Key learnings and recommendations (Result I)

This chapter seeks answers to these questions: what has triggered positive lasting change in the past, and what kind of challenges and barriers to change are evident?

Rautanen et al. (2010) (Article I) took a long-term perspective into sanitation, hygiene and health.

It considered history of sanitation and hygiene as the history of epidemiology, medicine, and public health, as well as the history of industrialization, urbanization, and related urban misery.

It was concluded that the earliest sanitation driver appears to have been the need to remove human excreta and other wastes from densely populated urban areas. It is as ancient as urban environments and city states themselves where urban drainage systems were considered to serve the dual purposes of waste and storm water conveyance. The need to protect urban environments from flooding continued to be the main driver until the industrial revolution (c.1750–1850). Similarly ancient are hygiene-related drivers associated with spiritual aspects, wellbeing, and also beauty: healing rituals, public baths, and saunas. Scientific knowledge as a driver is very recent as until the 1840s knowledge about water and sanitation was based on sense perceptions and observations, and subjective experience (Article I).

The conference paper by Rautanen (2007a), connected to Article I, outlined the history of water-related development in Nepal. The geographical realities meant that local decision-making was a must, while at the same time the interest of the various rulers was in human settlements located along the trade routes or religious sites with pilgrim routes. Similar cases are likely to exist across the continents: there is always the large rural population who have been and still are left to manage their local issues and services on their own. One of the reoccurring themes was decentralization. It re-appears in policies over the decades, with varying interpretations and equally diverse local applications. Informal institutions represent the resilience where the formal institutions fail, also in local water governance (Rautanen, 2007a). The case is elaborated in more detail in two related book chapters Rautanen (2007b) and Rautanen (2007c). All these were produced in the Academy of Finland funded “Governance of water and environmental services in long term perspectives” (GOWLOP) project. See also Rautanen (2007a), Rautanen (2007b), Rautanen (2007d), Juuti, Mäki, and Rautanen (2005), and Mäki, Nyangeri Nyanchanga, Rautanen, and Vuorinen (2007).

Path dependencies from pasts to futures are obvious, as the past decisions and the past understanding do influence the present state. The past drivers are still evident at present time, albeit their content has increased in complexity: what constitutes as ‘wastewater’, for instance, has not always been the same as it is now. Aiming for ‘modern’ and ‘convenience’ are still valid drivers, but highly cultural and locality-specific constructs. Non-linear developments over time are evident, considering that at different localities there are different dynamics. Article I suggested that this has much to do with political-economy and political-ecology, i.e. that the priorities are often guided by political interests and power rather than ideals, public wellbeing, or scientific evidence. Article I recommended more detailed research into antecedent

circumstances and contemporary factors contributing to problems and alternative courses of action: how and by whom were the alternative scenarios discussed – if at all? This adds the call for considering the past into the otherwise futures-oriented frame of reference.

The spatial differences are evident even when applying conceptually the same system. MUS is an example of a locality-specific application that operates across several mandates and sectoral policies. Its strongest drivers become evident at local level where the tangible benefits can be felt. Yet, its main barriers are more likely to exist at other levels where such as budgeting across sectoral budgets can be challenging. Rautanen, van Koppen, and Wagle (2014) (Article II) acknowledged that while one water scheme may be relevant for energy sector only, another water scheme may be relevant for irrigation, energy, and water supply sectors at the same time.

Linking the ecological sanitation into MUS concept adds increasingly relevant sectoral issues that relate to environment, health, agriculture, and water, including those related to public health and food safety. National scaling up of MUS calls for simultaneous action across sectors, and equal broad vision across all of them. Working through decentralized systems and local government structures is needed as this is where the tangible results are evident and where the dynamic application takes place. Even a large-scale MUS must be grounded in its own locality.

As long as funds are not too strictly earmarked and broad technical capacity is available, no national coordination is necessary (Article II). In this regard, strengthening local capacity and available local human resources counts as described in Article III (Rautanen & Baaniya, 2008).

This is further discussed in the following chapter with regard to human resources development, and how to integrate it meaningfully with the other dimensions of the frame of reference.

Rautanen and White (2013) (Article IV) noted that the good local water governance has many faces that relate to the protection of public health and safety, environmental protection, accountability, transparency, user participation, equal opportunities, balancing equity, efficiency and effectiveness in performance, financial sustainability, and transparency. All these are themes for the capacity-development programmes. Using MUS as an over-reaching approach further broadened the scope and vision, encouraging to move across the sectors and standard designs, bringing together green and blue water at the level where it makes a difference; i.e., where the tangible changes in livelihoods and poverty can be observed. Article II and IV both called for attention to be paid into legal and regulatory framework that makes it possible to work across the sectors and sectoral policies.

All the Articles have acknowledged that diversity is inevitable and needed: what works in one locality does not necessarily work in another. This was further discussed by Rautanen and Wagle (2009) with reference to post-implementation phase sustainability of the decentralized rural water systems. This conference paper noted that strategic direction and local priorities vary, and these are constrained by limited resources. Also here the importance of time was highlighted: since everything changes in time, also the management practice itself has to be able to adapt and change. Future water and sanitation sector should pay increasing attention to the overall system dynamics, recognizing that simultaneous changes in a complex system can never be fully predicted nor their consequences mitigated by preliminary actions. The authors’

vision for RVWRMP’s post-construction phase was an effective combination of the activities related to water safety plan, environmental conservation and watershed management to ensure water security and safety, operation and maintenance plan based on the WUCs regulation to ensure physical, financial and institutional sustainability, and continued hygiene and sanitation promotion. It suggested to continue working with the Community Organizations in institutional development and income generation, as well as in scaling up livelihoods activities for food security and income. Through securing water for more than purely domestic use but also for productive uses, a water project can address rural livelihoods without losing its focus on water and spreading too thin across a number of related sectors (Rautanen & Wagle, 2009).

Four articles and related conference papers introduced two important tools for community and local government level good governance, both requiring in-built capacity development. Box 4.1 describes these as defined by Rautanen (2012a). The author of this dissertation has been and still is contributing directly to making these tools and approaches better. The related research in terms of both peer reviewed articles and conference presentations show how these contributions have been documented, presented, and debated with the global audiences. Table 4.2 summarizes approaches and working tools, related benefits and drivers, and barriers and challenges, as identified in Articles II and IV.

Box 4.1 Definitions of WUMP and Step-by-Step

Water Use Master Plans translate the principles of the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) into practice at local level. Local institutions have the key role to play in both preparation and implementation. WUMPs are prepared to identify available potential water resources, present structures and existing plans, and to establish a five-year vision. The WUMP serves VDCs in prioritizing, planning, and budgeting. VDC-level Water Resources Management Committees with their representatives from each sub-committee ensure inclusion and holistic integrated planning.

Over the past year they have also adapted the role of VDC WASH Committee as defined in the Nepal National Sanitation Master Plan. This integrates also sanitation and hygiene into the overall water resources planning context. The individual schemes identified in WUMPs are then included into regular local government work plans and budgets. Increasing access to information is inherently built into WUMP which is all about making information available for local decision-making.

A Step-By-Step Approach guides multiple stakeholders through the planning, implementation and post-construction support phases. It translates the multi-layered complex principles of good local water governance and IWRM into doable, real steps backed up by capacity-building. The very first phase is WUMP preparation. As the individual scheme is taken up for implementation, a Water Users Committee is established and registered. The District Development Committees approve the annual plans and individual schemes, and release the investment funds to Water Users Committees through District Water Resources Development Funds. The Step-by-Step approach facilitates the information management at the scheme level through Community Mapping, public hearings and public audits, bringing the principles of good governance into action. Both Step-by-Step and WUMP process are supported by the Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Strategy (GESI).

Source: Rautanen, 2012a, pp. 105–106)

Table 4.2 Summary of approaches and working tools

Tool Description Drivers and benefits Barriers and challenges

Water Use Master Plan

Decentralized local government wide integrated, participatory and inclusive planning tool;

operationalizes the principles of HRBA & GESI, good local (water) governance, IWRM;

opportunities for MUS and ecological sanitation in addition to water supply, sanitation, irrigation, hydro-energy and various agricultural and

Skilled facilitators with open mind to IWRM, MUS and other livelihoods links needed. Unrealistic

expectations. More water use than water resource management. Lack of long-term vision and capacity to relate into longer-term changes limits the scope and application into immediate needs.

Step-by-Step

Operationalizes the principles of good local water governance, HRBA & GESI at an individual scheme level. Can be applied into any type of infrastructure schemes. Constructivist capacity development Step-by-Step. Transparency and accountability; good local water governance at the individual scheme level.

Meaningful participation for meaningful plans and results that last. Learning by doing for WUSC;

capacity for planning,

implementation and later O&M increases. Transparency increases willingness to contribute.

Takes time also from WUSCs; lack of capacity may limit meaningful

participation (illiteracy); calls for field presence and external support in capacity change; skills of field staff itself may be a barrier.

MUS

Local do-able steps translating IWRM into local applications that are responsive to a range of needs. Number of combinations give room for local adaptation. Opens up new opportunities especially in water scarce environments.

Multiple benefits for a range of livelihoods applications. Food security. New livelihoods opportunities that may not have existed before. Cost-efficiency.

Concept still new. New mind-sets needed; technical thinking still in silos.

Higher cost not perceived as cost-effective.

GESI & HRBA Strategy and Action Plan

GESI policy that is accompanied with action plan.

It includes results and impacts oriented monitoring to ensure that the policy and principles get translated into tangible activities and change. Operationalizes GESI principles.

Constructivist capacity development that adds transformation in terms of action items.

Social, economic personal

(quantity) rather than quality such as meaningful participation, access to assets, sustainability of achieved practices, opportunities to use the skills and practice.