Transcript Maximising synergies Day 1 Maximsing synergies 1. There is a focus on blending as loans and grants – but there is also.

Maximising synergies
Day 1 Maximsing synergies
1. There is a focus on blending as loans and grants – but there is also a
blending on skills and roles (EIB has few water specialists so can make use
of EU presence on the ground) – need clearer delegation when we work
together
2. Time horizon is important needs to be flexible but not too flexible or it
encourages delay
3. Sharing project pipelines and using loan officers to take part in
coordination meetings
4. Lowest common denominator problem of following the worst of all
procedures is less with EIB-EC because their share a framework
5. What to do: SWAP – Indicators (how to make them work- Bolivia) – get
close to actors – corruption (rational?) and the irrational (politically
rational) – avoid risk …stay away unless not needed? – lower ambition
Public – Private & Public-Public Partnerships
1. Regulator - Why does the public side of a contract often breach the
contract – because they can!....a regulator function helps to distance
tariff from politics - But will an external regulator stand up to a President
?
Day 1 PPP
2. Resistance to PPP – donors and dogma have contributed to this
resistance
3. Capacity – the public sector cannot negotiate on an equal basis with the
private sector – such asymmetry is problematic but is capacity building
the role of the regulator?
4. Don’t rely entirely on NGOs – the service providers need to be involved,
or the price will escalate (no cross subsidy with the rich)
5. Horizontal collaboration - a very promising approach but the results
have been disappointing
Public – Private & Public-Public Partnerships
6.
Day 1 PPP
7.
Confusion between contracts and partners – WOP needs to clarify
this aspect – in Malawi the PSCC perceived as a consultant because
they behave that way – it is a service not a partnership…focus on
reports not operational performance
Downward accountability – there is not enough demand; Water user
association do not question paying for meeting allowances
8.
Energy and water very linked – also in terms of governance and tariff
, the one affects the other
9.
The situation is very vulnerable – a single apparently irrational
decision can change it all – the case of Senegal -financial
sustainability and political inference
10. When funds are given by donors or released by IFIs and they ignore
non compliance the funder is part of the problem
•
•
•
•
Day 2 SWAp
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy
Quality of the policy dialogue has been disappointing (all)
Areas that are outside the main ministry often give problems in
implemention ( sanitation and irrigation.. Uganda)
Link between the sector approach and decentralisation – the difficulty is
underestimated – but some promising developments (South Africa)
Policy pressure for physical results not service delivery – undermines
sustainability (all)
Policy role of donors very difficult – more logical to help with momentum
and consolidation than creation of policy
Finance
SWAps have tended to increase donor funds but not national and user
generated funds (transfer but not tariff and taxes)
Financial sustainability has not been the focus
Improved allocation of funds within the sector and geographically –
equitable distribution is a common benefit
Value for money and focus on expenditure is poor
Multiple modalities are very demanding but have given good results
•
•
•
Day 2 SWAp
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
coordination
SWAps easily become public setor focussed and find it difficult to engage
with civil society and private sector
Joint sector reviews – round table events have given a lot of benefits
(Uganda, Burkina faso, Bolivia)
Engagement with local authorities has led to many achievements (South
Africa)
Starting with sub-sectors is often a good way but the difficult areas often
remain outside - Bolivia (rural and urban – watershed) PBA
Thematic sub-groups of the sector working groups are effective in
moving away from generalities e.g. Governance, sanitation (Uganda)
Institutions
Many reforms are incomplete and give rise to confusion (Jordan)
SWAps can threaten community based institutions (South Africa)
There is a place for project implementation units for complex
programmes (Lesotho)
SWAp has led to reducton in innovation (Uganda)
Donor support for multiple objective programmes can distort mandates
if not well anchored (Jordan)
•
•
•
Day 2 SWAp
•
•
M&E and accountability
SWAps create a demand for information and good data (matrices,
indicators, joint sector reviews) – Burkina Faso
Investment plans in particular drive the need for better M&E (Senegal,
Uganda)
Has been difficult to get horizontal coordination information e.g. With
WRM and water services
Vertical information flow is mostly from bottom to top not down again
Information has led to higher accountability and better policy debate
(Uganda, Lesotho, Bolivia)
PEA
• PEA at the root of many of the problems observed
• PEA is better at diagnosis than cure
• Definitions are vague (what is power?)
• Objectives are mixed (for us, for them, for who)
• Process design is crucial
• Time scale is problematic
Day 3 sustainability challenges
Triple S
How can the approach help the market to work – lack of knowledge on
costing is one constraint that is being addressed
Bolivia is looking at improving sustainability through horizontal
cooperation – how can this be financed? How can it work in practice?
Not many examples of effective horizontal collaboration – Twinning
experience does not seem easily available
Nigeria – government is more interested in coverage – how to approach
such a situation? how to make the change in mindset?
• Holding up a mirror is one approach – figures on slippage can have
worked in some countries,
• There are also tools that (cost pie)
• Political economy approach can help
MDG indicator are sometimes the problem they distract from the
maintenance problem – the figures with functionality should be included
but it is not often the case.
Climate change
Day 3 sustainability challenges
A lot of the adaptation is not new (diversity of supplies, demand
management etc) but 3 areas are new: technologies / risks perception/ sea
level rise
Adaptation is very expensive – how can we know it is worth it – do we have
the tools for this, there is a lot of uncertainty
Bolivia has mainstreamed CCA into its SBS through indicators on rationale
use of water, awareness, technology
Ukraine – how to use the funding instruments for CCA in the water sector,
more information is needed – Biodiversity/ ecosystem approach is
promising
Poor link between the NAPAs and the national development plans
Relabelling and attribution criteria – the methodology is missing – 40%
could be used as a base figure to adjust up or down
Day 3 sustainability challenges
Day 3 sustainability challenges