Forging Effective Water and Sanitation Partnerships

Ken Caplan, Director, BPD
May 2005

In the water and sanitation sector, the term partnership is used in a somewhat confusing way to describe wildly different constructs from networks to joint ventures; from public-private contracts to philanthropic corporate-NGO relationships. Adding to the confusion, a myth has emerged that almost suggests that partnerships are ends in themselves – if only everyone worked in partnership, we could resolve the water and sanitation issues in poor communities. Most experts certainly advocate for effective partnerships and many are keen to learn about different institutional approaches to meeting water and sanitation needs. The danger is that if we are not careful about our language, we run the risk of building up expectations to such a degree as to further entrench the challenge.

Organisations have been "working together" to provide water and sanitation services in various bilateral forms for centuries (public-private, public-public, public-NGO, etc.). The difference today is that there is more focus on the less contractual, more loosely arranged multi-stakeholder platforms that engage the public, private and civil society sectors around the same table. International forums dedicate sessions to discuss these emerging constructs, academics are busy dissecting them, donors are busy promoting them, managers are busy extolling them, practitioners are busy trying to figure out how to make them work, and poor communities are trying to determine if it is old wine in a new bottle.

Because partnerships currently take so many forms, defining them is somewhat difficult. However, clarifying our language is critical. Practitioners and policymakers alike use the term partnership to refer to funding arrangements or contracts for service; multi-stakeholder decision making platforms or consultations; jointly implemented pilot programmes; or even commissions with clearly defined outputs. These arrangements vary widely in terms of the nature of the contribution from different partners as well as the impact on a participating organisation’s own identity and brand.

Although other sectors or issues (energy, education, security, health, finance, HIV/AIDS, etc.) may exhibit some of the same characteristics, the water and sanitation sector has some specific distinguishing characteristics, both in the nature of the ‘product’ and its provision as a service.1

The two primary factors that distinguish water supply and sanitation from other sectors are:

• water is both politically and emotionally highly charged. Given its relationship to life and livelihood, people have strong values and widely varying opinions associated with water,2 not unlike HIV/AIDS but certainly different from energy for example; sanitation is even more personal;
• while many different types of organisations are engaged in the delivery of water supply and sanitation, in many situations technical or resource constraints limit the ability of all but a few from operating effectively.

Because of this combination of political/emotional and technical qualities, establishing a mode of service delivery that is both widely acceptable as well as technically and financially practical can be very challenging. A wide range of different types of organisations has an interest in the issue (including national government, local government, private companies, NGOs and Community-Based Organisations, and obviously communities and households themselves). This may also explain why partnerships have become a popular concept in the water supply and sanitation sector. This complexity, however, also gives rise to tensions within partnerships and may call into question the values and interpretations that individual partners place on the objectives of the relationship.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for water partnerships is reconciling the product or transaction with the on-going service nature of the exercise. Partnerships invariably bring together a mix of practitioners and policymakers that view water and sanitation as more product-oriented ("let’s get water to people") and others are more in tune with aspects of sustainability ("let’s ensure that the water is still flowing in five-ten year’s time"). Practitioners in the water and sanitation sector talk a great deal about sustainability but in fact much of our work is still very much aimed at the product or transaction level. Partnerships, appropriately structured and realistically oriented, might be a way to bridge the gap, bringing more interests to the table that ensure a longer term perspective.

Part of this longer-term perspective must be aimed at a better understanding of ways to foster innovation and ensure accountability. Loosely arranged, multi-stakeholder partnerships are meant to encourage both. By their nature, they bring together different viewpoints that can result in creativity around technology choice, cost recovery mechanisms, channels for consumer voice, etc. Compared to bilateral relations, the more people taking part, and the greater the chances for accountable structures to emerge. Using partnerships to inform regulation that allows for greater experimentation, smoother relations between stakeholder groups, and regular critical review must surely prove part of the solution.

(Footnotes)

1. 1 BPD has analysed partnerships from a variety of angles and published a number of reports on the perceived benefits of partnerships among the public, private and civil society sectors to expand services in poor communities. (See Practitioner Note Series on benefits for each sector written by David Jones and available at www.bpdws.org)
2. 2 See Moss, J. et al. Valuing Water for Better Governance: How to promote dialogue to balance social, environmental, and economic values? CEO Panel for Business and Industry, 10 March 2003.