Fighting the tide

This post by Kathleen Dominique from the OECD Environment Directorate is part of the Wikiprogress series on 'Water' and the 'Environment'. 

Preparing for the water-related impacts of climate change

Headlines of record‑breaking water-related disasters around the world – whether flood or drought – are a sign of things to come. As Lord Stern recently warned, the extreme weather events witnessed in many parts of the world reflect “a pattern of global change that it would be very unwise to ignore”. Recently, the UK and French floods have been in the news, but flooding is just one type of natural disaster and in fact, if you look at 2012 data from Munich Re, floods account for less than 13% of economic losses from natural hazards compared to 59% for storms and 16% for forest fires and droughts – hence the need to think broadly about water security.

© Dachalan, 2007

Water-related impacts are one of the main ways that we are seeing and feeling the effects of climate change. We can expect more torrential rains, floods and droughts in many areas. Events that were once considered “exceptional circumstances” are now becoming commonplace.

The cost of impacts of these events can be substantial and are set to rise in the future. According to data gathered in a recent OECD survey on water and climate change adaptation, flood risk is projected to increase significantly across the UK. Annual damage to UK properties due to flooding from rivers and the sea currently totals around GBP 1.3 billion. For England and Wales alone, the figure is projected to rise to between GBP 2.1 billion and GBP 12 billion by the 2080s, based on future population growth and if no adaptive action is taken.

A recent OECD review of actions governments are taking to prepare for water-related impacts of climate change found that nearly all OECD countries ranked extreme events (floods and droughts) among their primary concerns. This comprehensive review of policies for water and climate change adaptation is one way that the OECD has been tracking progress on preparing for a more risky and more uncertain future.

At the OECD, we recommend governments undertake a robust assessment of risks – and that’s somewhere we’re seeing progress. In fact, it’s one of the most active areas of climate change adaptation in OECD countries. This is positive – but this evidence base then needs to spur action. Governments need to determine what is an “acceptable level” of risk by balancing the benefits and costs of taking pre-emptive action. On the one hand, nobody wants to have their property flooded, but on the other, completely eliminating flood risk is often not possible and a high-level of protection is very costly. Once an acceptable level of risk has been set, governments need to explore the options open to them, and that includes sharing responsibility between the public and private sectors when investing in infrastructure, devising insurance schemes, as well as in emergency response.  

As we expect to see more severe weather events around the world, we need to understand that anticipation can avoid future costs. For example, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre estimates that EUR 1 invested in flood protection can result in EUR 6 of avoided damage costs. Investments in early warning systems and emergency preparedness have significantly reduced casualties in Hurricane-prone countries. Austria and Germany made smart investments in flood defences after floods in 2002, and that served them well when water levels rose again last year.

However, sometimes avoiding risks altogether is cheaper than building infrastructure to protect against them. Protection measures are not only about building hard infrastructure but we can use innovative architecture and landscape solutions – such as “green roofs”, “blue belts” or restored wetlands – so that nature is part of the solution.

That said, since we can’t predict the exact timing or magnitude of weather events, it’s very hard to get the timing and investment level right when taking preventative action. At a time when many governments are working under tight budget constraints, it’s even more vital that investments are well-thought out. The most cost-effective approaches to climate change adaptation are the most flexible and forward-looking ones, and the OECD has recommended a range of policy tools and investment approaches. This includes infrastructure design and financing techniques that can be scaled up or down over time, as needed. 

To see what OECD countries are doing to help prepare, check out www.oecd.org/env/resources/waterandclimatechange.htm

Transparency and governance in the land sector: two sides of the same coin?

This blog, written by ODI's Anna Locke, discusses land governance and transparency definitions, initiatives and key lessons. The post is part of Wikiprogress' spotlight on governance. 

Land transparency has been on the public agenda again since the G8 summit in June this year. Two events in the same week in October showcased the issue: the Open Government Partnership annual summit in London (which publicised the recent Open Government Guide on Land), and the Global Soil Week conference in Berlin, which dedicated a session to partnerships for responsible land governance – an issue that is rarely discussed by soil scientists. 

A couple of things hit me from these recent discussions. First, the public discussion has broadened from land transparency to land governance. The G8 communique published in June does not refer to a land transparency initiative as such but talks about ‘global activities to improve land tenure governance’. 

Transparency served as an immediate umbrella to bring together different initiatives in a very short time in the run-up to the G8 summit 2013 but seems to have been a launch pad rather than the end point. Similarly, the Open Government Guide on Land focuses on land governance while acknowledging the need for transparency, participation and accountability at the heart of open government. 

I welcome this broader agenda as it provides more of a framework to see how transparency can effect meaningful change.

However, at the risk of being pedantic on this issue (I have form on this– see my blog on the World Bank conference) once again, I want to pin down the terms of the debate and look at the underlying assumptions. It is important to make sure that we are all talking about the same thing, particularly as we prepare for an ODI Roundtable on the whole issue of Land Transparency in December.

First, definitions

What is land governance? The Open Government Guide on Land defines it as a series of processes, including recognition, registration and enforcement of land tenure rights, land-use administration, management planning and taxation, information provision and dispute resolution.

It then identifies the elements that characterise good governance: governments should help to ensure that these processes are ‘clear, transparent and fair… [with] human rights of citizens protected’; that they include‘accountable decision-making about how best to use land… improving the openness’[of those processes, I assume]; and that they ensure ‘consultation with those potentially affected by changes… [which] can help communities and households protect their rights’. 

The Guide suggests the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) mechanism launched by the World Bank as the main reference point for a baseline evaluation of the state of land governance. The LGAF measures governance in five thematic areas: legal and institutional framework; land use planning, management and taxation; management of public land; public provision of land information; and dispute resolution and conflict management. In turn, the main reference point for the LGAF is the World Bank’s definition of governance as the ‘manner in which public officials and institutions acquire and exercise the authority to shape public policy and provide public goods and services’. 

I would be more specific on two things. Yes, the discussion of land governance highlights the issue of how institutions can carry out the work of land titling, registration and administration. But it also needs to look at how they take and implement decisions on land – who takes part in decisions on land allocation, use and management, and how different interests in competing social and economic functions of land are reconciled. That goes beyond consultation. Indeed, it goes to the heart of the political economy of decision-making and the power relations that are involved. This is recognised implicitly in the Open Government Guide in its recommendation for participatory land and resource use planning. 

And what is the role of the private sector in all of this? Does the shift (back?) from transparency to governance mean a refocusing on governments, instead of the broader private sector actors targeted under pre-G8 discussions? These have been targeted directly through efforts to increase contract disclosure and public provision of information on holdings.

Second, what is the relationship that is assumed between transparency and governance? 

The G-8 Communique talks about the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure as ‘providing global policy guidance for good land governance and transparency’. So are they of equal importance or does one feed into the other?

The Open Government Guide takes the transparency of processes as a central element that feeds into governance (openness and accountability are others). The LGAF recognises the role of transparency in promoting better governance in the land sector, particularly in land-use restrictions, valuations, expropriation, the transfer of public to private land and in levying fees for different services provided by governments. Its emphasis on the provision of information, particularly through registries and cadastres, is the starting point for transparency in any form. 

The work of ODI (ADP,PoGo) and others, such as Global Witness, on transparency reveals a growing recognition of the importance of transparency for good governance. But it also shows that transparency is not enough, on its own to achieve the standard of governance in the land sector that we are striving for. This was also acknowledged in the Berlin discussions in October.

So, what can we take away from this? I see three key lessons.

1. Yes, the shift to a broader perspective on land governance is useful. But we need to acknowledge areas of agreement and difference on what we mean by governance, particularly in the presence of conflicting interests in land processes, and recognise the role of the private sector. 
2. We need to be clear about the role of transparency in promoting good governance – transparency and governance are not two sides of the same coin although progress on one depends on progress in the other. 
3. And finally, let’s carry the debate on the pathways from transparency to accountability to meaningful change into the debate on governance. This means talking about the content, timing and transmission of information; mechanisms and timescales to ensure meaningful participation and consultation; and getting accurate indicators that measure impact, not just processes.

All of these will issues were discussed at the ODI Roundtable on Land Transparency at ODI on 10 December 2013.

- Anna Locke

*The blog first appeared on 20 November 2013 on the ODI blog site. 

This post features the author's personal view and does not represent the view of ODI.    

Sanitation in schools

This blog, written by Wikichild co-ordinator Melinda Deleuze, is a part of the Wikiprogress September spotlight on "Education and skills". Also, in conjunction with the OECD's 2013 World Water Week, the post discusses the need for improved water and sanitation in schools and various organizations' efforts.

It is important to focus on improving school’s sanitation standards, because children are often the most vulnerable to diseases, according to wateraid.org. Children also take new ideas and habits back to their homes and families, increasing programs’ impact. 

Only 49% of schools around the world provide drinking water to its pupils and 11% of schools provide water for handwashing. In Kenya, although 63% of schools provided drinking water, only 27% had treated water. Also, while 63% of schools in Kenya have handwashing water available to its students, only 8% of schools have soap. Studies show that handwashing with soap can reduce the risk of diarrheal disease by more than 42% (Curtis and Caincross, 2003). 

Over the past few years, multiple organizations have been working hard to increase the number of schools with drinking water, sanitation facilities and handwashing stations. According to the Sanitation and Water for All project update (April 2013), in the past year, Nigeria mobilized private sector resources for provision of WASH facilities in over 700 schools.

Sustaining and Scaling School Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Plus Community Impact (SWASH+), also known as "WASH in schools", is a project established to identify, develop, and test innovative approaches to school-based water, sanitation and hygiene in Kenya. Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Global Water Challenge, the project has been running since 2006 with the help of CARE, Emory University’s Center for Global Safe Water, the Government of Kenya, Kenya Water for Health Organisation, Water.org, and SANA. SWASH+ has worked in 185 primary schools in four districts in Nyanza Province, gathering data, learning about challenges and testing solutions for school water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). SWASH+ provides a base package, which includes:

1. Provision of water for drinking in safe storage containers
2. Daily treatment of drinking water with an appropriate technology
3. Provision of water for handwashing
4. Daily provision of soap

After the 5-year project, SWASH+ found that:

• Absenteeism is significantly reduced among girls, with an average of 6 days fewer absences per year.
• There was a 45% overall reduction of ascaris, and an even greater decrease among girls. Also, the intensity of hookworm infection significantly declined among boys.
• Unfortunately, there were higher quantities of E. coli bacteria on pupils’ hands who received hygiene, water treatment and sanitation facilities. A study by the European Journal of Tropical Medicine and International Health (2009) found that only 32% of Kenyans wash their hands after fecal contact.

Sapling handwashing, Malawi. Photo: Plan Malawi

Another program working towards increasing drinking water, sanitation facilities and handwashing stations in schools is the Pan African School Led Total Sanitation (SLTS) program. This program is targeting 742 schools in 6 sub-Saharan countries (i.e. Sierra Leone; Ethiopia; Uganda; Kenya; Zambia; Ghana; Niger; Malawi). In each country, the SLTS program follows the same process to facilitate the necessary activities to trigger the schools’ and communities’ progress:

1. Discuss with the government’s Health and Education sectors, plan at different levels and reach an agreement;
2. Train teachers who then train students how to use the school latrine and surrounding water and sanitation areas, as well as playing games which help internalize sanitation and hygiene concerns;
3. Register households for monitoring;
4. Conduct a school sanitation campaign, cleaning the whole school compound;
5. Group community into Development Units and establish these groups’ meeting places and times (meetings take place at schools);
6. Establish a committee of six for each Development Unit who facilitate discussion and prepare a report;
7. Monitor progress with these reports.

The SLTS program’s 5-year period runs through next year (2014), and this process can be reviewed and changed before the next Pan Africa program begins.

Water and sanitation needs to improve in schools in order to increase school attendance among girls and decrease sickness among all children. Top-down and bottom-up forces are needed to help children become more educated and safer around the world. 

  

 Melinda Deleuze

Week in Review

Hello Wikiprogress followers and welcome to this Week in Review! This week’s highlights include a UN report on human rights in the context of the post-2015 agenda, an update from UNICEF on global progress on sanitation and drinking water and an Oxfam report on risk and poverty reduction.

Released this week, the UN’s Who will be Accountable? – Human Rights and the Post-2015 Development Agenda – calls on countries to ensure that the post-2015 development agenda focuses on equality, social protection and accountability, noting that one billion people around the world are still living in poverty. 

“The rise of inequality has severely undermined the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs,” UN Spokesman, 21^st May 2013

Public sector innovation and e-government Egypt

The “OECD E-Government Review of Egypt” assesses Egyptian e-government policies and implementation, and makes recommendations for future actions. The report highlights Egypt’s progress and proposes that to enhance the use of ICTs in the public sector Egypt should undertake a number of measures. Find out more!

No Accident - Resilience and the Inequality of Risk – This report from Oxfam stipulates that governing bodies and aid agencies must challenge the politics and power at the heart of the increasing effects of climate change, growing inequality and people’s vulnerability to disasters. Oxfam highlights the increasing threat of various major external risks and points out that the majority of these are actively dumped on poor people, with women bearing the brunt because of their social, political and economic status. 

Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water - 2013 Update – UNICEF’s annual report card presents country, regional and global estimates on improvements (or lack of them) in access to drinking water and sanitation. According to the publication, the world will not meet the MDG sanitation target of 75% and if current trends continue, it is set to miss the target by more than half a billion. To find out more about sanitation inequality, read our recent Progblog article on the subject.  

The right poverty measure for post-2015 – is part of a series of blogs that debate how a post-2015 framework ought to measure poverty. This article by Stephan Klasen, Professor of development economics and empirical economic research at the University of Göttingen, puts forward a proposal for internationally coordinated national poverty measurement. 

Thanks for checking in - we are pleased to inform you that our theme of the month in June will be Environment so we look forward to bringing you articles, blogs and Week in Reviews related to the subject in the coming weeks!

The Wikiprogress Team

From the Bottom to the Top: One Step to Improving Global Sanitation

This article by Robbie Lawrence, Wikichild Coordinator, considers how global sanitation can be improved in the context of the International Federation of Red Cross’s ‘Getting the Balance Right’ report. This is part of the Wikiprogress #Health Series. 

"Communities in rural areas and urban settlements must be empowered to increase their resilience through access to safe water, improved sanitation and effective hygiene promotion." Getting the Balance Right, International Federation of Red Cross, 2013

This post follows on from Wednesday's blog on the dangers of diarrhoea by focusing on the disease’s chief causation: poor sanitation. Currently 3.4 million people die each year from water, sanitation and hygiene-related causes (Water.org). An estimated 2.5 billion do not have access to basic sanitation and 1.1 billion of those people practice open defecation. This is not only degrading but a severe health risk as fecal matter-oral transmitted diseases cause at least 1.5 million deaths per year in children under the age of five (Getting the Balance Right). As Gary White and Matt Damon so bluntly put it, by the time you’ve read this paragraph, another child will have died from something that is eminently preventable.  

In the same way that inequality has reared its head in the post-2015 discussions, forcing global leaders to consider how poverty reduction might be carried out more equitably in the future, it is evident that we need to address water and sanitation issues. The "Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation 2012" report by the WHO and UNICEF highlights that, although the MDG target of halving the number of people globally without access to improved water source will be fulfilled by the MDG 2015 deadline, the target for sanitation is unlikley to be met.  

More often than not aid donors and development agencies have aimed at providing clean and safe water supplies rather than making sanitation a priority. As it stands, sanitation only receives 12 percent of global aid put towards combatting water and sanitation related issues. In the short term this trajectory make sense, since water is usually in more immediate demand, however, if diarrhoea and other hygiene related illnesses are to be dealt with, access to sanitation facilities must be increased. The ‘Getting the balance right’ report emphasizes that ‘neither water nor sanitations is more important: both elements are required to maintain and improve health and dignity.’

Water.org argues that the inability of philanthropic efforts to efficiently deal with the problem of poor sanitation has been a problem in the past. Even the money that has gone towards solving the issue has largely missed the goal of providing relief for those most in need. The organization recognized that if local communities were to make progress, independent of donors, then they must be viewed and view themselves as the owners of the project. Community ownership is the linchpin of Water.org’s philosophy. Without an active engagement from communities from the start of a project to its completion there is a strong likelihood that previously entrenched social norms such as public defecation will continue.

The ‘Getting the Balance Right’ report delivers a similar message, and uses a number of examples of community-based initiatives that have succeeded in improving sanitation. In Eritrea, a country where only three percent of its rural population has access to sanitation, the IFRC and the EU implemented a program focused on mobilizing and educating women in hygiene knowledge that reached a total of 145,000 people in 120 villages. By empowering these local women and providing them with  information, the program motivated them to become promoters of sanitation within their own communities. The Water.org website also lists various bottom to the top initiatives that have shown remarkable success rates. An Emory University review of a Water.org community based ventures in Lempira, Honduras reported that 100 per cent of the project sites were still operational after 10 years with 98 per cent of respondents satisfied with the system.

Since poor sanitation is now firmly in the crosshairs of policy makers and aid groups, it seems that the Water.org and IRFC have laid out a fairly effective framework for combating the problem. Changing intrinsic social norms from the routes of a community appears a far more effective means of catalyzing change than large, trickle down cash injections. The flow of international water aid must of course be rebalanced towards sanitation, but organizations, governments and NGOs need to go further and ensure that it reaches the right groups and individuals. The stark reality of IRCF’s report brings to light the vital role that sanitation plays in human health and dignity:  

"Let us speak clearly; the single largest cause of human illness globally is faecal matter. A society – regardless of how many clinics or water supply points it has – can never be healthy is human waste is not safely disposed of." Getting the Balance Right

Robbie Lawrence