Integrating Research and Policy: the way forward

Alan Nicol provided additional background to the SecureWater project which emerged in response to some of the issues and challenges associated with the global shift in water policy in the mid-1990s towards DRA.

It is interesting that these issues, which until a few years ago remained quite contentious, are now being discussed openly and frankly in workshops like this. It is equally encouraging to note that the focus of debate is gradually shifting away from the resource itself towards an understanding of water as a poverty issue. A number of key themes have emerged during the workshop. Firstly that of institutions and partnerships and the importance of attention to the changing roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders and the need to support the process of institutional transformation. Sri Lanka is a very ‘rich’ policy environment with a number of important lessons for other countries in the region. Secondly the issue of livelihoods and their complexity; more specifically, the issue of trade-offs and the uneven distribution of costs and benefits between different social groups. Livelihoods analysis is key to understanding the strategies of poor households and the risks and liabilities associated with investing in water supply schemes. Thirdly several of the presentations have highlighted the need for greater attention to process issues, particularly participation. Perhaps the term marginalised is unhelpful and certainly has a different meaning—for example in India—but the process of making water supply development more inclusive and reaching those groups which have to-date remained elusive remains a key concern. The issue of creating an enabling environment for service providers is complex and varies enormously between rural and urban areas. Finally the issue of networks and communication, sharing lessons between agencies operating at different levels and scaling up successful examples has emerged as a key theme.

A central focus of the SecureWater project is to promote lesson learning and support decision-making processes at different levels, and to link research and policy together in a collaborative way. To this end the project aims to develop a set of ‘decision support tools’ (DST) to assist decision-makers in enhancing DRA’s capacity to address the needs and priorities of the poor. An important aim of the workshop therefore is to identify and agree priority issues emerging in the Sri Lankan context and suggest possible ways forward and action points.

A number of emerging issues and challenges associated with DRA have been identified in the previous presentations. Specifically understanding the nature and dynamics of ‘demand’ for water and on the basis of better understanding, devising more appropriate service options for the poor (that are both manageable and affordable), financial sustainability (including assessing capacity and willingness to pay for different services, decision-making processes in planning various ‘responses’ (institutional roles and responsibilities in implementation – for instance how does legal status affect or constrain capacity for service delivery?), and monitoring performance/impact (a scheme may be outwardly ‘sustainable’ but what are the impacts at the hh level?). The challenge is to identify appropriate forms of decision-support to address these issues.

What do we mean by decision support tools? The common perception of DSTs is of data- or model-driven computer programmes where data is inputted and a solution derived. There are many examples but they are notoriously difficult to apply in real world decision making processes due to their inherent inflexibility. Instead we are interested in a new generation of knowledge- or document-driven DSTs. These are not the kind of systems that give you an answer but rather help you come to an answer by drawing on existing information and experience from elsewhere. The key objective is to support decision-making processes at different levels by highlighting issues and challenges and identifying possible approaches to dealing with them. Such a DST will need to be relatively simple and user-friendly. It will probably be html-based allowing use of multi-media and rich in worked case study examples, and will be ‘data-lite’, flexible and adaptable rather than prescriptive. While the main focus will be on DRA planning and implementation processes the DST should be understandable (and potentially useful) at all levels from policy makers down to communities. As such it needs to be developed iteratively and piloted and tested by end-users at an early stage.

A couple of examples of DSTs from elsewhere were discussed briefly including one being developed under the Sustainable Management of the Gaza and West bank Aquifers (SUSMAQ) project – a DFID funded capacity building and support project with the Palestinian Water Authority, and one under the Community Management of Groundwater Resources in India (ComMan). SUSMAQ is knowledge-driven but computer heavy and expensive. It uses multi-criteria indicators with outputs weighted according to different priorities held by policy makers. However, given that policy directions in Palestine are often predetermined the challenge is providing options which are politically feasible. ComMan is an example of a knowledge-driven DST. It does not aim to prescribe options for groundwater management but sets out a range of possible alternatives. The aim is to increase the knowledge base and provide guidance on thinking and problem solving. The starting point is understanding the problem and the end point is assistance in solution identification.

A mock example of what the SecureWater DST might look like was then presented to illustrate how it might build on the basic process of DRA planning and implementation using a series of structured question sets to identify key issues at different stages, and providing a series of links allowing further in-depth exploration of different issues where appropriate to the needs of the user.