UNESCO-IHE Expert Meeting on

Water-related SDGs and Capacity Development

UNESCO-HE, Delft, The Netherlands

6-7 February 2013

Meeting Report

Edited by

Dr. Uta Wehn de Montalvo, Maria Pascual Sanz and Zaki Shubber

Introduction

In the course of formulating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), formal and

informal debates are taking place about how best to address cross-cutting issues

such as water. Water supply, sanitation and water resources are affected not only by

climate change, rising demands for water and increasing pollution of sources but also

by weak human, organisational and institutional capacity. Although of central

importance to the sustainable attainment of water-related SDGs, capacity

development (CD) is an issue that has not yet been included in the current debates.

With a view to contributing its expertise in water sector capacity development to this

process, the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education convened an Expert

Meeting on 6-7 February 2013, on water-related SDGs and capacity development in

preparation of the 5th Delft Symposium on Water Sector Capacity Development. 1

The overall objective of the meeting was to challenge the 26 international experts

convened to explore how capacity development challenges for sustainably achieving

water-related SDGs can be addressed in the post 2015 development agenda.

Specific questions to be addressed were:

What are specific (sub)targets for water-related capacity development by

2030?

What are corresponding SMART indicators for measuring progress with water-

related capacity development?

How to can CD-related targets be channeled into the overall SDG framework?

This meeting report summarises the discussions.

Sustainable Development Goals

A brief discussion on the applicability of the SDGs as compared to the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) clarified the scope of the SDGs, i.e. pertaining to all

countries rather than just developing countries, and the ambition to merge the

(remaining) MDGs into one larger, integrating framework (the Post 2015

Development Agenda). The number of different ongoing SDG-related processes

were briefly reviewed, namely the work of the High Level Panel, the Open Working

Group (OWG), national and online consultations on eleven themes2 as well as many

informal initiatives that are trying to contribute their views. Although these efforts

exist, with varying success, in order to differentiate the process of developing the

1 The 5th Delft Symposium is expected to make significant contributions both to the on-going SDG debate and to

several major related events in 2013 in terms of its focus and timing. Building on a tradition that started in 1991,

the Symposium itself will take place from 29-31 May 2013. It is being organised by UNESCO-IHE in collaboration

with the Asian Development Bank, Cap-Net UNDP, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands and Vitens-

Evides International. The Symposium is foreseen as the international forum for water users, development

practitioners, researchers, policy makers, water professionals and capacity development specialists to discuss

"Developing capacity from Rio to reality: Who is taking the lead?" 2 These themes consist of the following: inequalities, governance, growth and employment, health, education,

environmental sustainability, food security and nutrition, conflict and fragility, population dynamic, energy, and water. Notably, water was not initially included in the selected themes and added later on in the process.

SDGs from the way in which the MDGs had been prepared (namely, top down), it

also clearly emerged that these efforts are mostly disjoint and that there is a lack of

coordination.

The discussion brought to light a more general difference of opinion among different

(groups of) countries regarding the conceptualisation of the SDGs and their

implications, especially with respect to resulting financial obligations (in the face of

the financial crisis) and potentially imposing limits to the growth of national

economies. The preparedness to incorporate sustainability considerations into

national policies was deemed limited, due to the paradigm-changing nature of

sustainability and the changes in values that are required. It was also perceived to be

hampered by the absence of leading examples. The discussion highlighted the

importance of making the SDGs acceptable to politicians by working with

governments in the development of the SDGs, taking the (differing) political contexts

into account and arriving at short, punchy messages rather than thorough and in-

depth conceptualisations that academic/scientific approaches are tending towards.

Yet the crucial role of science to provide factual evidence and the basis upon which

indicators should be devised was also stressed. In order to increase the acceptability

of the SDGs, the need to arrive at a limited set of simple indicators and

measurements was stressed, with a particular emphasis on the importance of

monitoring progress towards such goals and targets.

Water-related SDGs

Following a couple of scheduled and ad-hoc presentations about current progress

with, and approaches to, water-related SDGs, the discussion highlighted the clear

need to go beyond the MDG WASH goal. Tensions between long term threats and

the (typically) short term agendas of politicians were commented upon, stating that

short-term threats are politically more 'appealing'. Questions were raised as to

whether the current approach for a water-related SDG (namely focusing on WASH,

waste water and water resource management) would be sufficiently broad to capture

and cover water-related environmental, economic and social issues. Alternative

suggestions were made, such as aiming for one all-encompassing, aspirational goal

rather than the three sub-themes.

There was general agreement that current efforts are quite complex with respect to

the number of targets and indicators that are being considered for the water sub-

themes and that there seems to be a clear need to simplify these. In this respect, the

methodology presented in the Asian Water Development Report 20133 to quantify

water security via a composite index was well received and considered a very

valuable contribution. Some concerns were also raised about this approach with

respect to a) limitations (e.g. dangers of aggregation and limited scalability) arising

3 This approach departs from the premise: if water security is important, how can we measure it in order to

manage it? The composite water security index is presented in the Asian Water Development Outlook 2013: http://www.adb.org/publications/asian-water-development-outlook-2013

from its use of available data (rather than considering wider, yet to be collected data

sets), b) the underlying assumptions and c) the political sensitivity of the generated

results.

Suggestions were made to distinguish between goals as desired outcomes and

targets as being reliant on particular strategies (such as capacity development,

financial resources or other inputs). Targets should be translatable into specific

programmes. The importance of ownership was emphasised in this respect: the 'next

generation of goals' should be designed such that they would allow for more

ownership, with local governments taking charge of the process of reaching specific

goals and, more generally, their development agenda.

As the discussion continued, the diversity of efforts regarding water-related SDGs

that are under way became clear and questions were raised as to whether these

efforts may possibly be channeled into one joint effort, such as via the OWG. It

remains to be seen whether the OWG can bring the various processes together and

move them forward into one direction, also given the composition of the OWG

(consisting of a subset rather than all UN Member States). Nevertheless, the OWG

was reported to start off in 'stock taking' mode (gathering facts and evidence on the

thematic areas under consideration for the SDGs), rather than drafting instantly, in

order to avoid ideological debates.

Even though the cross-cutting nature of water was clearly acknowledged, there was

also general consensus on supporting one single ‘water’ SDG as opposed to water

as an issue cutting across many/several other SDGs. The latter option was

considered running the risk of 'watering down' the importance of water in the SDGs,

especially given the perception by some that a water-related goal is still contested at

the policy level. There was a perceived need to develop supportive evidence that a

water-related goal is necessary.

What also clearly emerged from this discussion was that capacity development

aspects, although deemed highly important, were still missing in most of the reviewed

water-related SDG concepts.

Water-related Capacity Development

A more specific discussion on water-related capacity development concurred on the

notion that capacity is an issue for all countries and not just developing countries.

Distinctions were made between different levels of capacity (individual and

institutional), as illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 1: Different conceptual levels of capacity

In order to ensure lasting results, the critical importance of strengthening the

institutional capacity (consisting of both, capacity of organisations and the enabling

environment), and not 'merely' the capacity of individuals, was greatly emphasised.

Similar to the cross-cutting nature of water, capacity development was also

considered a cross-cutting issue within a water-related SDG. It was suggested that

CD aspects were included only in current discussions on the WRM theme, but not in

the WASH and waste water-related SDG efforts. The integration of water-related

capacity development aspects in the SDG context raised much debate concerning

their precise conceptualisation. Should capacity development be included as a

concrete target under a water-related SDG, at the level of indicators, or not at all

(when it is considered a process rather than an outcome)? Does capacity

development simply need to be considered a precondition for achieving water-related

SDGs? Will the inclusion of capacity development into outcome-focused SDGs end

up forcing countries (and therefore be counterproductive)? In this context, it was also

stressed that the conceptualisation of capacity development should avoid being

prescriptive about particular development paths.

Attempts at quantifying and specifying capacity development linked the discussion to

the composite water security index: What CD is required to move up one level (e.g.

on the water security index)? Suggestions were made to distinguish between process

and outcome indicators, but the most difficult challenge was acknowledged to consist

of monitoring and measuring the outcomes and impacts of capacity development.

Moreover, in order to achieve lasting impact, the desired - but often difficult to

achieve - ownership of the development agenda was considered essential.

The difficulties with capturing capacity were linked to the proposed (but contested)

sub-themes for a water-related SDG (WASH, waste water and water quality, and

WRM), addressed more concretely in the penultimate session. The meeting

participants split up into three separate working groups, each of which focused on

indicators for one of the three levels of capacity (individual, organisational, enabling

environment). The results of these discussions (see Annex 2) were presented to the

plenary in the final session. The final discussion highlighted a) there was no

consensus on whether addressing and measuring capacity separately for each of the

three water sub-themes is really necessary or useful and b) the difficulty of arriving at

measurable indicators per se, especially given the inter-linkages between the

different levels of capacity. Indeed, all three working groups had extended their

discussion beyond the level of capacity they were tasked to address. Reference was

made to the evaluation methodology of the UN-Water Status report on Water

Resource Management as a valuable method for collecting capacity-related data4.

Recommendations

A number of recommendations were made; most substantially, this consisted of the

suggestion to make a business case for capacity development: quantifying the

returns of investment on educating water professionals as well as the inverse (i.e. the

opportunity cost incurred by not investing in the education of water professionals).

The resulting scenarios would present supportive evidence that could be fed into the

water-related SDG work of the Open Working Group once it starts its activities later in

2013. Secondly, involvement in the discussions of other thematic groups on SDGs

could create synergies and provide the opportunity to learn from each other with

respect to the inclusion and conceptualisation of capacity development.

Next steps

Next steps for including capacity development in a water-related SDG were

suggested to consist of seeking and expanding high level involvement in the

following events and activities:

World Water Day, 22 March 2013, Den Haag - with representatives of the

High Level Panel.

The 5th Delft Symposium on Water Sector Capacity Development, 29-31

May 2013.

International High Level Conference on Water Cooperation, 20-22 August

2013, Dushanbe.

Budapest Water Summit, 9-11 October 2013.

Open Working Group on SDGs (due to start its activities in the course of

2013).

4 Through the use of questionnaires, albeit addressed only to governments.

http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNW_status_report_Rio2012.pdf

Annex 1

Expert Meeting Agenda

Wednesday 6 February 2013

Chair: Prof. András Szöllösi-Nagy Rector, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education

9:00-9:30 Welcome (Chair)

Brief 'Tour de table' (all)

9:30-10:45 Session 1 - Setting the stage

5th Delft Symposium on Water Sector Capacity Development: Focus and expected outcomes

(Dr. Uta Wehn de Montalvo, UNESCO-IHE)

Current developments re. water-related SDGs and the post-2015 development agenda

(Dr. Joakim Harlin, UNDP)

Towards the definition of water-related SDGs - how a diplomat sees it from his vantage

point at the UN HQ

(H. E. Ambassador Csaba Kőrösi, Head of permanent mission of Hungary to the UN; Co-

Chair of Friends of Water)

Discussion

10:45-11:00 Coffee break

11:00-12:30 Session 2 - The big dilemma: Going beyond WASH, waste water & water quality, and

water resource management. Future challenges related to water

Short presentation by Prof. Michael McClain on Ecosystems services

Short presentation by Dr. Krishna Prasad on Food security and water

Discussion

12:30-14:00 Lunch

14:00-16:00 Session 3 - Comprehensive water-related SDGs, targets and SMART indicators

Short presentation by Wouter Lincklaen Arriëns (Asian Development Bank/Asia-Pacific

Water Forum/GWP TEC)

Discussion items: inclusion of resilience, risk mitigation, climate change adaption, water for

food, energy security, transboundary issues, ecosystems security, capacity development -

what else?

16:00-16:15 Coffee break

16:15-17:45 Session 4 - Capacity development challenges for sustainably achieving water-related SDGs

Short presentation by Prof. Guy Alaerts (UNESCO-IHE/The World Bank)

Discussion

17:45-18:00 Summary

18:00 Dinner, Restaurant 'Prinsenkelder', Delft

Thursday 7 February 2013

9:00-9:15 Recap & introduction to the day

9:15-10:45 Session 5 - Targets for water-related capacity development by 2030 and

corresponding SMART indicators

Discussion

10:45-11:00 Coffee break

11:00-12:30 Session 6 - Monitoring and reporting of water-related capacity development

Discussion

12:30-14:00 Lunch

14:00-15:30 Session 7 - Recommendations

Discussion

15:30-15:45 Coffee break

15:45-17:00 Session - Next steps: how can the recommendations be channelled effectively into

the overall SDG framework?

17:00 Close of meeting

Annex 2

This annex presents the results of the three working groups that took place as part of the

Expert Meeting, each group focusing on measurements and indicators for one of the three

levels of capacity (individual, organisational, enabling environment).

Individual capacity

As a general comment, it was suggested that the indicators should be pegged to goals, once

determined, and that some of the indicators could be 'proxy' indicators

Water-related SDG themes:

Capacity:

WASH Waste water & water quality

WRM

Enabling environment Improve attractiveness of water professions Raising awareness of issues for the general public

Organisation(s) Attract - train - share Organisation memory/repository Knowledge generation/sharing/transferred/translated into the system Formal/informal sharing

Individual Overall metric/target: identify the deficit/gap in number of necessary trained individuals and reduce it by a certain proportion by a certain date

Indicator: population Proxy indicator: GDP Unable to identify a suitable indicator

Organisational capacity

Water-related SDG themes:

Capacity:

WASH Waste water & water quality

WRM

Enabling environment Holistic & effective water policy framework Data sharing policy & extent of implementation (locally, regionally, internationally) Regulatory institutions User associations/collaboration mechanisms Operator associations Governance (transparency, corruption, ethics/integrity) Sectoral functions (data collection/sharing/management, service provision, regulation, resource management, knowledge institutes, etc.)

Organisation(s) Mission & vision (organisational attitude) HRM & HRD Knowledge management Performance of organisations (benchmarks) Governance/management (transparency, corruption, ethics/integrity)

Individual No. of people with certified proficiency/capita

Capacity of the enabling environment

Water-related SDG themes:

Capacity:

WASH Waste water & water quality

WRM

Enabling environment - Existence of policy, strategies-plans, budget allocation reflecting the needs and priorities of the water sector key themes, not only in paper but under implementation.

- Supportive legal framework (I.e. WASH: Standards of water quality and hygiene)

- Organisations in the sector to execute policy making, regulation, and service provision (Water quality monitoring)

- Promote transparency, participation and accountability in water related decisions making processes within which there are actions towards to education stakeholders to be able to participate.

- Institutional capacity to enable water related data/information collection and favour open access for management, monitoring, accountability and transparency.

- The Government should have a policy of CD directed to strengthen the capacity of the water sector

o Current professionals Awareness building and technical support to

parliamentarians and people in decision making positions without a technical background.

Strategies for continuous personal development and actions to retain qualified experts in water sector organisations

Promotion of inter-organisational collaboration in the sector to favour comprehensive approaches to issues/problems and encourage learning in the sector (associations, networks, cross-sector partnership).

o Future professionals Human capacity needs assessment tailored in the country

needs Creation or strengthening educational organisations and

programs to prepare water experts with the right skill mix according the country needs (special attention to financial, accounting, leadership and management aspects) and foster research and innovation tailored for local needs.

Need to acknowledge the different priorities in different context ; Look at progress and positive trend as indication of achievement.

Organisational

Individual

Annex 3

List of participants

Participants Affiliation

Aart van der Horst Senior Policy Adviser Climate, Dutch Ministry of

Foreign Affairs

Prof. András Szöllösi-Nagy Rector, UNESCO-IHE

Prof. Benedito Braga President, World Water Council (WWC)

Prof. Charles Vörösmarty Founding member, Global Water System Project

(GWSP)

Claudio Caponi Senior Scientific Officer Climate and Water, World

Meteorological Oganisation (WMO)

H. E. Ambassador Csaba Kőrösi Permanent representative of Hungary to the United

Nations and the Steering Committee Friends of

Water

Gabor Baranyai Deputy State Secretary, Hungarian Ministry of

Foreign Affairs

Prof. Guy Alaerts Professor of Capacity Building, UNESCO-IHE/

Lead water Resource Specialist, World Bank

H.E. Ambassador Gyula Sümeghy Ambassador of Hungary to the Netherlands

Jan Luijendijk Programme Manager Capacity Development,

UNESCO-IHE

Dr. Joakim Harlin Senior water resources advisor, United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP)

Joshua Newton Consultant, United Nations Economic Commission

for Europe

Kees Leendertse Senior HRD specialist, Cap-Net UNDP

Prof. Kuniyoshi Takeuchi Director, International Center for Water Hazard and

Risk Management (ICHARM)

Maarten Gischler Senior Water Adviser, Dutch Ministry of Foreign

Affairs

Maria Pascual PhD student, Erasmus University, Rotterdam

School of Management / UNESCO-IHE

Michael van der Valk Scientific Secretary, The Netherlands' National

Committee IHP

Nathaniel Mason Research officer in the Water Policy Programme,

Overseas Development Insitute (ODI)

Niels Vlaanderen Senior Policy Advisor, Dutch Ministry of

Infrastructure and the Environment

Dr. Reza Ardakanian Director, UN-Water Decade Programme on

Capacity Development (UNW-DPC)

Participants Affiliation

Sibylle Vermont Senior Scientific Officer, Swiss Federal Office for the Environment.

H.E. Ambassador Sirodjidin M. Aslov Permanent representative of the Republic of Tajikistan to the United Nations and the Steering Committee Friends of Water

Prof. Stefan Uhlenbrook Vice-Rector Academic and Student Affairs, UNESCO-IHE

Dr. Uta Wehn de Montalvo Senior Researcher and Programme Coordinator Knowledge & Capacity Development in the Water Sector, UNESCO-IHE

Wouter Lincklaen Arriens Lead Professional Water Resources Management, Asian Development Bank (ADB)

Zaki Shubber Lecturer in Law and Water Diplomacy, UNESCO-IHE

Speakers

Prof. Michael McClain Professor of Ecohydrology, UNESCO-IHE

Krishna Prasad Senior Lecturer in Land and Water Development,

UNESCO-IHE