Water and Sanitation Program Working Across Boundaries An international partnership to help to Serve the Poor Sustainably the poor gain sustained access to improved water supply and sanitation services WSP-EAP Water and Sanitation Program Regional Conference East Asia and the Pacific Phuket, Thailand (WSP-EAP) February 4-6, 2002 This document is produced and distributed by the Water and Sanitation Program - East Asia & Pacific of the World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, who are solely responsible for its contents. The views and information contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank and do not imply the expression of legal opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, area, or concerning the delineation of national boundaries or national affiliations. TABLE OF CONTENTS WSP-EAP Regional Conference Report Preface........................................................................ 2 Phuket, February 4-6, 2002 I. Overview: Mapping out the playing field ......................... 3 II. What boundaries are we talking about?........................... 7 III. What priority knowledge issues do we want to address? ...................................................................... 9 IV. Country experiences - how do we work across boundaries? ............................................................... 14 V. Ideas Fair................................................................... 20 VI. What priorities should we work on? .............................. 21 VII. Conclusions ................................................................ 26 Endnotes .................................................................... 26 Conference evaluation ................................................ 27 Participants ................................................................. 28 1 Preface Why work across boundaries? The development challenges thrown up by the Millennium Development Goal targets are causing water supply and sanitation interventions to be increasingly seen as an important part of the large poverty reduction agenda, increasingly incorporated into broader multi-dimension interventions for poverty reduction and growth, in rural, urban and small town settings. WSS Sector professionals are faced with the need to move out of sectoral boundaries and be proactive in engaging with other communities of development practice, to effectively influence the way water and sanitation interventions are designed and implemented through projects for rural development, urban development, agriculture, public health, Social Investment Funds, and multi-sectoral infrastructure development. Over the past decades there is much that the WSS sector has learned about how to make water supply and sanitation services sustainable and efficient and better serve the poor. It is imperative that these lessons be transferred effectively when WSS interventions are delivered through non-sectoral channels and institutions. However, the learning required is not a one-way process. WSS sector professionals need to continuously learn how to work effectively across sectors as they share what they know about water and sanitation. A growing perception among partners of the issue led to WSP-EAP's choice of "working across boundaries to serve the poor sustainably" as the theme for its annual learning event in February 2002. The event, which has now become a valued yearly tradition in WSP-EAP, brought together key personnel in the East Asia region from government ministries, External Support Agencies, NGO partners, World Bank colleagues and all WSP-EAP professionals. For three days in Phuket, Thailand, the 63 participants took stock of their tasks and tested the limits of collective knowledge about how to transfer sector learning across boundaries of institutional structures and hierarchies, geographic and administrative boundaries, sector and project structure boundaries, public and private sector boundaries, and even cultural and social boundaries. As in the past, the event was characterized by the absence of formal papers and presentations but the presence of collective learning processes which challenged people to think, analyze and be creative. Our favorite facilitator, the inimitable Allen Hard was at the helm, which meant that there was much laughter combined with intense and enjoyable learning, as borne out by the final evaluation. Dress code was strictly T-shirts. This report documents the process and the conclusions we reached together about how to move forward in our common quest. 2 1. Overview Mapping out the playing field More than 60 participants mainly from East Asia gathered in Phuket in February 2002 to learn from each others' experience as to how to work across boundaries in an effort to assess the current situation and draw up future plans. Although the focus was on East Asia, learning from across the world was used to further the collective thinking and understanding on "working across boundaries". Sector professionals are increasingly required to work beyond the WSS sector in other areas such as health, agriculture and irrigation, integrated area development/rural development/urban development programs, and multi-sectoral interventions including social fund type programs. Decentralization and privatization processes have brought new partners and clients on the scene. Governments and ESA partners are increasingly expecting to see evidence that their investments are producing a positive impact on the lives of the poor. Hence, the number of boundaries has increased significantly over the past years. There is thus a shared agenda and search for the most effective ways of working together, in order to move toward the dual aims of sustained WSS services and improving the quality of lives of the poor through improved services. The objectives of the 2002 thematic retreat were to: push the current limits of thinking about how lessons learned in the water and sanitation sector about reaching the poor could be applied across boundaries ­ e.g. institutional boundaries managing Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) programs, such as seen in divisions between sectoral and multi-sectoral projects, the use of rural, urban and small town boundaries, public and private sector boundaries, and central and local government boundaries. to define how to move forward in ideas and actions. 3 The event was designed to: maximize learning from each other's experiences investigate what leads to the effective transfer of experience and learning facilitate networking for future collaboration The conference focused on ways of transferring learning across the abovementioned kinds of boundaries, about what makes water supply and sanitation interventions work, be sustainable and be beneficial to the poor. Besides WSP-EAP professionals, participants consisted of partners from external support agencies (ESAs), governments and NGOs, as well as colleagues from within the World Bank. Nearly 20 percent were women, reflecting the overall gender imbalance in the sector, particularly within government structures. No less than 12 nationalities were represented among the participants. All participants joined forces to explore and define essential concepts, resulting in this report, which represents a summary of the process and outcomes of the conference deliberations together with basic agreements on how to move forward in both ideas and actions. Types of Institution What was the major language spoken in your home when you grew up? Government 1.6% BahasaIndonesia 1.6% WSP 8.4% Tagalog 1.6% 17.4% 19.4% ESAs 4.8% Vietnamese 15.8% Consultant Laotian 36.5% 11.2% World Bank 19.4% English 36.5% 12.9% NGO Khmer 12.9% Other Other Academic Background Degree How many years have you worked in the or Training Water and Sanitation Area? Economist 5% 10% 0-5years Engineers 15% 24.5% 32.6% 6-10years Social Scientist 11-15years Health Professional 15% 55% 20.5% 15+years Other 22.4% 4 Breaking down language barriers In an attempt to expose participants to language barriers in working across boundaries, they were asked to divide themselves into country groups and brainstorm to translate "working across boundaries" into their respective major languages. Following heated discussions, the groups came up with: Indonesian: "Kerja Sama Lintas Sektor dan Wilayah" "Cross-sectoral and Cross-Region Cooperation" Khmer: "Open view" "Eliminate obstacle" Laotian: "Cycle network" "Trans-border work" "Sans-frontier work" "Network" "Integrated work" "Comprehensive integration work" "Sectoral cooperation" "Cooperation with all related sectors" "Co-transition network" "Implementation of the work comprehensively" Tagalog: "Pagtutulungan Upang Tugunan Ang Mga Balakid" "Helping each other in order to overcome the obstacles" French: "Renverser Les Barrieres" "Overcome barriers" Swedish: "Arbete över Gränser" "Work over Frontiers" 5 Where Does Our Sector Stand? This was an attempt to assess the identity of the Water and Sanitation Sector in each focus country as perceived by the participants. People were asked whether: "The identity of the Water and Sanitation as a sector in its own right in the country I am associated with is:" a. becoming weaker; b. stayed about the same; c. becoming stronger; d. hard to tell or don't know. Most participants thought that identity of the WSS in their countries had become stronger (77%), while 16% thought the identity of the WS sector had either stayed the same or declined. The remaining participants did not know. An interesting factor in some cases was the divergence of opinion among participants from the same countries. Reasons participants mentioned for believing that the identity of the sector had become stronger were: change in focus, from government- or provider-driven to community-driven (Indonesia) improved focus on sustainability more gender-balanced as women are now involved in the whole process of WS program very strong inter-sector collaboration (the Philippines) improved access of the population to potable water and sanitary toilets more international donors have made water supply a priority (Vietnam) stronger, better management from central to district levels (Lao PDR) improved policy and collaboration among ESAs, NGOs and government Reasons participants mentioned for feeling that the identity of the sector had either stayed the same or had become weaker were: "muddling along" as investment keeps declining (Indonesia) no significant changes water supply access situation is not equitable water supply sector has been forgotten (the Philippines) lagging behind other development projects at strategic level, water is not considered a priority (Vietnam) It is interesting to note that although the majority of the participants noted a stronger emerging identity of the water supply and sanitation sector in their respective countries, an increasing part of total investments in the water supply and sanitation sector is currently being made through agencies/organizations other than traditional water supply and/or sanitation sector, as multi-sectoral approaches have become more common. 6 2. What boundaries are we talking about? Based on all participants' experience, boundaries encountered in working with water and sanitation were generally classified as follows: 1. Power/institutional structure How to work across central and local governments; ESAs, Bank, sectors, NGOs. They all have different priorities, and we have to work with them. 2. Project structure: Multisector vs. sectoral water supply and sanitation programs Water supply and sanitation as part of projects dealing with agriculture, rural development, health, urban development How do we work? How do we put everything together? 3. Economic structure: i.e. public vs. private, or mix How do we work with the private sector, civil society? 4. Demographic structure: i.e. rural; small town; urban Small groups were formed to discuss three questions relating to each type of boundary: 1) Why is this issue of interest? 2) Why is this issue challenging? 3) Why is this issue urgent? 7 Following are results of the group discussions: Why is it of interest? Why is it challenging? Why is it urgent? Power and Institutional Structure boundaries: Importance of sharing Personal conflicts can be a barrier Community empowerment; of information Need to redefine boundaries Policy environment Decentralization Sustainability (donor fatigue) Learning and exchanging Additional boundaries: Impact on the poor ideas across boundaries project approach Action needed to convert supply- (project environment) based chain of command to a to demand- responsive chain command Project structure boundaries: Legacy of earlier projects: Urban vs. rural culture clash Divergent donor foci and cultural dependency as barrier Difficult to change institutional distraction Introduction of multi-sector behavior/culture Growing access gaps between approach, needs way to ensure Changing behavior rich and poor, urban and rural WSS interventions made with Creating ownership Improve human resources focus on sustainability and equity in WSS Involvement of more women Createregulatoryframework in WS programs Encourage profit, incentives in Learning and exchanging ideas service and delivery People are still dying due to lack of clean water Economic Structure boundaries Lack of public-private ownership How to deal with failure to Develop strategies for working Low priority given by government meet demand across boundaries and some donors to WSS sector Demographic Structure boundaries Gaps in the access of WSS Prioritizing WSS issues for action Population pressure on resources services Effort to develop flexible service delivery frameworks, focusing on user's demands A brief summary of all group conclusions was provided by three participants. These were: Boundaries surround WSS projects related to demographic; administration; rural and urban; project structures, all of which influence sector effectiveness. To ensure poverty reduction impact from WSS interventions, there is a need for policy reformulation; public awareness creation; decentralization; strengthening of human resources. There is agreement that new multi-sectoral approaches are necessary, but WSS interventions within those approaches need to be made with greater understanding of what it takes to achieve sustainability and equity. Focus on institutional reform and demographic boundaries to address access gaps Need for incentive-driven WSS structures as part of effort to make our investment efficient to avoid donor fatigue. Networking and sharing of knowledge among stakeholders is important. Urgency: There is no common understanding of boundaries -- as evident in a previous attempt to translate boundary into local languages to break down language barriers. 8 3. What priority knowledge issues do we want to address? Taking stock of knowledge on boundaries, participants delved deeply into the big questions and issues that need to be understood in order to move ahead in this area. They worked in 8 small groups to identify the "what we already know" and "what we need to learn", to work across different types of boundaries. Group conclusions were as follows. Working Across Power Structures What we already know What we need to know Management issues Bottom­up approach is preferable How to encourage the general public to Top-down planning prevents bottom-up approach participate in WS projects? High levels of community contribution improve How do we motivate institutions to make difficult project sustainability changes? Power and Decision Making How do we make everybody happy and do his/ Public institutions do not want to give up power her jobs? "Power" structures exist at all levels How to help the government recognize and Interest of politicians often overrides interests of accept sound investment principles for managing project effectiveness water and sanitation? Institutional set-up How to get a clear mandate and endorsement to Successful "pilot" institutional arrangements often organization from high level? fail when "scaled up" How do we share positive experiences within the Organizational structure region? Unclear roles and responsibilities among stakeholders involved in RWSS ESAs have their own agendas 9 Working Across Institutions (Central Government, Local Government, ESAs, Bank etc.) What we already know What we need to know What has worked well What are the policy parameters and National advisory group: government, ESA linkages? Ministerial working group How to help women improve their strength Planning and controlling in community's activities Decentralization approach Proper coordination and good cooperation Communication How can all stakeholders be involved in Almost everybody is in favor of decision making process? coordination Collaborating among neighboring states Institutionalmapping The links central to local government User/demand approach (local) agencies Voices and informed choices What are the policies in addressing the Community involvement increases competing users of water? sustainability What are the tools availability to decision- Why things have not worked making? Some institutions don't want to coordinate Successful institutions: Lessons? How to Overlapping responsibility replicate? Central, supply-driven, technical focus, low Management systems/administration user ownership Delegation of authority? Lack of skills Lack of specific technical assistance How do we support and sustain local/ Wrong incentives community involvement? Different cultures Coordination and collaboration, Less involvement from women community empowerment Access to information by poor? Community participation and ownership Working Across Cultural/Behavior Boundaries What we already know What we need to know Institutions Existence of political interference How to build capacity at local level? How to empower local institutions? Individuals Demand and ownership are related How to divide between local values and Participation of women and poor are global/international values e.g. women's generally low participation in decision making? Need special targeting to involve adequately How can we take advantage of existing What works? cultural behavior? Cultural knowledge of the community before implementation helps adjust project approaches Bottom-up approach, community demand- driven approaches are more sustainable 10 Working Across Project Structures What we already know What we need to know Advantages (of multi-sector projects) Project Management Viability (technical, financial, social, How to design innovative projects? economic, environmental, institutional) Does PSP work? matters in all projects Multi-sector projects support How to make planning agencies effective? decentralization and use demand- How to translate community needs into responsive approaches government planning? Crossing boundaries is easier at local government levels How to identify boundary between urban If successful, outcomes are likely to be and rural? sustainable How to overcome the disadvantages? Budget structures can create or break boundaries What can make multisector project successful? Disadvantages (of multi-sector projects) How best to carry out integrated planning? Lack of collaboration between sectoral agencies involved How to reform policy through multisector projects? Difficult to manage Hard to focus improvements of sector policies Working Accross Project vs Non Project: A Concept Boundary What we know What we need to know Projects pose burden on government at all What kind of incentives do donors need to levels: procedures, finance, M&E, come up with a common strategy? reporting How to reduce transaction costs? Projects often agency/organization-driven Projects are sexy, routine expenditure is not What are the incentives for government to Incentives framework favors projects change? Projects less flexible How to encourage government ownership Projects more readily planned, monitored, of strategies for sustainability and equity? evaluated Projects discourages private sector How to harmonize procedures between participation. agencies? Donor incentives for project approach How to get commitment of political support? o flag waving o Balkanization How to establish required legal regulation o politics framework under condition of political and Employment of home country experts social instability? & supplies How to increase government capital Government incentives for project approach contribution? o divide and control o personal gain To what extent can/will donors change o increased dependency of community on policy? government 11 Working Across Economic Structure: Private and Public Sector Boundary Crossing for WSS What we already know Critical things we need to work on Regulations should be set on a financially What will help the arrangements between sustainable basis public and private sectors in setting Private & public sectors need to agree on regulations? regulations How do we achieve public private Regulations should encourage innovation cooperation on regulation ? by private sector in WSS services How to balance profit vs. social services? Public sector should encourage private Can't it be equity with profit ? sector investments (e.g. tax breaks) How to get the voices of poor potential Private sector must have the opportunity to customers into decision-making for WSS make profit conditionally services by public and private sector? Serving poor customers can be profitable What is the value of WSS investment vs. The poor pay more for WSS services than other sectors ? the rich What common interests can be found for Example of success: Public toilets/washing public private sector in providing WSS facilities in some Indian cities run by services reaching the poor? SULABH International What is the true cost of poor health due to WS sector? Are monitoring mechanisms in place to ensure proper implementation of policies? Water Supply Lack of transparency How can we equitably distribute funds to Lack of rules of the game on water improve WSS for the poor? vendors How to develop appropriate mechanisms Independent economic regulator needed for partnership building? Sanitation How to encourage private sector Lack of loan scheme for sanitation facilities investments? Lack of attention by government people Inequitable distribution of funding How to identify different types of private/ Difficulties in collecting money public partnerships? Private Companies What is the relationship between goodwill Suppliers compete for water resources and profit? Needs legal regulatory framework, also to What are boundaries private/public include provision to poor stakeholders are willing to operate within? Commercially-driven Expensive How to get private sector schemes to serve Public Companies the poor? Lack of knowledge on economics of WSS What are the choices of Public Private Socially/politically-driven Partnership for different situations? Lack of management 12 Working Across Demographic Structures: Rural, Urban, Small Town What we already know What the big questions Success: Clear level of institutional responsibility How to provide equitable and sustainable Demand-responsive approach helps services to urban-rural communities? achieve success How to deliver sustainable services in small Villagers are willing to contribute in kind towns? for WS schemes How to define rural, urban areas? Development of multi­village schemes that Do we talk about peri-urban or middle cover rural & small towns class? Failure: How to reach common perceptions between central and local governments in Assumption that rural people have lots of time to discuss development issues WSS service development? Why is connected middle class subsidized Lessons learned are not properly shared in urban areas while poor pay highest market rates? Urban customers do not pay for water system, rural users do Areas for investigation The small group discussion activities led each group to select one most interesting question. 1. What will help get agreements between public and private sectors in setting regulations? 2. How can local involvement be facilitated and supported? Between community and institution? 3. How to deliver sustainable services in the "gray area" of small towns? 4. What are the necessary conditions to move to non-project approaches? 5. Where is the meeting point between external support and local culture? 6. What makes multisector projects successful? 7. How to facilitate the government to recognize and accept for investment principles? 8. How to draw up a constructive, not constrictive, legal framework for private, public firms? 13 4. Country Experiences ­ how do we work across boundaries? In an effort to provide examples of working across boundaries in multisector projects, including water and sanitation aspects, four cases were presented to participants. Below are summaries of presentations and discussions on the four projects. In Indonesia KDP: Kecamatan Development Project KDP 2 is a US$421 million multi-sector project in Indonesia that aims to cover the poorest rural areas in 20 provinces and 27,000 villages over a period of 4.5 years. Under the project, villagers can choose a range of public infrastructure facility improvements to underpin economic and social development. The menu of public infrastructure investments includes but is not limited to, roads, bridges, water supply and public sanitation. Each village in eligible poorest sub-districts of the country can submit proposals and compete with other villages for a maximum assistance of Rp150 million annually. Besides poverty reduction, the project aims to enhance community empowerment, grassroots democratization and good governance at local levels. Sustainability is an issue explicit in project objectives and community ownership generated through the process of choice of interventions is expected to contribute toward sustainability. There is no guarantee yet for the voice and choice for the poor. However, community meetings are integral to the process and recent attempts to ensure separate women's meetings for proposal formulation by women's groups are expected to yield better results. KDP designers do not believe that fixed rates of minimum community contributions are essential. There is thus no requirement for investments in capital costs by the community, although communities have been known to contribute labor. Sectoral projects running concurrently in Indonesia require up to 20 percent community contribution in construction, in cash and kind. This situation has led to two contradictory sets of project rules at community level. In the past villagers were even paid wages in multi-sectoral projects (at lower than market rates, in order to attract only poorer workers) for working on infrastructure sub-projects for their village. One critical question arising from the totally grant-funded infrastructure development perspective is: how long can Indonesia afford this ? 14 In Vietnam Hai Phong: Public Water Project Hai Phong is a public utility company providing 24-hour service to a city of 500,000 population. With high water pressure (up to 5th floor), quality meets Vietnamese standard. Users take part in whole process from planning to O&M. Under its 100% connection policy, company subsidizes house connection to increase number of users. Poor families can also pay in installments. With the existence of incentive, tariff and subsidy mechanisms, the company needs no government subsidy, instead it contributes revenue to provincial administration. In Lao PDR PIP: Provincial Infrastructure Project IDA-funded PIP is a US$27 million multi-sector project covering roads, airfield, town water supply and HASWAS, PIP's RWSS component that accounts for US$2.9 million of the total fund. Challenges faced include how to bring other ESAs/NGOs on board, and how to define rural-urban. At the village level, the project focuses on informed choices; community resource sharing; and outsourcing. At provincial level it centers on working across boundaries and programmatic approach. A multi-disciplinary team develops and manages the project. The project requires a cash contribution of community amounting to US$2 per household for water service and US$2 for latrine per household. In Vietnam MDWRDP: Mekong Delta Water Resources Development A study in "boundary bondage", MDWRDP is a large scale irrigation project with a small drinking water and sanitation component. Irrigation makes up 95% and the rural water and sanitation component 5% (later reduced to 3.5%). Although the RWS component is small, the system is complicated, involving geographic, organizational; institutional, and incentive boundary issues and constraints. The project features community participation in planning, cost recovery (community contribution stands at 20% up front), and was intended to include a new, facilitating role for local agencies. Challenges include concerns of favoritism in distribution of project resources; institutional rivalries and hegemony (The executing ministry comprises five vice ministries, each of which was formerly a ministry and all still operate hierarchically. Rural water and sanitation is under a very small sub- directorate); and how to coordinate irrigation and WS sector. The RWSS sub-directorate is under a different vice minister than the irrigation sector. Also, irrigation districts and administrative boundaries used for drinking water and sanitation do not coinside. 15 Dealing with "gray areas" of boundaries Three cases were presented by selected participants about possible consequences of boundaries and the strategies being considered by WSP and the World Bank to deal with the consequences in certain countries. Water supply and sanitation interventions in multi-sector projects: Act of introspection at the World Bank concerning WSS Multi-sector Projects Currently the investment in WSS in types of projects in the World Bank is in the order of: Environment 7% 19% 8% Agriculture 4% Education, Transport etc. 18% Dedicated water projects Social protection 46% Urban development WSS interventions planned and delivered through these projects do not follow consistent approaches and principles, which leads to highly variable outcomes in terms of the sustainability of services created and the equity of access achieved. Issues and Way Forward Sustainability of WSS interventions needs to be made an issue of importance and routinely assessed in multi- sector programs. Policy & institutional arrangements need to be in place to monitor sustainability. Rural WSS `group' is increasingly talking to social environment, urban networks in the World Bank, but greater integration and dialogue are needed. Guidelines/toolkit for WSS in multi-sector projects for both WSS/Staff and partners/clients is expected to be ready by June 2002. In order to deal with the issues, we need to get ourselves organized first, so that efforts can be aimed at changing Bank approach, community-driven development, contracting out services, and bringing sectors together. At present the Bank is focusing on public sector operations (cut across all sectors), private sector participation and decentralization. As for poverty, no less than 32 countries are going into the preparation of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which place water and sanitation improvement high on the poverty reduction agenda in almost all countries. 16 Urban, Rural, Small Town: Where do they fit in Cambodia WS situation is changing fast in Cambodia, a country of 13 million people with 80 percent of the population living in rural areas. Service coverage currently stands at 24 percent for water and 9 percent for sanitation. Question: How rural-urban policy affects project implementation. In addition to differences in policy and approach on water supply for rural and urban areas, the issue is made highlycomplexaswaterinallitsaspectsisadministeredbysixdifferentgovernmentdepartments/agencies.Community water system has become a source of conflict (four jurisdictional problems in just one community). To complicate matters further, private water vendor also comes in. Two different ministries are involved in water supply and sanitation policy development: Rural Development Ministry and Industry and Energy Ministry. To deal with this issue there is a need to: define jurisdictional boundaries improve political consensus and will develop consensus among external agencies and donors. What is being done in Cambodia: coordinating committee (12 agencies) ­ to unify these agencies decentralize decision-making to local level (to avoid turf wars). It is however too early to tell whether the measures are effective in dealing with the problems. Reflections on the use of the rural, small town and urban boundaries Water supply and sanitation services are commonly classified as being either "urban" or "rural". The alternative approach involves classification of water supplies according to who has primary responsibility for management and decision-making, rather than any physical or administrative definition. The two defining players are called "institutions" and "communities". To define institution or community, characteristics of the two must be taken into account: Community characteristics: "Community" means a socially cohesive group, which generally operates on mutual trust between members. Institution characteristics: "Institution" means any formal organization or agency external to a single community whose transactions with its "customers" involves money. 17 Settlement characteristics Urban Time Rural Two Population 1 million households households Small Dispersed/ Larger Dense Scattered Definition of boundaries in Indonesia: An alternative approach Urban Institutional Top down 10% Run by institutions approach Water and sanitation utilities in Indonesia are struggling to fulfill their responsibilities to smaller 70% INSTITUTION Managed jointly by towns generally, and to low-income communities institutions and communities in particular. Communal facilities, in the meantime, have been closed down in large numbers.Theinstitutionalapproachonlyprovides 20% Community services to 10 percent of Indonesia's population. COMMUNITIES Run by communities approach Rural Bottom up Hence, utilities play a minor role in the provision of water supply services in Indonesia. Community-managed systems are estimated to serve 20 percent of the population. This leaves 70 percent of the population in Indonesia in the so-called "gray area" -- served by part-community and part-institutionally managed facilities. This jointly managed scheme involves a formal business agreement between an institution and a community group: on the one side the institution agrees to provide a service, on the other the community group agrees to pay for that service, and internally manage its affairs. Physically this might involve the institution providing a "bulk" water supply to a point; downstream of that point the community group arranges distribution of the water and collects money among its members, and pays the agreed charges to the institution. 18 5. Ideas Fair Participants took part in an ideas fair by preparing and displaying posters about experiences, projects, and designs that feature the best examples of what we know, best ideas and best learning experiences. Voting by all participants for the posters that were considered most interesting led to 16 being identified as the "winners". The following selected topics were presented in two rounds of eight parallel presentations. Participants chose what they wanted to hear about and joined specific presentation groups. 1. Vietnam's Small Towns Management Model Study 2. Lao PDR's Small Towns Water and Sanitation Initiative Study 3. How to Save a Million Lives (Handwashing PPP Initiative) 4. Guidebook on doing PSP Projects for Local Government Units 5. Revolving Fund for Household Sanitation 6. Operationalizing a Large Scale Demand- Responsive Project WSSLIC 2 in Indonesia 7. Community-Based Sanitation in Low-Income Factory Workers Settlements in Tangerang, Indonesia 8. Where are the Urban Poor? 9. Stop NATO 10. Low-Cost Household Water Filtration 11. Rural Water Supply Project 12. Promoting DRA Through Informed Choices 13. Bayan Tubig (Maynilad)-Tubig Para Sa Barangay (Manila Water) 14. Working with the media 15. Aid Effectiveness 19 6. What priorities should we work on? Major Boundary Issues Having engaged in a series of discussions on boundaries, participants agreed to focus on four key issues. Four facilitators were appointed to work on the major boundary issues prioritized by the participants. Participants self-selected themselves into four groups to work on one of the four key issues for half a day. The facilitators then presented summary of group analysis. I. Achieving Equity in WSS Interventions This group began by defining the issue as follows: Achieving greater equity in the WSS Sector involves defining what equity means for particular stakeholders, and then building into project design the necessary structures, tools, indicators and mechanisms needed to ensure that all stakeholders have: Having equal access to information and opportunities Having equal voice and choice in decision making; and Receiving fair distribution of benefits 20 How to Achieve Equity in WSS? Developing structures Verifiable process Verifiable outcomes & Approach for better Equity built into & mechanisms to indicators to ensure indicators impact to equity needs to be project design ensure equity in WSS equity assess equity defined specifically for for WSS rural/urban Developing Human resource Indicators for M&E Relative to different WSS in poverty mechanisms to capacity building Social and realistic sector rural/urban alleviation programs ensure equity Knowing if all approach Better definition of Equityresponding Providing receive information Better coverage rural/urban/small to community's opportunities for and opportunities Knowing if both towns to remove expressed demands project benefits to fairly poor and non poor barriers & gaps in instead of donors' reach target How do you identify are benefiting from service perceived needs beneficiaries the poor/ services (lowest level disadvantaged? Community possible) Knowing if all assessment tools Community community groups What are the management are having a say in indicators needed structures that decisions to assess equity promote equity Are subsidies for Requires systems the poor reaching approach the poor? How to promote Equity Accross Boundaries? Design an Enabling Environment: Promote policy development for sanitation that makes promotional & commercial approaches the way to go in sanitation Use selling approaches for sanitation, not educational ones: price/product/right placement/promotion Recognitionoftheimportanceofactivecommunitycommitmentparticipationindecision making Use of community contracts in project: group contract, household commitment Get Incentives Right, for Relevant Sets of Stakeholders Credit funds or schemes for small-scale water and sanitation improvements Local government executives to have income from user fees Dispel the myth that serving poor customers cannot be profitable Allow profit making by private sector, if they serve majority of poor customers Publicize Success Stories & Why They Succeeeded Campaign to make water and sanitation a priority Disseminate information/lessons via website, email, publications More proactive government promotion of best practices Use schools/youth to introduce better water, hygiene behaviors in communities 21 Use WSS as the Wedge to Establish DRA in Communities WSS project design should readily transfer to solve other communities development needs WhenevercommunityselectsWSSasentrypoint,useittoestablishademand-responsive process for subsequent inputs Establish multi-stakeholder decision making committees at all relevant levels for community level interventions II. INCENTIVES Incentivesarekeymechanismstoencouragestakeholderstochangewaysofdoingbusiness, behaviors, attitudes, ways of communicating, etc. Positive incentives (that attract rather than deter) are much more effective than negative ones. Incentives can be financial, cultural, moral, ethical, or legal in nature, and include motivators such as tax breaks, recognition, and opportunities for career advancement, training and intellectual stimulation. How to create innovative incentives? Identify stakeholders (politicians, policy makers, government officials, donors, private sector, community, NGOs) Identify incentives that maintain status quo, disincentives to change Brainstorm on new incentives that will encourage the change Develop strategies to increase appropriate incentives and reduce disincentives Creating innovating incentives to encourage/promote all stakeholders to work across boundaries: A new aspect not exploited before Unique Watch for unintended consequences Appealing environment Stable environment Stimulate creation of strategies to deal with innovation Empowerment 22 III. GRAY AREA Thisgroupbegandiscussionaskingthequestion:Howtodeliversustainable services in the gray area between large urban and community-level (including small town) WSS systems?1 Acknowledging that there is a Gray Area which is not effectively serviced by institutions or the community and where there are opportunities to clarify a framework, explore options and promote cooperation It is fair to say that this was a challenging new concept to most participants. However, one group was brave enough to work on further exploration of what it meant to them in relation to their own experience. The first half of the discussion period allowed sub-groups from different countries and agencies to share the application of this concept to their sector experience. The situations described were very diverse. The group then proceeded to explore points of similarity and difference, and to refine the concept, as shown in the table. How to Deal with Gray Area in WSS? How can local involvement be facilitated & supported between community & institution? Clarify framework Understand characteristics Promote cooperation Explore options Institutional mandate & What is an institution and Can institutions and Technological sophistication function community organization communities co-exist in Preferences for water of a Regulatory framework Differences between same area? particular source (e.g. Community-based countries Gray areas physically surface over ground water) organizations: legal Settlement density within other areas Is there a relationship framework Variation over time When does a community- between the way water Direct policy to pass Urban-rural derivations based organization supply is managed and responsibility to local level are not appropriate for become an institution? the water source? Ownership of facilities water and sanitation How to work together Management options, Roles and responsibility of Comparative advantage between urban and rural especially small scale institutions and community for optimal mix on WSS? groups If complex cooperation is If people know and care required, does that lend about where their drinking itself toward institutional water comes from, it will management as opposed lead to better management to community management? of that resource Level and nature of village cooperative behavior Complexity of cooperation required 1 This topic arose from the presentation titled "Reflections on the Use of Rural, Small Town and Urban Boundaries" described in chapter 4. 23 IV. Public Private Partnership (PPP) Exploring the potential for private sector involvement in the water and sanitation sector is very much in vogue in our work. The group discussed the ways that public-private partnerships can function, and how they might be optimized to achieve equitable access to services by the poor. The group began by defining the intent of partnerships: PPP aims to develop ways to mobilize public and private skills and capital in water supply and sanitation for the benefit of all stakeholders, including the poor. Partnerships require flexibility; there are many models with a varying balance of public/private roles and their effectiveness will be driven by a variety of factors. The desire to minimize risk for all parties underpins the relationships. Why develop Public-Private Partnerships?: Public sector alone is not efficient Limited government funds ­ private investment is needed The private sector tends to be more responsive to customer demands in order to increase business Value of water Private sector can market, identify/create demand, usually more effectively than the public sector alone The key is creating a competitive environment ­ neither public nor private monopolies are healthy A variety of partnership models are known, ranging in duration, risk, and ownership. Within each model, equitable services for the poor can be achieved by creating an appropriate incentive framework for the service provider. A key boundary to be crossed is understanding the "poor market". Developing a marketing strategy that addresses the demands and constraints of the poor is necessary. The big private sector tends to be only interested in the potential for high profits in major cities. How can the small, local private sector be attracted to the water (and sanitation) sector? The key is to minimize risk. One interesting approach is the "Design-Build-Lease" model, which takes away investment risk for the private builder/operator. 24 How to promote PPP for the poor? Guidelines for ensuring equitable service through partnerships Checks and balances are needed of the incentives and functions of both sides of the partnership. An enabling legal and organizational framework is needed, and a regulatory framework between public and private sector. Private sector needs to be accountable to its clients. Assess incentives for each partner. Assess and minimize the risks involved for all parties. What are potential benefits to private investors. Demonstrate ways to profit from serving the poor ­ create a win-win situation. Do the poor need subsidies? Generally speaking, in partnerships public resources should be focused on serving the poor, but the private sector can also be induced to serve the poor. Given the right enabling environment, the private sector will do market research and seek profits from serving the poor (and everyone else). Both the public and the private sector need to better understand the "poor market" in order to develop a viable strategy for providing services that the poor can and will pay for. Some examples of PPP from the region: Vietnam ­ Manila ­ concession Jakarta ­ concession increasing entrepreneurship The concessionaire had an incentive The two concessionaires cannot serve The "small" private sector is playing to serve the poor ­ realized that the squatter areas by decree ­ they are an increasing role in the water poor were already paying a high unit not recognized settlements ­ so the sector as the legal and regulatory cost for water, so there was a market ability to serve large numbers of the environment liberalizes. in poor neighborhoods. Low-cost very poor is limited. Pilot projects are engineering solutions are being providing free house connections in The public/private interface is a developed. The municipality also recognized low-income communities. "gray area". In some cases civil reduced risk by: Subsidized "social" tariffs are applied servants hold private jobs, which Waiving excavation fees; to poor households. Neither of these may lead to conflicts of interest. Permitting above-ground pipes; approaches would encourage private Guaranteeing that squatter areas investment. would not be redeveloped for a fixed period. 25 7. Conclusions Participants agreed that boundary issues are an important subject that needs to be dealt with via a concerted effort to improve the quality of lives of the poor through sustained WSS services. Endnotes As the conference drew to an end, participants packed their bags for a dragon boat race. Having sailed across "boundaries" of another type, participants threw their hats in the air to mark the end of the learning journey. 26 Conference Evaluation The "mood meter" clearly showed that most participants were fully satisfied with their experience with learning across boundaries. "IMAGINE WORKING ACROSS BOUNDARIES WITH BONDAGE" Imagine there are no boundaries, it's easy if you try, no red tape before us, above us just one sky. Imagine all poor people enjoying life today. Imagine there are no countries, it isn't hard to do, nothing to steal or lie for, and no corruption too. Imagine all the people living without disease. ** YOU MAY SAY WE ARE DREAMERS, BUT WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES, WE HOPE STAKEHOLDERS WILL JOIN US, AND THE WORLD WILL BE AS ONE Imagine there is no grey zone, I wonder if you can no hidden agendas, a partnership of women and men. Imagine all the people Working Across Boundaries... 27 WSP-EAP REGIONAL CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Peter Feldman Bouy Kim Sreang PFD, Cambodia Assistant PCB Project Manager c/o The World Bank Cambodia Resident Corner St. 169 & Soviet Blvd. Phnom Penh, Office. P.O. Box 877, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Cambodia Tel. : 855 23 211 751 Tel. : 023 882 952 Fax. : 855 23 211 752 Fax : 023 882 952 e-mail : feldman.pfd@bigpond.com.kh e-mail : rwssdp@bigpond.com.kh Dr. Mao Saray H.E. Ngo Pin Director, Dep. of Rural WS, Min. of Rural Dev. Sec. of State, Min. of Water Resources & Behind Ministry of Health, Kampuchea Meteorology Krom Blvd. #139, Cambodia 47 Norodom Blvd. Phnom Penh, Cambodia Tel. : 855 12 99 33 44 Tel. : 855 23 724 327 Fax. : 855 12 84 82 44 Fax. : 855 23 426 345 e-mail : maosaray@bigpond.com.kh Sin Vaidia Dr. Chea Samnang Deputy Director MIME/DPWS Director, Min. of Rural Development, #45 Norodom Blvd. Daun Penh D. Department of Rural Care Phnom Penh, Cambodia Corner of Rd #169, Soviet Blvd. Tel. : 855 23 21 02 72 Phnom Penh, Cambodia Fax : 855 23 21 02 72 Tel. : 855 023 366 627 e-mail : consult@bigpond.com.kh e-mail : burgeap.jsr@bigpond.com.kh Basah Hernowo Sutjipto National Development Planning Agency Ministry of Health Jl. Taman Suropati no.2, Jakarta Pusat, Jl. Percetakan Negara No.29, Indonesia Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia Tel. : 62 21 323 144 Tel. : 62 21 424 7608 ext. 126 Fax : 62 21 323 144 Fax. : 62 21 420 0944 e-mail : basah_hernowo@email.com e-mail : t_soetjipto@yahoo.com Purnama Supriyanto Budi Susilo Min. of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure Ministry of Home Affairs Gedung B, Blok IC, 8th Floor Jl. Raya Pasar Minggu Km.19, Jl. Patimura no. 20, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia Tel. : 62 21 7279 6904 Tel. : 62 21 798 3785 Fax : 62 21 7279 6904 Fax. : 62 21 798 3785 e-mail : wil1 kotatim@pu.go.id Utin Kiswanti Johan Susmono National Development Planning Agency Ministry of Home Affairs Jl. Taman Suropati no.2, Jakarta Pusat, Jl. Raya Pasar Minggu Km.19, Indonesia Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia Tel. : 62 21 334 379 Tel. : 62 21 798 9973, 798 9974 ext. 132 Fax. : 62 21 392 6603 Fax : 62 21 798 9973, 798 9974 e-mail : utin@bappenas.go.id Dr. Nouanta Maniphousay Dr. Phouthone Vangkonevilay Director, Nam Saat, Ministry of Public Health Dir. Department of Public Health P.O. Box 1225 Ban Luang Namtha district Vientiane, Lao PDR Lao PDR Tel. : 856 21 413 310 Tel : 856 86 312 287 Fax : 856 21 413 310 Fax : 856 86 312 305 e-mail : soutch@laotel.com 28 WSP-EAP REGIONAL CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Keophilavanh Aphaylath Dr. Somphone Dethoudom Director, Urban Research Institute Dir. General, WS Authority (WASA) Dongpalane Road, Box Building MCTPC. Lane-Xang Avenue, P.O. Box 5967, Vientiane, Lao PDR Vientiane, Lao PDR Tel. : 856 21 412 285 Tel. : 856 21 451 826 Fax. : 856 21 416 527 Fax : 856 21 451 426 e-mail : urilao@laotel.com e-mail : icilao@laotel.com Saykham Thammanosouth Dr. Soutsakhone Chanthaphone Director of Coorperation and Information Div. Deputy Director Nam Sat Dongpalane Road, Box Building Ministry of Health P.O. Box 5967, Vientiane, Lao PDR P.O. Box 261, Vientiane, Lao PDR Tel. : 856 21 412 285 Tel. : 856 21 415 726, 413 310 Fax. : 856 21 416 527 Fax : 856 21 413 310 e-mail : urilao@laotel.com e-mail : soutch@laotel.com Librador Quitoriano Maria Aloha Samoza Infrastructure Section, NEDA Coord. Council for Private Sector Participation NEDA sa Pasig Building 6th Floor, EDPC Building, BSP Comlex, A Mabini Street 1000 Malate Amber Avenue, Pasig City 1600, Philippines Manila, Philippines Tel. : 612 631 3724 Tel. : 612 525 2614 Fax : 612 631 2188 Fax : 612 525 4416 e-mail : lsquitoriano@neda.gov.ph e-mail : asamoza@ccpsp.org Engr Joselito Reigo de Dios Dennis von Custodio Environmental and Occupational Health Infrastructure Section, NEDA Office, Dept. of Health 5 Orchid St. Vergoville Subdivison, Pulanglupa, San Lazzaro Compound, Sta Cruz Lospina Metro, Manila, Philippines Manila, Philippines Tel. : 612 743 8301 ext. 2327 Tel. : 632 631 2192 / 631 3734 Fax : 612 732 9966 Fax : 632 631 3734 e-mail : eoho@doh.gov.ph e-mail : dccustodio@neda.gov.ph Dr. Lope Villenas Dr. Desiree Narvaez NWRB Chief Medical Officer Department of Health 8th Floor, NIA Bldg, Epifanio de los Santos 2F, Bldg. 13, DOH, San Lazaro Compound Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines Sta. Cruz, Manila 1003 Tel. : 920 2724, 920 2603 Tel. : 632 732 9966, 743 8301-24 Fax : 920 2641 e-mail : des@doh.gov.ph e-mail : lrv@nwrb.gov.ph Nguyen Danh Soan Le Van Can CERWAS, MARD Director of CERWASS, MARD 73 Duong Nguyen Hong C10 Nam #73, Nguyen Hong Road, Lang Ha, Thanh Cong, Ha Noi, Viet Nam Dong Da, Ha Noi, Viet Nam Tel. : 84 91 320 3513 Tel. : 8 355 821 Fax : 84 4 776 1321 Fax : 8 355 964 e-mail : ng_d_soan@fpt.vn e-mail : cerwass@fpt.vn Le Thu Ha Pham Thi Hong Woman Union, Vietnam Dept. of Foreign Relations, MARD, Vietnam 29 WSP-EAP REGIONAL CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Parameswaran Iyer Alan Coulthart WSP, World Bank Headquarters World Bank Office, Hanoi 1818 H. Street, N. W. 63 Ly Thai To Street Washington D.C. 20433, USA Hanoy, Vietnam Tel. : 202 473 9785 Tel. : 84 4 934 6600 Fax : 202 522 3313, 522 3228 Fax : 84 4 934 6567 e-mail : piyer@worldbank.org e-mail : acoulthart@worldbank.org Zabeta Moutafis Robin Taylor Second Secretary, AusAID Indonesia First Secretary, AusAID Vietnam c/o Australian Embassy, 5B Ton Duc Thang Street. Jl. Rasuna Said, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia Ho Chi Minh City - Vietnam Tel. : 62 21 2550 5555 Tel. : 848 829 6035 ext. 115 Fax : 62 21 522 7106 Fax : 848 822 6201 e-mail : zabeta_moutafis@ausaid.gov.au e-mail : robin_taylor@dfat.gov.au Geir Martinsen Erika Montero-Geronimo AusAID Canberra - Vietnam Section AusAID Manila Tel. : 620 64 868 5/F Salustiana Tower, 104 Paseo de Roxas e-mail : geir_martinsen@ausaid.gov.au cor Parea Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati City Tel. : 63 2 754 6174 Fax : 63 2 813 5473 e-mail : erika.montero-geronimo@dfat.gov.au Stephen Greenhalg Steve Ray DANIDA Vietnam DFID Vietnam 73 Duong Nguyen Hong C10 Nam British Embassy, 6th Floor, Central Bldg. Thanh Cong, Ha Noi, Viet Nam 31 Hai Ba Trung St., Ha Noi, Viet Nam Tel. : 84 91 323 8152 Tel. : 844 934 4404 Fax : 84 4 776 1321 Fax : 844 934 4403 e-mail : greenhalgh@fpt.vn e-mail : s-j-ray@dfid.gov.uk Steven Iddings Le Quang Vinh WHO Cambodia UNICEF Vietnam 120 Pasteur Street, P.O. Box 1217 Tung Shing Building Pnhom Penh, Cambodia 02 Ngo Nguyen Street, Hanoy, Vietnam Tel. : 855 232 166 10, 232 169 42 Tel. : 84 4 935 0028-33 ext. 236 Fax : 855 232 162 11 Fax : 84 4 935 0040 e-mail : iddingss@cam.wpro.who.int e-mail : lqvinh@unicef.org Johan Arvling Bruce Gross UNDP Thailand Mekong Project UN Bldg. Rajdamnern Nok Avenue 1624 Argonne Place Bangkok 10200, Thailand Washington D.C. 20009, USA Tel. : 662 288 1826 Tel. : 1 202 332 3350 Fax : 662 288 3032 e-mail : bruceg121@worldnet.att.net e-mail : johan.arvling@undp.org Andreas Urich Jean Roca Borda Indonesia APSER Project Manager Kayen no. 176, Jl. Kaliurang Km. 6,6 BURGEAP Phnom Penh Yogyakarta 55283, Indonesia Tel. : 855 12 813 991 Tel. : 62 274 888 273 Fax : 855 23 882 860 Fax : 62 274 889 064 e-mail : burgeap.jsr@bigpond.com.kh e-mail : sanimas@indosat.net.id 30 WSP-EAP REGIONAL CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Caroline van den Berg Nilanjana Mukherjee WSP-EAP Regional Team Leader WSP-EAP Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Tel. : 62 21 5299 3170 Tel. : 62 21 5299 3173 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 e-mail : cvandenberg@worldbank.org e-mail : nmukherjee@worldbank.org Richard W. Pollard Richard M. Hopkins WSP-EAP WSP-EAP Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Tel. : 62 21 5299 3180 Tel. : 62 21 5299 3174 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 e-mail : rpollard@worldbank.org e-mail : rhopkins@worldbank.org Ratna I. Josodipoero Alfred Lambertus WSP-EAP WSP-EAP Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Tel. : 62 21 5299 3172 Tel. : 62 21 5299 3171 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 e-mail : rjosodipoero@worldbank.org e-mail : alambertus@worldbank.org Yosa Yuliarsa Sofyan Iskandar WSP-EAP WSP-EAP - WASPOLA Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Tel. : 62 21 5299 3179 Tel. : 62 21 392 5395 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 Fax : 62 21 392 5395 e-mail : yyuliarsa@worldbank.org e-mail : siskandar@worldbank.org Ruth Walujan Ari Istandar WSP-EAP ­ WASPOLA WSP-EAP ­ WASPOLA Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13 Floor Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Tel. : 62 21 392 5395 Tel. : 62 21 5299 3003 Fax : 62 21 392 5395 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 e-mail : rwalujan@worldbank.org e-mail : istandara@yahoo.com Santanu Lahiri Sisavanh Phanaouvong Country Program Team Leader WSP-EAP Lao PDR WSP-EAP Lao PDR PO Box 345 The Word Bank Vientiane, PO Box 345 The Word Bank Vientiane, Lao PDR Lao PDR Tel. : 856 21 415 729 Tel. : 856-21 415 729 Fax : 856 21 450 015 Fax. : 856-21 450 015 e-mail : slahiri@worldbank.org e-mail : sphanaouvong@worldbank.org Thomas Meadley Nguyen Cong Thanh WSP-EAP Lao PDR Country Program Team Leader WSP-EAP Vietnam PO Box 345 The Word Bank Vientiane, c/o The World Bank Resident Mission Lao PDR 63, Ly Thai To street, Hanoi, Vietnam Tel. : 856 21 415 729 Tel. : 84 4 934 6600 Fax : 856 21 450 015 Fax. : 84 4 934 6597 e-mail : meadley@laotel.com e-mail : nthanh@worldbank.org 31 WSP-EAP REGIONAL CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Hoa Hoang Thi Andrew Whillas WSP-EAP Vietnam WPEP Team Leader, WSP-EAP Philippines c/o The World Bank Resident Mission c/o the WB Office Manila 23/F Taipan Place, Emerald ave, 63, Ly Thai To street, Hanoi, Vietnam Ortigascity 1605, Philippines Tel. : 84 4 934 6600 Tel. : 63 2 9255 0362 Fax. : 84 4 934 6597 Fax : 63 2 9257 7342 e-mail : hhoang@worldbank.org e-mail : awhillas@worldbank.org Marites de la Cruz Ann Thomas WPEP, WSP-EAP Philippines WSP-EAP c/o the WB Office Manila Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor 23/F Taipan Place, Emerald ave, Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Ortigascity 1605, Philippines Tel. : 63 2 9255 0362 Tel. : 62 21 5299 3003 Fax : 63 2 9257 7342 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 e-mail : tdelacruz@worldbank.org e-mail : athomas@worldbank.org Allen Hard Clara Mutter Facilitator Conference administrator PO Box 89, Batesville Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor VA 22924, USA Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Tel. : 434 823 5693 Tel. : 62 21 5299 3184 e-mail : wah4k@virginia.edu Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 e-mail : cmutter@worldbank.org Sasya Arifin Conference administrator Jakarta Stock Exchange Bldg. 13th Floor Jl. Jend. Sudirman 52-53, Jakarta, Indonesia Tel. : 62 21 5299 3178 Fax : 62 21 5299 3004 e-mail : sarifin@worldbank.org 32 Water and Sanitation Program East Asia and the Pacific Jakarta Stock Exchange Building Tower 2, 13th floor Jl. Jenderal Sudirman Kav. 52-53, SCBD Jakarta 12190, Indonesia Phone: (62-21) 5299-3003 Fax: (62-21) 5299-3004 Website: http://www.wsp.org An international partnership to help the poor gain sustained access to improved water supply and sanitation services. The program's main funding patners are the governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, The United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank