of facilitating peer reviews could come when undertaking planning, monitoring and evaluation. These collaborations could involve countries with the implementing partners and the role of SWA would be to facilitate travel for partner country members travelling to support this work. In this type of arrangement, the SWA partnership could also facilitate and support. documentation; national, regional and global learning; and information sharing.

I wish all my fellow partners involved in SWA the best of luck on our journey in quest of the best and most effective modes of collaborating and supporting each other as we attempt to develop and review our National Action Plans, roll them out and monitor progress.

Mr. McLawrence Mpasa, Director of Sanitation and hygiene, Ministry of Water Development and Hygiene, Malawi

Olivier Germain: A partnership like SWA is very complex but we are unified by our goal

The first ever SWA Partnership Meeting came to a close last week but injected some renewed momentum into the initiative.   Sure, a lot of questions still remain unanswered and it was sometimes hard to reconcile the breadth of opinions and views on the way forward.   However this is to be expected from a partnership encompassing such a wide variety of actors, such a plethora of expertise, and such a range of skills.   The goal of reaching universal access to sanitation and water is a complex one and will require different tools and approaches to succeed.  And it is this goal of providing safe clean water and sanitation to everyone that unites all the partners to succeed.

Capitalising on the strengths and successes of the partnership

Whereas agreement was hard to come by on certain issues, there was consensus that at the global level, the political dialogue and attention generated by the partnership through the High Level Meetings (HLMs) was something to be proud of.   The growth of the partnership to just under 90 members in the space of just a couple of years, bringing on board more developing countries, donors, research institutes and civil society organisations, is testimony to the trust and belief in SWA’s vision.   The HLM commitments made by governments and developing partners have provided a focus for driving the sector forward, accelerating progress, and advocating for transformational change.

Proof of success will lie at the national level

Yet, much remains to be done to translate the promise of the commitments into tangible results on the ground; for the pledges and decisions within the sector and country statements to deliver accelerated access to water and sanitation in practice.   And the key to this surely lies in replicating the synergies, pooled resources and concerted actions on the front line – that is at national level and below.   The dialogue between partners, the matching of resources with demand, and the exchange of information and best practices has to take place at country level.  SWA and its partnership approach needs to be embedded in national WASH sector processes.

Moving Forward

This can only be realised if partners truly demonstrate, not in words but in actions, what they bring to the table.   The focus has to be on what members can contribute, with Developing Country Government’s taking the lead.   As Achille Kangni from Benin declared during the meeting “Si il n’y a pas une dynamique au niveau national il ne se passera rien” (If there is no action and momentum at national level, nothing will happen).   Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are ready to step up to the plate and redouble their efforts to see the promises made in Washington just over 6 months ago deliver life-saving changes to communities around the world.    CSOs, during the meeting, pledged to play a key role in raising awareness of SWA and HLM commitments among citizens, the media and parliamentarians to increase understanding of the partnership and thereby focus attention and resources towards jointly making progress.   Furthermore, CSOs have the legitimacy, passion and skills to support the partnership in monitoring this progress, contribute technical resources where needed, use their coordination power to bring actors together, and ensure that the voice of the communities the partnership aims to support is heard.   So now is the time to regroup and consolidate, to make progress at the national level, for all SWA constituencies to focus on what they bring to the partnership and to deliver.

Olivier Germain

End Water Poverty (EWP) Campaign Advisor

Ned Breslin: Day Two Reflections on SWA Partnership Meeting Johannesburg

Monitoring matters as was shown clearly today by Uganda and Liberia at the “Sanitation and Water For All” partnership meeting in Johannesburg.

Both countries have taken the brave step to look at what is happening in their countries, document results and reflect on what these results mean for the water and sanitation sector in their countries.  They embody the true meaning of both monitoring and aid transparency.

Uganda has been publishing a document called the “Country Sector Annual Review” for a number of years now.  The review is powerful, its frank and it highlights progress made in the country without shying away from exposing the challenges faced in sustaining water supply and sanitation infrastructure and investments.  The report is particularly clear on the challenges Uganda faces with tariff collection and financing for operation and maintenance (O&M).  Sanitation still has some way to go before Uganda reaches full coverage.

The report focuses the Ugandan water and sanitation sector keenly on results.  The data is Uganda’s, the ownership of the implications are held by the country and the sector will continue to improve because they are asking hard questions about sustainability and coverage.

We also learned that Liberia too has decided to emerge from the narrow debates on data and monitoring to publish its sector results.  The indicators Liberia uses are different from Uganda but the analysis is just as sharp and important.  The monitoring work highlights water technologies that seem to consistently fail and thus need to be discontinued as a technological choice.  Liberia is reconsidering its investment decisions as the visualization of water points throughout the country suggest that some areas have not received the attention they deserve.  And, like Uganda, tariff collection and regular O&M remain challenges.

Sierra Leone has a great story to tell as well on this issue, and we are starting to see African countries emerge as models for monitoring and transparency.

Because Liberia, Uganda and Sierra Leone are showing what monitoring is about in practice.  Monitoring is about asking hard questions on results and having the courage to rethink your previous decisions and investments based on the analysis of these results.  Liberia, Uganda and Sierra Leone have a tremendous opportunity to actually improve sector performance because they have invested time and energy to determine what seems to be working in their countries and what aspects of their work and investments need to be reconsidered.  And they will ask these questions over and over again as future monitoring results will guide them, which in time should lead to better results for villages throughout their countries.

These countries are also showing what transparency is all about.  They are not fooled by the silliness of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) and it’s growing list of agencies that seem to think that transparency means throwing meaningless spreadsheet-numbing data onto a web page (filled with equally meaningless data from other agencies) and having donors and bloggers anoint them as truly transparent.

Transparency is not about unanalyzed data puke.  Transparency is about being open, honest and forthright about the results of investments made – it’s about saying that these investments were made and here are the results.  Anything less is simply fog!

Liberia, Uganda and Sierra Leone are not worried if their indicators are the same as each other.  They are not worried whether their indicators match global monitoring frameworks.  They are under the IATI radar.  They are simply focused on improving performance so that water flows and people can take a dump in a functioning toilet.  The work is hardly perfect, and challenges of course remain in not only sustaining momentum for monitoring but also in ensuring that future investments in water and sanitation are done in a way that take seriously the lessons highlighted.  Donors, implementing agencies and governments will need to change and adapt in ways they may not be comfortable with in the short- (or long-) term.

But if monitoring advances and these countries continue to analyze and show results transparently then changes will most certainly come, as good practice will shine and bad practice will run out of excuses.  And that will be good for people throughout these countries.  Exactly what good monitoring and transparency should actually do.

Hooray!

Ned Breslin: Day One Reflections on the SWA Partnership Meeting

The Sanitation and Water For All initiative is both bold and rudderless at this stage.  And that is to be both accepted and welcomed as sometimes great things happen when confusion exists in the early days around bold ideas.

Day one of the partnership meeting was hard for a few reasons.

First, I am not convinced everyone in the room understands fully what SWA is and is not.  At times it is seen as an implementing body with possible access to cash (or the ability to access cash) to help countries plan, advocate and monitor.  At other times it is viewed as a platform for debate and support to countries to help them move towards “sanitation and water for all”. And still again as either/all of the following: an advocacy voice for change, a global monitoring champion and/or a planning agency.

Second, there are clearly politics at play that I do not fully understand.  I was somewhat startled by the debate around “targeting” where some seemed to think that the geographical spread of “Sanitation and Water For All” should focus only on particular “at risk” countries that are struggling with their water and sanitation challenges.  This flew in the face of data presented early on that suggested that a full 80% of the people in the world without sanitation live in “middle-income countries”.  The argument seemed to center on whether, by supporting more countries, it would dilute the already hard challenges SWA faces in even getting its feet moving in the smaller number of countries already.  The whole debate on targeting and prioritization seems to fly in the face of the groups title – are we “Sanitation and Water For All” as a movement or are we really looking at “Sanitation and Water For All For Some Lucky Countries Chosen by Somebody Somewhere”?  It is here where the SWA title enters the dangerous world of aspirational but unrealizable jargon

Third, I think the emphasis on national level action, with lots of role players and voices, may be what cripples the initiative (whatever it is in practice).  Great movements that have radically changed the world or moved towards eradicating a major problem – from diseases like polio and smallpox to social movements like civil rights in the United States (which many would argue is still not a truly completed outcome) never started from the top and worked down.  Never!  That is not how movements that bring about big changes succeed.  Instead, they start from the bottom, build models of success and drive towards a situation where the desired outcome becomes inevitable, and the naysayers fall away against the overwhelming evidence that the desired outcome that once seemed so impossible is not only possible, but there is a trail of success that makes it visible for all to see.  Getting those successes is where the energy is focused (and it can be ugly and frustrating just modeling success as the desired outcome is not easy to achieve at all), building upwards from success using all mediums at our disposal (and there are many now), and creating momentum and demand for change that moves people to act.  Frankly, great movements have never been built by emphasizing policy, frameworks, “processes”, high level consultations and global monitoring.  Proclamations from high-level leaders to address the problem and allocate more money to achieve the result always fall on barren lands if the way forward has not been tried and tested.  That is the lesson that distinguishes great movements for change that succeed with great ambitions that never gain traction.

The participants in this meeting are truly amazing and revolutionary.  They all want to see the water and sanitation challenge resolved.  Day One showed that the energy and wisdom for action is in the room, if only the focus could switch from grand strategy to bold, localized action that models what “Sanitation and Water For All” might look like in practice.  Lets see if we can get closer on Day Two.

Sue Yardley: Do global partnerships work?

Five years on from the launch of ‘Sanitation and Water for All’ – which is a global partnership to increase the political and financial priority on water, sanitation and hygiene –  and I spent last week with 100+ other participants from around the world to take a bit of a stock check on progress.

With World Toilet Day yesterday, it acts as a global reminder of the need to focus on the critical but highly neglected issue of water and sanitation and it’s both timely and important to consider whether Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) is the right mechanism to help deliver what its name declares.

Tearfund helped campaign for the creation of SWA as we recognise these issues are low down the political and financial priorities of both donor and national budgets, despite the numerous commitments and platitudes of how essential water and sanitation are for any pathway out of poverty.

The achievements from the second High Level Meeting are impressive and you can find out more from my previous blog and the SWA website.

So how is the partnership doing over all? Below are a few of my reflections

1.    Political aspirations should reign over technocratic objectives – don’t lose sight of the original vision

When we assess progress on anything it’s easy to get a bit over zealous and want to change direction, bring in new objectives etc. While new approaches may be needed, we need to hold true to the original and bold vision and not shrink back to aims that can be easily measured, but lack political aspiration. Measuring the success of the long term change we wish to see can be difficult and slow going, but we must resist the temptation to move away from the vision towards short term, more easily controlled objectives.

2.    Patience

Political change, and the increased investment that needs to follow, takes time but we won’t see large scale investment and a world where everyone has the basic right to clean water and somewhere safe to go to the toilet, without it. Progress can be frustrating, but SWA is doing the right thing in not setting up a global fund and instead trying to get finance ministers in developing countries to recognise the need for increased investment in water and sanitation. Furthermore, any support to help strengthen national plans and policies (to aid confidence for increased investment), will be country-, rather than donor-, driven.

3.    A partnership is the sum of its partners

A partnership will only be as strong and active as its partners are. As civil society we identified clear actions in support of SWA that we committed to but this needs to be reflected across all the partner constituencies. Donor membership, whilst reflective of a large proportion of the main donors on water and sanitation, is still limited and there seems to be hesitancy in committing actions and resources to the partnership. But what donor engagement there is, including by the UK, is encouraging and can be cultivated.

4.    Communication, communication, communication

There is often high turnover of personnel involved – be it from developing country governments, donors, development banks or NGOs, so it’s great that SWA is beginning to increase its own investment in communication. It takes a long time to build understanding, buy-in and to become known outside of the circles of those working on water and sanitation – so investment in this area is crucial.

So, in my view, yes global partnerships do work – but they need commitment and action from its partners and at Tearfund we’ll continue to support SWA to ensure it delivers on its vision.

Sue Yardley
Senior Public Policy Officer – Water and Sanitation
TEARFUND

George Yarngo: reflections on the meeting and sharing the Liberia experience

The Partnership Meeting was the first of its kind and essential in order to get all of the partners to think about how the Partnership can add value to country led, SWA support process leading to the next High Level Meeting.  This is the workplace where representative SWA partners can think deeply about what should add value to Sanitation and Water for All as well.
Many partnership members at the meeting, including myself, had the opportunity to gain clarity on what the Partnership is about, the role of the Steering Committee and the Secretariat. It also provided an opportunity to know that the SWA Partnership is not a resources mobilization initiative, rather a facilitator for aligning Country led process to achieving goals set for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)

I had the opportunity to chair the session of Country led process (NPRI) and was able to update participants on progress and work in progress in Liberia. The main thing I will take away from this meeting is that most countries who are off track to meet the water and sanitation MDGs lack the required institutional framework, programs and plans to attract funding. If they do not develop credible programs and plans, they will not be adequately funded, it will result into a viscous cycle of remaining off-track.

Communication and advocacy are central to be able to share actions taken with one another at all level of interaction and our messages should be properly structured and well targeted in order to get required actions.

There was consensus that more will be required to get the required political support for WASH in many of the off-track countries. There was consensus that SWA should consolidate gains and expand cautiously. There was agreement that it will be important to analyze the context of each member requesting partnership support and provide such support based on assessed need. There was consensus that the Partnership was relevant but needed to consolidate efforts and continue to do what it does well, even better!

The Liberia Experience:
Liberia has made tremendous strides as a result of support from the SWA Initiative. Beginning with the birth of the Liberia WASH Compact from a discussing during the 2010 Africa Water Week in Addis  Ababa, Ethiopia, momentum has continued slowly but steadily. Driven by support from SWA Partners, a number of policy and policy instruments are now available. These include two policy documents, a sector strategic plan that has now been rolled out into a sector investment plan and costing, including a capacity development plan. There is an active coordinating forum with an active WASH Portal. Our expectations have not always matched the outcome of events, yet actions give hope that Liberia is moving in the right direction with the SWA Initiative.

George W. K. Yarngo, ASSISTANT MINISTER, Bureau of Community Services
Ministry of Public Works

Yiga Baker: Citizens’ voices need to be heard more strongly to achieve sanitation and water for all

Yiga Baker, Executive Secretary, African Civil Society Network for Water and Sanitation (ANEW) commenting on the SWA Partnership Meeting

After the first day of discussions at the SWA Partnership Meeting, it was clear to me that there is a great deal to be done to get the participants to an equal level of understanding on what SWA is all about. However, the background papers provided about the envisaged new SWA Framework ignited a good discussion and this will evolve in to a good framework for engagement in the future.

Lessons on successes and what needs to be done

There are lessons to be shared especially on what has been achieved. The only clarity we have is that we need to define the partnership, what it is, what it is trying to achieve and how it can be achieved.

We must involve the people to make impact

I have had discussions with the civil society groups represented here and one of the things that seems to be coming out is that if we want to have impact in the sector with whatever initiative put forward, it is important to take citizens’ voices in to account. What are they suggesting? If you are talking about monitoring, how can they get involved and what mechanism do you use to be sure that you listen to their voices? And, in terms of planning (which is a central focus of this particular aspect and coordination) we still need to focus on being able to bring the voices of the people from the ground.  We need to share feedback from all of these processes such as the high level meetings with them and we need to ensure that there is back and forth sharing of information.

My main takeaway from the meeting

What is very clear to me is that there is still a need for some more work for Sanitation and Water for All partnership to take root at the country level among the different key players. So the model that is taking place at the high level political process should move strongly to the national levels.