Water For All at the XXIst Century

Multi-actor Meeting organised by Bridge Initiative

16th October 2006 - Dijon

Introduction

Bridge Initiative brings together actors whose complex political realities would a priori seem to be opposed, with a view to developing an understanding both what divides and what unites them. This type of meeting develops the democratic practice of exchange of opinions that allows free speech to reach beyond all representation. It also rehabilitates the simplicity of exchange and leads to discussion of the real political stakes.

In 2005 an initial meeting developed the perspective of the consensual and divergent aspects, and, most importantly, fostered a climate of listening and trust.

In order to meet the expectations of the participants in the October 4th 2005 meeting, the 2006 meeting was based on the experience of countries confronted by problems of access to and distribution of water, in order to allow participants to reflect on possible solutions. Two countries were selected to facilitate discussion between actors: Morocco, which has a diversity of water management models, and Mali, which provokes discussion on the questions of the price of water, and water for free, while presenting the management models of these countries.

Bridge Initiative also spent part of the meeting holding discussions in small groups of 2 -6 people, in order to clarify expectations and develop ideas of possible joint actions.

Conclusion: Proposals made by participants on what consensus is possible and follow-up to the dialogue

Several participants spoke of the respect shown for differences. This exchange should not necessarily lead to consensus, but rather allow the dialogue to be structured. There are radical differences that we can not change; dialogue is nevertheless necessary, and conflicts can be costly.

At the end of the meeting all the participants expressed their opinion on the points of agreement that seemed possible and made proposals as to how best to pursue this type of dialogue:

Finance - Cost and price structure:
-Differentiate water as a resource and as a service
-Subsidise connection rather than consumption
- Provide massive subsidies for access to water and sanitation
- Implement a system of payment based on solidarity whereby the rich pay more than the poor rather than providing water free of charge
-Examine the possibilities of alternative finance in greater depth, and with different approaches to egalitarian payment. Examine the system in certain Northern countries

Management - Governance - Transparency
- Get additional funding for implementing MDGs . This money should be spent according to certain rules based on International law. It is necessary to understand these rules, and there should be a mandatory aspect.
- Get a higher level of transparency from all those providing a service of access to and management of water.
-Do these mechanisms exist at national level?
-Are these mechanisms sufficient?
- Should they become international?
- Make legal instruments mandatory for both public and private actors
- Use local rather than foreign expertise. The World bank and other International Financial Institutions should not make loans conditional on privatisation.
- Create decision-making platforms where civil society is a stakeholder from the outset in terms of good governance
- Associate local populations and institutions in the decision-making process.

General - Principles
- Carry out impact studies, particularly on impacts of certain policies on the poor.
- Agreement on the real divide between the connected and the unconnected
- Access to water is an inalienable right
- Public sector should be the highest priority
- Certain countries have emergency conditions (wars and armed conflicts) and are concerned neither by the public not the private sector. How can we work on these difficult zones? Will private companies go into countries that are at war? What do we do in extreme conditions?
- Have a joint base of shared knowledge, different from capitalisation.

Areas of divergence

Up to what point can we consider disagreement are enriching, and when do they hinder development?
The greatest area of disagreement is on the role of the private sector.

Continuing the Dialogue

- Continue the dialogue taking the international fixtures into account
- It would also be good to include some « unconverted » people in the discussions, people from English-speaking Africa, Latin America, and Asia, as well as representatives from Asia, China or India.
- It is necessary to reinforce the political representation
- Speak more about the legal aspects and law surrounding water
- Create a steering committee in order to prepare the next meeting
- Present radically different case studies: large cities, countries in difficulty
- Create a small representative delegation of participants who would carry out a field survey and write a report on the agreements and disagreements of the group, thus providing the basis for new discussion.

Results of the questionnaire

Out of 22 participants (excluding moderators, interpreters and observers) 3 failed to respond to the questionnaire. In spite of this, the evaluation of the meeting is interesting.
We can draw the following conclusions from the replies:

1- The majority of the participants expressed satisfaction with the meeting, even if the objectives were not sufficiently clear at the outset.
2- Several participants feel that they learned things and/or hear things that surprised them.
3- Multi-stakeholder dialogue is necessary and useful even if change is not really tangible.
4- People are interested in developing a better understand of other peoples' visions and improving understanding
5- We came close to agreement on the question of finance (subsidising access rather than consumption)
6- The idea of creating a preparatory committee for the next meeting was approved by a majority of the participants as well as the idea of a field study by a small group.

Proceedings of the meeting

The rules of the debate.

The meeting took place using the Chattam House rules, which imply that all quotations and comments made by participants when quoted outside the room were not nominative. It is important that each participant speak in their own name, and as a concerned individual. This proposal was validated by all participants

Objectives of the meeting for Bridge Initiative:

 

For Bridge Initiative, the actors in any given field be involved in the identification of the problems and attempts to find solutions.

For Bridge Initiative, these meetings are an attempt to bring together a sufficient diversity of viewpoint to:
1- Confront ideas
2- Identify what the possible areas of agreement might be as well as confirm the points of disagreement
3- Conclude the exercise with a will to move forward in terms of dialogue and concrete action proposals to be jointly carried out

Participants' expectations

An initial round of expression allowed the expectations to be classified into two major categories: improved understanding of positions in general and a desire to find practical solutions

Understanding each others' positions

- Improve understanding of the diversity of positions of the other participants
- Reduce misunderstandings between different actors
- Achieve a better analysis and understanding of the failure of privatisations
- Check the understanding of the various actors: Do we all understand the same things?
- Create a debate that will allow the participants to be self-critical, recognise the arguments of others and the flaws of their own arguments
- Go beyond the ideological debate of public/private
- Gain a better understanding of how the private sector intervenes in the world

Find practical solutions

- Address the problems of the sector and aim to satisfy the needs for water
- Find a model that involves strong regulation by a central authority to outweigh the two excesses: all private or local authorities.
- How to improve management on the ground of concrete problems, in particular the question of migrants and their power over systems of access to water which they own
- Solve the idea of free provision in Mali, which is a very poor country. Someone needs to pay for the service (the State, consumers, financial institutions, other...)
- Raise awareness of the financial institutions to the need to take a more sensitive approach, on a case-by case-basis.
- Find solutions and not just one solution
- Find a third way: public water management that takes the inequalities of urban and rural milieus into account
- Exchange practice between different actors
- Get suggestions as to how to reinforce local capacities in the context of decentralisation

Consider the expectations in greater depth and reflect on actions

The participants worked in groups of 6 to consider the need for dialogue and the potential actions that could be carried out jointly

Group 1

Need to dialogue on:
1- How to overcome ideological differences
2- Acting and finding joint solutions

Observations
1- It is necessary to state the level of dialogue, and use concrete cases as a starting point. There is no dialogue possible if the political institutions of representative democracy are not enhanced. Parliament is the natural place for dialogue to occur, but this kind of democratic instance does not exist at international level.
So how can dialogue be improved, and how can we provide ourselves with international democratic structures?

Actions
1- Give BII the responsibility for carrying out comparative analysis on the different visions concerning the problem of the right to water and law governing water.
2- Think about performance indicators for evaluating concrete cases
3- Reconsider the institutions

 

Group 2

Positive points:
1- General recognition of the right to water is considered to be a positive evolution by all the actors
2- Solutions need to take the reality on the ground into consideration
3- Importance of the implication of populations in the conception of the solutions
4- Virtue of interpersonal dialogue to clarify people's positions.

Nuances :
1- It is necessary to be more precise about what is meant by the right to water. Is it possible for water to be free, and up to what point?
2- The importance of semantics: for example, it is necessary to talk about « the price of water management » rather than « the price of water » because water has no price.
It is also to be noted that people no longer talk of privatisation, but rather of public-private partnerships or public-public partnerships. Does this just indicate a shift in terminology, or is there a real evolution? It needs to correspond to real change at local level.
3- The dictates of responsibility and transparency should also hold true for the public sector. Elected representatives need to play an important role to avoid unacceptable practice.
4- What can we do to live less in separate worlds?

Group 3

1- There is a comprehension problem between stakeholders, and it's like a war of religion. Is it possible to have certain areas of understanding?
2- It sometimes appears more difficult to discuss with the private sector on public regulations than it is with the public sector.
3- If we wish to share joint goals on the question of water, it is necessary for everyone to be more self-critical and modest
4- We have tools to evaluate the progress of the last 25 years;
In the ‘90s, the global framework of the World Bank, conceived as the model for Public-Private partnerships as the one and only solution, did not work. The private sector recognises that they can ensure management, but they are not prepared to invest.
5- On the question of choice between public or private, there is a real diversity of management methods. Everything depends on the local situation and the scale of the project. But the management method must needs be depend on the local authorities, and strong public regulation. How can this strong public regulation be made more legitimate?

Group 4

1-What are we discussing? There is the diversity of stakes, actors, environments. This makes it necessary to share and bring everyone up to the same level of information. The important thing is to have a shared level of knowledge.
2-The notion of the Right to Water is perceived as a false consensus that hides real questions. As soon as we enter the realm of the concrete and implementation, disagreements come to light, particularly concerning the question of profits, money, the client and solvability.
3-The question of ‘free of charge' is a minefield, and full of contradictions: the fight for water free of charge is still alive, but there are contradictions as to the way this should be implemented, and the instruments to be used; For example, the proposal to create a global fund for water would be in contradiction with local management, and managing locally.
4-It is necessary to capitalise on the successful experiences of setting rates and free of cost.
5- It is urgent to open up the debate to users, not only within social fora, but also in much more specific contexts (local, regional). This means creating preparatory mechanisms.
6- Consider the question of whether profit is legitimate or not in public services. It is the question of how to share the added value.
7-Should there be a hierarchy of water users? Negotiations are carried out at state level, leaving out the local authorities who will be responsible for managing the service. This is a real problem.
8- Slogan: Make water, not war

Presentation of the concrete case studies: the experience of Morocco and Mali
Of the management of access to water and sanitation and Public/Private partnerships.

Morocco

Khadidja Bourarach
University lecturer, specialist on questions of food and drinking water in rural areas - Morocco.

Morocco belongs to one of the water-poorest regions of the world, and is situated in the region that suffers most from a deficit in water.
Of the 30 million inhabitants, 13,5 million live in rural areas, in 32,000 villages.

There are 2 different situations in Morocco:

1. Urban areas = private delegation of water management, which is developing fast. General supplies are good and well planned.

The existing problems concern semi-urban populations who were overlooked for a long time, socio-economic inequalities and the rural/urban inequality.

1. Rural areas = There is considerable diversity, and sub-contracting to the private sector is under consideration and almost half the population has access to water. In 1995 only 14% of the population has running water ; at present the official figures show 60% are connected. This figure needs to be considered with a relative perspective, as not all systems are operational, and the reality is closer to 50%. Nevertheless, there has been a considerable effort in the last 10 years; particularly via the PAGER programme (a programme of collective connection in rural areas) which is based on a participative approach of the beneficiaries.

Al connection in rural areas has been carried out by the ONEP since 2004. Individual connection creates a divide between rich and poor. In general poor people have access to water fountains, and the rich are individually connected. The ONEP plans on giving people the choice.

Management methods:
There is considerable diversity of management methods
- Direct: local authorities with 500 rural centres of which 4/5 are county towns.
- Autonomous municipal management: this approach concerns 30% of Moroccan subscribers
- Delegated management with several operators. ONEP manages 316 centres, covering approximately 4 million inhabitants
- Self-managing / A participative approach allows people to provide input in developing projects, choice of management and connection. Sine 1995, 5,500 associations and 5,600 villages have opted for this solution.
- The ONEP management system based on franchise management of the water points: this is an interesting solution where the associations have reached their limits, particularly in the case of the water fountains.
Some prefer to work with public operators (in the North), others with participative management (in the South), because they have experience based on irrigation.

The private-sector concessions concern four large towns in Morocco. This represents advantages in terms of investment capacity and the obligation to connect poor neighbourhoods. Véolia is present in Tangiers, Tetouan, Rabat and Suez in Casablanca.

How people perceive the situation: There is an increase in rates, degradation in service provided in certain towns like Rabat. The privatisation was carried out too fast, and without taking the need for poor people to have access to water.

In rural areas, the following question remains: What solutions would allow for a fair balance between urban and rural areas, between rich and poor in terms of rates charged ?

Mounir Zouggari
Central Manager, responsible for Audit and Organisation ONEP. (National Office of Drinking Water) in Morocco.

ONEP is a public company and the only producer of drinking water for the whole country (apart from people who have their own private wells). 16 major towns have a system managed directly and since 1996, four concessions have been contracted out to the private sector. : Casablanca (Suez), Rabat, Tangiers and Tetouan (initially to a Spanish-Portuguese company, subsequently to Véoilia).

Townships (communes) are responsible for distribution. They can choose to either manage themselves, create a specific management structure, to sub-contract either to the private or the public sector. The ONEP works with 457 towns, where the water management has been contracted out to them. They respond to tenders with a public-private partnership offer at local level.
The ONEP is financially stable and makes a profit. The 2005 turn-over was 193 million euros with a net declared profit of 22 million, cash-flow of 170 million and investments totalling approximately 28 million euros.
Since 2001 there has been increased access of rural populations to drinking water; the objective is to reach 92% by 2008. The present rate of connection for rural areas is 72%.
Isolated rural areas are provided for by collective solutions and group access. There are water fountains with manager-wardens. These fountains are standardised. Water is sold at the ONEF rate, with a variable percentage that can be negotiated.

Morocco's difficulty is not urban but rural. And in the environment, the key question is how to guarantee long-term water management in rural areas. Who should do this? Water distribution does not fall into the ONEP's field of expertise. It is therefore necessary to consider the introduction of the private sector at this level, and develop private production partnerships.
There are two interesting examples where the ONEP has created subsidiaries of ONEP and ONE (National Water Board) which manage agglomerations of towns including the surrounding rural areas. The role of the public sector is to create the corresponding private sector. Why not revert to local private companies, created initially by the public sector?
For the future, studies have been commissioned by the Ministry for the Interior, which is responsible for local government, and the Ministry for Water and the environment. At the end of the day, it is the local township that is the decision-making instance as far as management methods are concerned.

Mali

Boubacar Macina :
Manager and member of the 2Aep consultancy. This consultancy works in the field of provision of drinking water and sanitation in semi-rural areas.

The national strategy of Mali that was voted in 2002 takes the decentralisation reform into account; this implies that townships take responsibility for public works of infrastructures in terms of project design, fund-raising, contracted maintenance and organisation of the management.

The Kayes region is comprised of 1560 villages; 512 of these have no modern water access point. Of these 512 villages, 337 fall under international co-operation scheme and the current national schemes ;

Water rights
In Mali access to water is a fundamental right or the same nature as health and education, and recognised as such by the Mali constitution. There is a national priority to reduce the proportion of the population with no access to water by 2015.
There is a traditional say that goes « Water is a gift of the Gods ». Water has no price. The law states « Water is a social good, but also an economic good », thus attempting to reconcile two contradictory approaches. This law aims to fix the price by taking the following into consideration:
- Running costs and renewal of installations required for providing a sustainable system
- The buying power of the population

It is the responsibility of communities to self-organise for running costs and amortisement of infrastructures. In villages there are management committees for water points who are responsible for maintenance, and who raise and guarantee the requisite finance.

Water management
The institutional framework of water management involves 4 levels of actors:

1-The State (National Hydraulics) transfers management of the infrastructure and supplies and audits the conformity of management in accordance with the law (water laws and national strategy)
2- The township (Commune) who organises the infrastructure management and carries out the maintenance and control of work
3- The operator is private, and is responsible for technical and financial maintenance of the supply system on a 6-monthly basis
4- The users (groups of users of water fountains)

In terms of national strategy, villages wishing to have drinking water installed are required to provide 15% of the overall budget. If the budget exceeds 300 million (CFA francs ?) it is extremely difficult to raise the sum.

The current infrastructure is insufficient to have a sustainable drink water supply. Local populations need support to guarantee an appropriate sustainable long-term management and access.

Ibrahim Doucouré
Mayor of Diafounougouré, Iélimané circle, ex-member of Parliament, President of the association of Mayors of the Ielimané circle, President of the Agency for sustainable development of the Iélimané circle.

Presentation of a drinking water supply in the Diafounou Gory township:

This town is made up of 14 villages, with a total population of 17,000 inhabitants. Drinking water is provided by centres serving between 2,000 and 10,000 inhabitiants, and financed by migrant workers and their partners. They are AEP systems composed of water towers, generating posts, wells and solar modules.
In the villages of less than 2,000 inhabitants, water supplies come from wells drilled by the state, the towns and the inhabitants. Committees of local people have developed around these wells, taking care of maintenance of the wells and the pumps. The town is responsible for the overall system, but these water points existed prior to the law on decentralisation of towns (1999), and remain the property of the migrant workers who financed them. In this case it is the representatives of the migrant workers who take responsibility for management. This leads to an inherent conflict in terms of authority.

Difficulties:

-Water pipes that are in private ownership and whose owners are reticent about having private operators carry out maintenance checks as stated above. The installations that form part of the maintenance check system are more reliable.
- The degree of salinity of subterranean water in the villages belonging to the commune.
- The frequent break-downs of the manual pumps in the villages of less than 2,000 inhabitants and refusal to pay subscriptions
- Unpaid bills in terms of the AEP systems.

We are living in two different worlds. Water is a rare resource, a luxury. Water in its natural state is a public good, it is free, but it is important to sustain the piping systems and this comes at a cost.

Discussion

The debate covered a number of questions and all participants were able to freely express their positions and questions.

1- Finance and access to water

The debate on financing and access to water concerns poor people and poor countries. How can they be connected up and who should pay for the connection? And what exactly are people to pay for? The replies are varied. If the discussion is on the questions of « water for all », should the question of the degradation of regions and ground conditions not be taken into account? (Pollution of the water table in Morocco, disappearance of the Niger and big African lakes...) Should the question not also include that of regional co-operation between countries ? Or should access to water be based on national policies only? What solidarity can be envisaged at international level?
In this vein, certain participants have analysed the neo-liberal agenda and fail to agree on the notion of poor countries. The question is not that of poor countries, rather of impoverished countries. The market will not resolve the problem, because it is based on a price structure whereby the largest consumers pay the least. Access to water for the poorest can not be achieved on the basis of the multinational model who will wait for subsidies to connect the poorest and will exacerbate the problem rather than resove it. The apporach needs to be on a broader and more legal basis.

It is necessary to illustrate the way in which access to water came about in the developed countries. In the US in the 19th century, the state took responsibility for proving access to water for all people, paid for by tax revenue.
On the other hand, several participants insisted on the fact that once connected, people pay ten times less than those who are not connected, and who have to pay for bottled water. Other participants explained that many actors are now convinced that people who are unable to cover the cost of connection should have the costs covered by subsidies. Even though cross-granting was not an accepted practice for many years, many actors now recognise that this position was wrong, and agree that it far better to subsidise connection rather than water consumption.

The case of Buenos Aires was quoted as an example. By reducing the connection costs, 2 million people were connected. And the beneficiaries of public water supplies paid for others.

The case of Morocco: The PAGER programme is paid for and subsidised by the urban consumers. It is an example of cross-funding that works well. The question is: what can be done where there is no access to water and no disposable tax revenue?

2- The price of water management

The rate charged based on the quantity of water pumped was introduced in Senegal in 1993. Since then, several other African countries, including Mali have adopted this model. It is an efficient means of reducing leakage. French-speaking Africa has a considerable advance in this field.

More specifically, the debate on Morocco was about the presence of several private actors, and their legitimacy via the formulation: « The richest should pay for the poorest ». The price structure is set at national level and by income bracket. Fr those in the lowest social categories, the cost for 8m3 per month is below the purchasing price paid by the ONEP. Over and above this there is a 1:4 price variation per cubic meter. When the poorest populations are connected, they use more water and move into a higher category. Under these circumstances, it is possible to query what representation poor people have of access to water.

There is also an interconnection between water, sanitation and electricity. If there is a financial problem with the financing of the water service, electricity bills will exacerbate it, and poor people will be liable to pay even more.

In order to know whether the poor are liable to pay more, it is first necessary to find out what the flat rate per income category will be for electricity. It is legitimate to query whether public subsidies shouldn't be limited to connection.

As far as the question of town twinning is concerned, the alternative would be direct granting, which would be heavy and expensive to implement. It is also necessary to compare the cost with what poor families paid prior to connection. Payment is spread over a ten-year period.

It was furthermore specified that the categories remain the same, irrespective of the operating company. (ONEP, local management, private sector...)

Concerning the way price is determined and the role played by the private sector in this field, it depends on the country. In Morocco there was a national State decision to ensure all people had access to drinking water. It is the public powers that take overall decisions as well as the details of the rate charged. The townships have the power to refuse these rates, but it is the State that decides. Contracts are managed by the ONEP, which is the central Moroccan administration, as well as international consultants. The price structure is not in private hands. The question of pricing is open to debate, as is the question of transnparency of decision-making, but this is a different subject for debate.

As to the question of financing of the rural sector that the international institutions have ignored, the AFD specified that for their part more than a third of their money goes towards rural areas and that this is a long-term preoccupation.

In Mali the price is set according to the socio-economic situation and the infrastrucures, but costs are covered. The cost per cubic meter is between 125 and 650 CFA, including the renewal of equipment on a 5-year basis. The town only gets a look in as far as blocking the social rate charged for water is concerned. Poor people pay more for water in urban areas than the rich. Up to 30m3 consumption is in the social category. But as many poor families are big, they often exceed this amount.

3- Free allocation

The definition of the WHO is 20 litres of water per person per day, accessible within a 1-kilometer radius.

In our constitutions, it is the legal norms that imposed the obligtion to guarantee social and political and civil rights to all citizens. The French school of water management in the ‘80s imposed the approach « water pays for water ». Where there is a right, there can not be a demand for payment at individual level. In certain fields human life is linked to rights. These fields (air, sun, water and knowledge) can not and should not be used as commercial exchange of goods. It is not possible to delegate rights to the private service sector. It is also necessary to think about imposing limits on water usage: 50 litres of drinking water per day, over and above which a linear rate of payment could be imposed as well as a progressive rate. Over this, it is necessary to consider the rate of prohibition. It is not because we pay for something that we are entitled to use up to 300 litres per day. Limits need to be imposed, because if we use too much water, the collective group can decide that we represent a danger to the planet.

There was a disagreement on this point, explaining that other rights involve payment: the right to food, housing...the only right that is free is that to education. In our constitutions we have the obligation to take care of those who are in need of help.

4- Public-private partnerships.

The central question is that of the complexity of multi-partnerships: the town, the State, the users...In Mali there is an original feature, which is the existence of offices for « technical and financial follow-up ». They carry out audits and provide advice to associations and towns. The fact that they are independent builds trust, and supports sustainable management systems. These offices are paid on the basis of a % cost per cubic meter of 20 CFA (equivalent of 0,03 euro), and studies have shown, that since they have been set up, the cost of water has dropped over the years, as the number of users increased.

The biggest challenge is how to provide for small towns of between 1,00 and 100,000 inhabitants. The big international operators are interested, and local operators are not yet present. In Morocco the large private groups have a fairly responsible attitude. It is a positive factor to have the presence of both public and private sector in any given country, as this results in a form of competition as to who can do the best job. Morocco is an experimental example.

The fact that both public and private sector are facing the same problems, and have equal difficultly in resolving certain issues.

5- Management methods

The question here is of participative management, and the relevance of traditional models. There is no single model that can be applied. The case of Mali where it is the migrant workers who pay for infrastructure costs in the villages is a testimony to the failure of