Mar
9
Improving the Water for the Poor Act
March 9, 2008 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
6 Comments
Two years ago, Congress passed the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act with broad bipartisan support. At the time, it was called “landmark legislation”, as Congress attempted to provide substance to the commitment to halve the number of people who have no access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2015, as prescribed by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/).
There was no money specifically appropriated for the Act. The legislation was supposed to be a first step to “elevate the role of water and sanitation in the development of U.S. foreign policy and improve the effectiveness of U.S. official programs.” While it was to provide strategy and coordination among the 14 government agencies involved in international water issues, it also issued a call to increase the level of resources towards water and sanitation for the poor. The State Department (www.state.gov) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (www.usaid.gov) are the two agencies most involved in the Act’s implementation.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that State and USAID are acting in good faith, especially regarding assistance to sub-Saharan Africa, one of the most destitute places on earth. As Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), one of the prime movers behind the Act, stated, “When Congress passes a law, it is not an option or a recommendation, but a requirement.” Blumenauer, before the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health on 16 May 2007, testified that the State Department was not only ignoring the intent of Congress but also its legal requirements vis-a-vis the Act.
What can be done? Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) has directed his staff, notably Natural Resources Director Valerie West and Legislative Fellow Candy Fenn (on loan from EPA) , to see what can be done to make agencies more proactive in implementing the Act.
I met with Valerie and Candy a few weeks ago along with Michael Curley, CEO of Environmental Finance, LLC, to brainstorm some ideas. We made the following suggestions, many of which were contributed by my colleagues Aaron Wolf and Todd Jarvis of Oregon State University (water.oregonstate.edu) and David Douglas, President of Water Advocates (www.wateradvocates.org):
- think systematically about a measure for water scarcity that incorporates both human security and environmental sustainability;
- prioritize regions, not countries, coordinating with local customs and governance structures, as well as incorporating our own security interests;
- perform a similar global assessment for shared water resources, prioritizing efforts where either the physical system or the governance structure can most readily be bolstered;
- designate and fund a senior position at USAID, reporting to the Administrator, to implement the Act;
- create an ambassadorial-level position at State for broad international water issues;
- place teams of technical water/sanitation specialists at USAID missions;
- involve the Peace Corps, especially since PC is anxious to recruit “older” volunteers with water and sanitation expertise;
- include specific authority to establish international drinking water and sanitation revolving funds;
- develop annual targets through 2015 to show anticipated progress toward attainment of the water-sanitation MDG;
- augment current annual reporting requirement to include establishment of a WWW site which provides readily-accessible information (interactive map) on locations and populations receiving water and sanitation through projects associated with the Act;
- encourage coordinated efforts among for-profits in their efforts to provide sustainable water infrastructure in developing countries; and
- engage faith-based and similar groups, and encourage them to use sustainable approaches.
The above is a work in progress, but we are optimistic.
We also discussed convening a meeting (probably no more than 100) of “heavy hitters” and others to exchange ideas, approaches, etc.
What are your thoughts?
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
6 Comments so far
Subscribe
I agree with everything which transpired as a result of the brainstorming seesion. However, several things have to happen within the group. Are we looking into only water quantity or water quality as well? The sanitation problem associated with the wastewater disposal sometime causes quality degradation of the groundwater resources. But at the same time most surface water bodies are contaminated in the DC. I think in many situations a groundwater source might be preferable to the extent that it may be used without pretreatment.
Also, many communities in the DC world have natural salinity problem. I think geophysical methods (such as EM Surveys) can point out such areas ahead of time.
I think these guidelines should also be incorporated at the State and the USAID level.
I think the Peace Corps volunteers would be an excellent approach to identify water needs and implement water supply projects. However, they are completely unfunded at present. They are sent to remote villages where upwards of 80% need clean water supplies, and then they are left on their own to raise the money needed to install a system. Most volunteers focus on education and awareness projects rather than construction of much needed water supplies because of the cost. Just give the Peace Corps funds to do the projects, and their volunteers will find the most cost effective solution.
Overall, this initiative seems worthwhile. Three comments to add to the discussion:
-1- A major piece of the puzzle (in my mind) that seems to be missing from the list above is to work with our colleagues at universities and government agencies in our partner countries to help build the next generation of professional infrastructure in their countries (and improve our own understanding of development challenges). This might include collaborative research projects, courses taught at the partner institutions, and international exchange of scholars.
-2- With respect to the Peace Corps idea – a caution or an opportunity (depends on point of view). These volunteers are indeed an incredible resource and can likely be trained to contribute substantially to this effort. However, at present, they are often not trained in water issues and may therefore not be in a position to provide useable or replicable data regarding water resource needs (please note: I have complete faith that they COULD provide reliable information if properly trained and resourced). Further, they may not be well connected to the government and NGO structures in their host country that may have critical resources, insight, and experience to bring to bear on local water issues. Hence, I would urge us to be very careful about placing too much reliance on the judgement of (particularly the young) volunteers unless we: (i) are willing to provide appropriate technical training and support of their efforts, (ii) provide them with appropriate socioeconomic skill sets to ensure that they have a chance to determine population priorities for water resources, (iii) help them to develop communication pipelines with appropriate NGO and government agencies in their region to increase consistency/efficacy among projects, and (iv) (as noted by Bill Cocke) are ready to help them with the resources they need to address the water needs that they identify (and we are willing to provide for long-term support / assessment of these projects after the volunteers have left the country). We could perhaps accomplish this by partnering with the Peace Corps to develop appropriate training opportunities – further, we could probably learn alot from the experiences of Michigan Tech and their masters programs involving Peace Corps volunteers.
-3- Building on Jim Shirazi’s comment – the pressures on the local populations obvioursly extend well beyond water (quantity or quality). Therefore, as we move forward, we should be open to partnering with other groups who are working on such issues as agriculture, animal husbandry, local economics, local health issues, primary/secondary educational initiatives, etc so that the overall impact on the local population can be more holistic and more consistent with authentic human development.
Like the 12 approaches. Just having returned from North and South Darfur, I would only add that we do not want to overlook the people to be served. Where do they want, need water; how are they structured to manage a water source; what training would they like; what is needed in the way of infrastructure to insure best use; what are sanitation training needs to insure quality; and more. Any approach needs to be from local level on up. In too many instances we attempt to tell those in need instead of asking them.
Thank you Larry Cerrillo, DIDO!
At the risk of exposing my ignorance of the subject, I would like to ask, what are the chances that successful efforts in providing water to locals, would make them a target of the groups responsible for the instability in those areas? would the same groups (or gov’ts) responsible for interception of financial and humanitarian aid, hamper efforts to secure water resources? with a lack of physical security, how long would the intended recipients of the developed resources, be able to benefit from them? My questions stem from the limited information available to the general public for some of the regions related to the ‘Water for the Poor Act’. Thanks in advance to anyone taking the time to enlighten me. Lp