Six years on - what happened to theDublin principles?by Jon Lane' and Julie Jarman

In 1992, Dublin was the setting for theInternational Conference on Water and theEnvironment. Attended by the great and thegood from governments and major agencies, theConference issued a statement which neatlyencapsulates the principles and policies whichguide the W&S sector. But are these principlesbeing implemented effectively - or are theynothing more than Irish mist?

Ek Bahadur Ale, aged 14, drinks water in Satu Pasal, Nepal.

THE DUBLIN STATEMENT incorpo-rates four key principles:• fresh water is a finite and vulnerahleresource, essential to sustain life,development and the environment;• water development and managementshould be based on a participatoryapproach, involving users, plannersand policymakers at all levels;• women playa central part in the pro-vision, management and safeguard-ing of water; and• water has all economic value in allits competing uses, and should berecognized as an economic good.If we take these four statements in

turn, what progress been made in termsof implementation?• Fresh water is a finite and vulnera-ble resource, essential to sustain I(fe,development and the environment.There has been an obvious increase

in the level of awareness of this ques-tion at the global level- and this is tobe welcomed. Water received consider-able attention at Rio II in Apri I 1997,and wjll be high on the agenda again atthe annual meeting of the UN Commis-sion on Sustainable Development in1998, when a global fresh-water initia-tive will be launched.As both a cause and an effect of this

raised awareness, new internationalbodies have been created. The WorldWater Council was set up in 1995 toidentify critical water issues, provide aforum for debate and promote solu-tions, and later in the same year theGlobal Water Partnership was estab-lished both to support integrated water-resources management by governmentsin developing countries, and to proposepractical policies and good practice.But despite this dramatic rise in aware-

ness of the importance of fresh water,and of the need for integrated water man-agement, it is difficult to find good exam-ples of successful policy implementationin developing countries. This gapbetween policy and implementation canbe accounted for in a number of ways:• the effective management of waterresources is often held back becausethis tends to be a weak and poorlyresourced arm of government;• fragmentation is a major problem:various ministries set policy, and vari-ous departments do the work, but com-munication is often poor;• different ministries are often respon-sible for different services, for example,drinking-water, irrigation, and hydro-

10 WATERLINES VOL. ]6 NO.3 JANUARY 1998

Colabaia Vii/age, Chittagong, Bangladesh. Hiranbala Sheel - the handpump caretaker - iI/action.

<JlQ)

EoI

E~~Q)

~

power. Integrated solutions are, there-fore, elusive; in any case, irrigationoften receives top priority: its links withcommercial agriculture secure it thebacking of powerful forces, whereasdrinking-water and, in particular, sani-tation, lack powerful champions.• Water development and managementshould be hased on a participatoryapproach, involving users, plannersand policymakers at all levels.The gap between policy and implemen-tation is being bridged in a number ofcases - and there are good examplesof the participatory approach whereprojects and programmes engage users,planners and policymakers. But there isno room for complacency.WaterAid has identified a number of

constraints which can retard the devel-opment of participatory approaches:• it is always difficult to reach the peo-ple in greatest need. The poorest willbe the most marginalized, and theelderly, those with disabilities, and thesick are less likely to attend meetingsor be actively involved in a project;• it takes time, effort, skill, and com-mitment on the part of policymakersand field workers to reach out to andengage all members of a community.NGOs have invested, and should con-tinue to invest heavily to build up thecapacity of their partners to do thismore effectively;

• organizations responsible for imple-mentation need sufficient resources toconsult in detail with communities beforedrawing up project proposals - thisdemands a flexible approach to funding;• communities are not homogenous:different people have different priorities,so consensus may be hard-to reach;• inter-sectoral collaboration is oftenproblematic: it can be hard to breakdown traditional barriers between pro-fessions and departments. Entrenchedapproaches need to be abandoned and,perhaps, this can be best brought aboutby a move away from the meeting-room into the field; and• participation needs to be recognized atall levels, otherwise the decisions madeby an active community may well befrustrated by bureaucratic decision-mak-ing at another level in the system.Solutions to such constraints can be

found. We acknowledge that the partici-patory principle is better suited tosmall-sca]e projects than to major urbanareas, where a strong regulatory frame-work can be an effective surrogate. Cityor national authorities with a democra-tic mandate can act on behalf of thewider. community, setting sociallydesirable goals and demanding compli-ance from contractors and suppliers.In turn, the community can pass judge-ment on the authority's performancethrough the ballot box. In all cases,

participation is without doubt aninherently political question, presentingall the dilemmas and difficulties thatare involved in the political process.• WOlllenplaya central part in the pro-vision, 1II1Inllgelllellt al/d sajl'gllardillgof water.The need to involve women in deci-sion-making and in the management ofwater resources is increasinglyacknowledged in policy statements. butthe move from rhetoric to action ismore difficult. Progress in the imple-mentation of this policy is patchy andmuch remains to be done:Like other sector NGOs, Water Aid

seeks to ensure that women playa cen-tral role in all of its projects, and withsome success, but experience alsoshows how difficult it is to overcomethe constraints which include:• women already have huge demandson their time and, although a waterproject can reduce the time spent col-lecting water, the management of aproject adds to their workload;• when women are involved they tendto take the more time-consuming, lessprestigious roles on water committees.which are often chaired by men.Women-only committees can work insome contexts. but in other situations itis just as important to ensure that thework generated in implementing andmanaging a project is equitably shared

WATERLINES VOL. ]6 NO.3 JANUARY 1998 II

Kullumpatti, Tamil Nadu. Nagarathinan (left) and Sirumbayer (right) -pump caretakers - carry out routine maintenance.

c:c:Q)

a.Q)

.5eIII

~:.;:iii

~

between men and women; and• in WaterAid's experience, the deci-sion-making stage of a project is themost critical, and the participation ofwomen at this point is often held backbecause traditional decision-makingstructures do not allow for this.We have already suggested that the

participatory approach is easier toapply in small-scale projects. The samecan be said for the involvement ofwomen. The centres of power and deci-sion-making in all cultures tend toexclude women and be dominated bymen, and the participation of womenis, therefore, often defined and con-trolled by men. There is no reason tosuppose that the situation is any differ-ent in our own sector. Equally, wherewomen are involved in, and empow-ered by, a water and sanitation project,this can have a positive impact in otherareas of their lives.• Water has an economic value in allits competing uses and should be rec-ognized as an economic good.

The assertion of the economic valueof water has significant policy implica-tions and, whilst the consensus is clearlyshifting, this notion remains extremelycontroversial. For example, manynational governments no longer aim toprovide a free water service, but levycharges. The World Bank opposes sub-sidies and supports charges at cost price.Also high on the current agenda is thequestion of the privatization of the watersector in developing countries. This is,again, the preferred option of the WorldBank, although many national govern-ments remain unconvinced.The questions that flow from the

implementation of such policies aredifficult to answer. Are they likely toleave the poorest people better orworse off? Does the concentration onthe economic value of water over-shadow the equally important idea thatwater is also a social good?Sector NGOs are committed to work-

ing with partner organizations to bringsafe water, sanitation and hygiene

education to the poorest communItIesin both rural and urban areas. Centralto this approach is that communities, oroccasionally individuals and families,should take responsibility for financingthe operation and maintenance of theirwater projects. The contribution theymake to the initial capital costs variesfrom minimal to 100 per cent. In thisway, projects are based on an under-standing that water has an economicvalue, but that the assets are bestowned and managed by the commu-nity, for its benefit, and should not bein tht<private sector.There are also many people in the

water sector whose commitment to apublic-service ethos, or to the tradi-tional idea that water is a commonproperty, may render them reluctant toimplement the policy of privatization.

Mind the gap - a summaryThe process by which policy is imp]e-mented is neither fixed nor clear. Thereis an assumption that there is a 'trickledown' effect: in other words, policy-makers make decisions at the top andthese then filter down through the sys-tem to be implemented by practitionerson the ground. But, of course, thoseresponsible for implementing policyare at a distance from its initiation,they are unlikely to feel any sense ofownership of the policy, or may dis-agree with it entirely. They often haveconsiderable leeway in implementa-tion, particu]arly in countries wherecommunication is difficult.We have already suggested that some

of the most important policies for oursector are not being effectively imp]e-mented in practice. We have discussedsome of the more obvious constraints,but we have also suggested that thewater sector faces the same barriers tothe implementation of policy as facedby the providers of many other services.One solution may be to address more

seriously the question of grassrootsinvolvement in policy formation. Wherepractitioners are consulted they can con-tribute views and experiences from thefield and act as a conduit for communityviews. In this way, practitioners are farmore like]y to have a sense of policyownership and, therefore, be more com-mitted to their implementation.

Jail Lalle is Director and JI/lie Jarman isAdvocacy Manager at WaterAid. Both elm hecOlllacted at WaterAid. Prince Consort HOl/se,27-29 Alhert Emhankmelll, LOlldO/I, SEI 7UB,UK. Tel: +44 171 7934500. Fax: +44 171 7934545. E-mail: l\'ateraid@col11pIISen'e.('{}111

* In recognition of this, the July 1998 issue ofWaterlines examines how far women andwomen's issues have progressed in the W&Ssector.

]2 WATERLINES VOL. 16 NO, 3 JANUARY ]998