Partnership Series (II) - Defining the Term 'Partnership '

by Ken Caplan, Director, BPD

Because our terminology shapes our expectations that then shape our behaviour, over the last several years, BPD – and others, of course – has grappled with the need to find some kind of definition for the term 'partnership'. As noted in the last blog, the term is used widely to refer to all kinds of relationships. The pressure is admittedly strong for organisations across the public, private, funder and civil society sectors to use such terminology to send a variety of signals.

To be clear, whilst a spirit of working well together is certainly important for such arrangements, we have not generally used the term to refer to regulated investment or traditional

BPD partnership mapping exercise

infrastructure or construction projects between the public and private sectors as two signatories to a contract. Partnership for us is more about the looser more iterative, more inclusive, more horizontal, unregulated multi-stakeholder arrangements to which the fairly constant calls for more “working together” seem to be referring. The term, however, is misleading – working in partnership suggests harmony whereby the reality is more often than not a lot of hard work.

After much soul searching and head scratching, we decided a few years ago to adopt and adapt someone else’s definition. The one that continues to resonate with us most was first developed by Simon Zadek when he was with AccountAbility, as follows:

• Partnerships involve two or more organizations that enter into a temporary or initially time-bound arrangement: To take advantage of synergistic goals and opportunities to address particular issues or deliver specified tasks that single organizations cannot accomplish on their own as effectively...

This part is a fairly common description and offers few surprises, representing mutual need and mutual obligation as well as hopefully some sense that a particular partner is the best (or even only) option to help us do what needs doing.

The more interesting part of the definition, however, is the second bit:

• ...whereby individual organizations cannot purchase the appropriate resources or competencies purely through a market transaction.

What we have seen over the years is a significant number of "partnerships" that in reality behave as contracts – with one partner buying the services of another and calling the relationship a partnership. We see this across the board with all permutations of relationship among the public, private, civil society and donor/funder stakeholders. (In fact, relationships between northern NGOs and southern NGOs, and between donors/ funders and NGOs are perhaps the most problematic as the language rarely seems to match up with the practice.)

We have no doubt that many partnerships will require money changing hands and some form of paperwork that binds the partners. From working with dozens and dozens of partnerships over the years, we’ve seen that such transactional arrangements tend to dominate the discussions between partners – yes, generally speaking the one with the money calls the shots or dictates the terms. The paying party generally (though perhaps with some timid negotiations from the contracted party) determines what the deliverables will be and their timeframes, sets out the penalties for non-delivery, and then takes ownership over and credit for the deliverables once they have been completed.

Through various partnership building tools and frameworks, BPD has sought to focus more on the mutual need and mutual obligation found in the definition above. Crazy as it sounds, we have usually encouraged partnerships in their early stages to put off the discussions of finance for as long as they can. Once introduced, the finances then distort every conversation thereafter more towards a discussion of short-term activities and away from longer term goals, towards important but overly long discussions about procedures and day-to-day management, and reporting that is input-output rather than outcomes or impacts focused. Putting off these financial negotiations might allow partners to dedicate more time to forging a robust relationship - focusing more on strategic objectives, partner incentives, other essential resources and clarifying roles and responsibilities.

Either we need new words to describe what we actually have in place or we need new ways to make partnerships value the contributions of all partners…


Next time: Partnerships and permanence…

Partnership Series (I) - Moving Beyond the Rhetoric

Introduction

by Ken Caplan, Director, BPD

BPD (Building Partnerships for Development in Water and Sanitation) is naturally
delighted that the theme of Stockholm World Water Week this year is Water Cooperation: Building Partnerships. Our name is a bit of a giveaway that this is a topic that is very close to our hearts! Over the years, a euro or even a dollar for every time the term ‘partnership’ has been mentioned in Stockholm and other global forums (not to mention more recently in digital media) would have gone a long way in providing significant investments for the sector. The need to work together has been recognised for some time.

BPD partnership training

The challenge of how to work together though has largely gone unaddressed. This involves the hard work of rolling up sleeves and negotiating on who will do what and when and with what resources. BPD’s own analysis, having worked with dozens and dozens of partnerships at all levels (local, national and international) over the last 15 years, suggests that the more difficult partnerships are those made between ’familiar partners’, where assumptions are not verified. Obviously contentious or distrustful partners are busy keeping an eye on each other, which can ironically often lead to a more honest exchange about what is working and what is not.

Partnerships can even fall apart – and often do - for any number of reasons. Common causes are branding problems or lack of recognition of a partner’s contribution. Mechanisms for and timing of communications (both internally between partner organisations that keep everyone ‘on board’ and externally with wider stakeholders) are often not sufficiently thought through. This is where individual partner risks become most threatening to the partnership unless there is some airing of assumptions as early on as possible. This means focusing on how the partnership will make decisions, how it will incorporate an understanding of different stakeholder’s risks, how it will deal with a partner’s non-performance, etc. Otherwise external events, changes in personnel who bring new ways of thinking (or just want to make their mark), shifts in resource allocations, or other jolts can all destabilise a partnership quite quickly.

While the term is used to death, some (rightly) question whether forging partnerships is the right approach in all circumstances. Sceptics suggest that partnerships can create perverse incentives or even be used as a stalling tactic, or to co-opt opponents, or allow certain partners to abdicate their responsibilities because ’the partnership is taking care of that’.

In the run-up to World Water Week, BPD will use this blog space to put forward some findings from our work over the years in an effort to shift the discourse in Stockholm away from the platitudes of ’needing to work together’ more towards questions of when is it appropriate or not, and if appropriate, how should (potential) partners go about it. Over the years, BPD has seen the good, the bad and the ugly with regard to partnership practice. We’re keen to put our learning out there for debate.

Watch this space… Next time: Defining our terms

Learning from Failure in Sanitation (Part II )

by Stephen Jones for BPD Water and Sanitation

In December we blogged about learning from failure in sanitation, based on thought-provoking discussions at a workshop organised by the UK Sanitation Community of

Poor sanitation in
Antananarivo, Madagascar
Credit: Pippa Scott

Practice (SanCoP), of which BPD is one of the convening organisations. Following on from this, five SanCoP members have co-authored a discussion paper: Learning from failure: lessons for the sanitation sector. We presented the paper at the most recent SanCoP workshop, held at University College London in April 2013. Below is an abstract. We would love to hear your feedback and ideas using the comments feature below. 

Stephen Jones and Nicola Greene have also co-authored a shorter commentary piece based on ideas in the discussion paper: Crossfire: Can ‘admitting failure’ help the WASH sector learn and improve its work?, published in the April 2013 edition of open-access journal Waterlines.

For examples of 'failure' in sanitation and also water projects, see this ongoing blog from Improve International.

Abstract from 

Learning from failure: lessons for the sanitation sector

by Stephen Jones, Nicola Greene, Andrés Hueso, Hayley Sharp and
Ruth Kennedy-Walker, April 2013

This paper explores the idea of learning from failure in the sanitation sector. The recent trend of ‘admitting failure’ in aid and development forces sanitation practitioners, researchers and policy-makers to ask if we can and should address failure more openly in order to improve our work. The ideas in this paper developed from discussions at a workshop on ‘learning from failure’ convened by the UK Sanitation Community of Practice (SanCoP) designed to kickstart this debate.

We first discuss the concept of failure itself and identify different approaches to learning from failure relating to sanitation. These include acknowledging past failures in order to learn and adapt, and planning for ‘safe’ future failures through deliberate experimentation and innovation. We also argue that a series of further steps are required: understanding relevant previous approaches to learning from failure in the sector; recognizing different types of failure; seeking different actors’ perspectives on failure; and framing the debate about failure constructively rather than negatively.

In the second part of the paper we examine different practical examples of how actors in the sanitation sector have tried to learn from failure, to assess how this happened and what changes resulted. In the final section of the paper we conclude with suggestions for how individuals and organisations working in sanitation and international development more widely can learn from failure. We also propose the UK Sanitation Community of Practice (SanCoP) itself as one example of a ‘safe space’ in which people can meet to discuss and learn from failure.

License to Play (Part II): Sustaining the Gains of WASH in Schools

by Jacques-Edouard Tiberghien for BPD

In our last blog post, we set out some of the issues discussed at the

WinS project, El Salvador. 

Credit: BPD/ J.E. Tiberghien

“License to Play” WASH in Schools (WinS) session held by BPD at UNC Water Health and Policy Conference 2012. Acknowledging that sustainable WASH in Schools (WinS) programmes require effective local-level partnerships, we suggested that a dedicated ‘WinS partnership toolkit’* could help stakeholders build and manage stronger relationships.

Here we discuss the steps taken during the same workshop to start reflecting on what a WinS ‘partnership toolkit’ could look like. This process involved working through three simple existing partnership tools used by BPD:

1. Listing and categorising stakeholders at local and district levels
2. Identifying stakeholders’ incentives to be involved
3. Defining stakeholders’ potential respective functions

(*By ‘WinS partnership toolkit’ we simply mean using tried and tested WASH partnership tools in a WinS context, as well as training and facilitation processes. For examples of such tools and related learning, see BPD’s website.)

Step 1: Listing the vast array of WinS stakeholders

As a group, participants identified an array of stakeholders and institutions operating at both the local and district level and grouped them into five broad categories - School, community, district, private sector and external support.

1. School: Students and teachers trained as hygiene educators, school caretakers, school management committees, student clubs, parents and Parent Teacher Associations.
2. Community: Mothers’ groups, local entrepreneurs (e.g. soap/toilet paper suppliers), local water boards, government institutions (e.g. the Ministry of Environment or municipal mayors).
3. Private sector: At community level this included private health institutions, community health workers and local benefactors.
4. District: Local civil society, research centres, health facilities and the Ministry of Education.
5. External actors: NGOs, governmental agencies, funding institutions and the media

Although identifying possible WinS stakeholders was straightforward, it was an eye-opener for many participants who had not previously realized how numerous these can be and the wealth of resources they potentially bring to WinS programs. Not being context specific made the exercise useful for comparing the types of people and organisations involved from one country to another.

Step 2: Identifying stakeholder incentives

Participants were then split into groups representing each of the categories. Their task was to identify the incentives of each stakeholder group. These were seen to include:

• School level: Improving the overall health and wellbeing of students and the school environment, and promoting gender equality (by increasing female attendance).
• Community-level: The desire to have a ‘good school’, where students can actually learn and achieve their full potential and the need to cultivate a sense of security within the community and promote good health.
• Private sector: Profit, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and in some instances long-term core business development.
• External agencies: Reputation, existing relationships with schools, and grant/ donor requirements.

The limited time made it impossible to separate the incentives of the various stakeholders in each category, which led to some generalisations and imprecision. However, the systematic identification and ranking of stakeholders’ incentives was something new for many and was found to greatly help understand some of the dynamics at play in local-level WinS partnerships.

When carried out on the ground by local stakeholders of WinS programs, such a process (which will be much more accurate when context-specific) should make partners’ behaviour more predictable and help stakeholders understand the fundamental reasons often underlying greater, lesser or shifting engagement. Partners will get to know each other better and the partnerships they form will become more self-reflective and responsive.

Step 3: Defining roles and responsibilities

Having identified potential WinS stakeholders and listed their likely

UNC WinS workshop. 

Credit: BPD/ J.E. Tiberghien

incentives, two groups went on to determine their likely respective functions. One group focused on hardware functions; the other on software functions of a typical WinS partnership. Simply put, hardware functions were defined as the operation and maintenance of water supply (pipes, toilets and treatment devices), solid waste management and oversight of water quality. Software functions referred not only to the provision of consumables (soap, detergent, toilet paper etc.) but also to the monitoring of WASH standards. Relative contributions of the different stakeholders to each function were then discussed.

Reviewing the wide range of activities necessary to achieve a basic level of sustainable services enabled participants to clearly grasp the complexity of WinS work. Defining stakeholder functions shed some light on a possible range of scenarios, roles and responsibilities and the resulting negotiation needed.

Observations

Compliance and accountability

Obviously it was not possible in the short timeframe of the session to go into depth or consider context-specific cases. A number of critical points could not be covered, such as the issue of partners’ compliance. While formal attribution of specific roles and responsibilities will clarify the ‘rules of the game’ for partners, clearly it will not dissipate all tensions between partners nor guarantee their compliance to what has been agreed. Accountability is another important issue: Getting local partners to agree on viable accountability mechanisms (i.e. ways to foster compliance, transparency and responsiveness) generally proves very difficult. BPD’s experience suggests that this process will be more productive if discussions about stakeholders’ incentives accompany the development of these mechanisms.

Understanding and addressing tensions

WinS project, Nicaragua.
Credit: BPD/ J.E. Tiberghien

This mini-workshop allowed participants to grapple with the unique nature of WinS partnerships, focusing on the local level (school, community and district), where stronger and more accountable partnerships are particularly needed. In addition, by identifying the respective incentives of the numerous and diverse stakeholders to engage in WinS work, the group started to envisage the sort of tensions that could potentially arise in these partnerships. Acknowledging, and understanding such tensions from an incentive perspective enables ‘interest-based’ negotiations, which are far more productive than ‘position-based’ confrontations.

Summary

Using tried and tested participatory partnership tools with more local-level WinS programmes could lead to better managed and more effective partnerships on the ground – an essential step towards sustaining project gains.

Continuing the conversation

BPD found the UNC session very thought-provoking and is keen to stimulate further conversations on this topic.

Join the conversation on the LinkedIn SanCop (Sanitation Community of Practice) group.

Download BPD’s SWASH+ WinS evaluation (executive summary and recommendations) of this IDB/ MWA initiative in Central America.

See more partnership tools, tips and resources from BPD

Watch a short video on the SWASH+ WinS programme in Kenya, highlighting the need for collaboration among parents, students, teachers and governments to improve WinS in the long term.

License to Play: Sustaining the Gains of WASH in Schools

by Jacques-Edouard Tiberghien and Aliki Zeri for BPD

UNC WinS Workshop. Credit: BPD Water and Sanitation

Some 30 participants attended the “License to Play” session held by BPD on the final day of UNC Water Health and Policy Conference 2012 to address the following urgent questions on WASH in Schools (WinS):

• How can gains from WinS programmes be sustainable? 
• How can the provision of WASH services in every school be expanded? 
• What accountability mechanisms can be put in place at the local level until governments take full responsibility for the sustainability of existing or planned WinS services? 
• Would a partnership approach help to address these challenges and what would a WinS partnership toolkit look like? 

Led by the hand through this playful and interactive session, we all enjoyed a trip back in time to primary school - thanks to ‘teacher’ Ms Keatman, her blackboard and chalks – working with scissors, glue and coloured pens to capture the main challenges and possible solutions to this critically important issue.

Governments are failing to sustain WinS gains

At the heart of WinS programmes lies the desire to allow every child and teacher in every school to access proper WASH services by providing clean, functional and well-maintained WASH facilities; making essential consumables like soap, toilet paper and detergents readily available; and effectively promoting good hygiene behaviours. 

Making governments responsible for the provision and sustainability of these services is an equally important but greater challenge. BPD’s recent WinS evaluation work in Morocco, Kenya, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala confirmed an already well-known fact: Government agencies are often unable to deliver even the very minimum level of WinS services. A number of possible causes stand out: 

• The lack of a robust institutional framework prescribing specific norms and standards; 
• The absence of monitoring mechanisms, or of the enforcement of those already in place; 
• Lack of financial resources at the national level and critical skills and expertise needed to implement WinS policies. 

Informal partnerships spring up but struggle to plug the gap

WinS project in Guatemala.
Credit: BPD

In light of this, formal and less formal institutional arrangements develop naturally at the local level, in an attempt to guarantee a basic level of WinS services. Bringing together a variety of stakeholders from the school, community, municipality and district arenas, in practice these arrangements operate as informal partnerships. 

Although some remarkably manage to achieve their objectives, most do not, which leads to the all too familiar scenario of 6-month old tapstands with broken taps and filthy toilets with broken doors or missing locks and no soap or toilet paper. As a result, teachers, parents and children lose heart, often feeling a sense of guilt, shame and helplessness. 

Promising signs of change

Advocacy efforts, increasingly coordinated and effective, are helping direct the required financial resources into WinS programmes and efforts are steadily gaining momentum in many countries. However, the question remains: How long will it be before governments are fully accountable and what can be done in the meantime? Should schools be left to their own devices following WinS interventions, or should temporary solutions be worked out with local stakeholders to sustain precious momentum? 

Are local-level partnerships a solution to sustaining WinS services and giving voice to citizens?

Let’s assume that some governments will eventually ensure good provision of services in all schools, as a result of joint efforts that will influence key institutions at the central level. Depending on the context, this may take five to ten years at best, or more in places. In the meantime, what is needed is creation and maintenance of effective partnerships at the local level. Not only should these partnerships be tasked with helping sustain improvements achieved by government or NGO-led WinS programmes - they should also play an essential advocacy role, exerting continuous pressure on local governments (who will hopefully relay that pressure upwards) to fulfil their responsibilities. It is also critical to raise parents’ awareness of the critical need for WinS, empowering them and strengthening their voice to accelerate this process.

Can a ‘partnerships toolkit’ help?

UNC WinS Workshop. Credit: BPD

BPD’s work on WinS programmes has clearly illustrated the significance of partnerships in this field. The recent evaluation of the programme 'SWASH+ Mi Escuela Saludable' in Central America for instance, has highlighted the importance of strengthening WinS partnerships at the local level, notably by clearly specifying the roles and responsibilities of the different partners, as well as ensuring compliance. 

Lack of time and finance may explain why such work has not been given more emphasis to date. Waiting for governments to act to sustain programme gains does not help these partnerships. Other obstacles include wishful thinking that local stakeholders will just work it out, and defeatism. In some cases practitioners have not had easy access to practical tools, despite their awareness of the significance of partnerships for programme sustainability. 

Against this backdrop, BPD’s experience with a wide range of WASH Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs) and the tools and frameworks it has developed to support them appear particularly relevant. These allow partners to anticipate, prevent and solve challenges that may arise - knowledge that is instrumental in improving the formation and management of WinS partnerships at the local level. However, given the specific context of WinS work and notably, the multiplicity of actors involved, a tailored partnership-approach is needed.

In the next blog post, we will discuss the steps taken during the workshop to develop a ‘WinS partnership toolkit’, which involved:

1. Identification of WinS stakeholders at local and district levels; 
2. Assessment of stakeholders' respective incentives to be involved in WinS work; 
3. Listing stakeholders' respective potential functions. 

Make space in your timetable for the next lesson…

BPD Board Members' Blog Series: Part 3

Welcome to the third of a series of guest posts by BPD’s Board members. Please share this with others and feel free to make comments through the site or by emailing us.

There are some promising signs that the importance of partnerships is gaining recognition. 2013 has been declared “International Year of Water Cooperation” by the United Nations – a year when both the UN and Stockholm World Water Week will be highlighting the importance of partnerships and collaboration – BPD’s area of expertise. In the December issue of its Waterfront magazine, SIWI wrote that “Cooperation between actors in different sectors is essential for proper water development and management...”

In this third edition of our Board Blog, Lajana Manandhar, of NGO Lumanti Support Group for Shelter, highlights how a Nepali national daily newspaper profiled the importance of such cooperation. Drawing on a case study from Kathmandu, it illustrates how partnership can even act as a bridge across political divides.

Partnership bridges the political divide

BPD Board member
Lajana Manandhar
Credit:
End Water Poverty

In September 2012, leading Nepali national daily newspaper Kantipur wrote a telling piece about one of Lumanti’s water projects that involved two village development committees. What was revealing was that Kantipur did not highlight the technical or financial details of the project such as design, system, production, tariff, source of funds etc. Instead, it focused on the partnership work that was needed among the multiple political parties represented in the community to make this water project a success.

Water services in a rapidly changing environment 
The project took place in Tokha, northern Kathmandu, 14km from the heart of the capital. The community had been suffering from an acute shortage of water, as had many parts of the Kathmandu Valley. Government taps had been dry for many years and the only source of drinking water was the taps installed by Plan International nearly 18 years earlier. A committee had been set up for the management of this free, communal water supply system. The rapid urbanization that is taking place in Tokha and the change of lifestyle from one of a typical farming village into that of a growing town, has led to high per capita consumption of water. Demand has also shifted from communal to private taps, which has started a hot debate on whether or not water should be free.

New political divisions
In Tokha, people have a high level of political awareness. They are known as fierce political activists and have been very active in politics for the last few decades. (In the past, people in Tokha had only one political agenda – to establish a multi-party democracy in Nepal, as opposed to the single monarchy system.) The establishment of democracy has seen the introduction of many political parties, which has led to division according to personal political beliefs. This political feeling has spilled over and become a hindrance to community development programmes. 

United by a desire to develop the community
The role of support organisations was therefore critical to the water project in Tokha, which was implemented by Lumanti, with support from UN Habitat. Patience and time was needed to help the community’s political party representatives to understand that if they wanted to address the water problems of Tokha, there was no other way than to come together and work collectively. The user committee that was established brought together members of all the key political parties and the good governance of this committee managed to close the political divide, leading to successful completion of the project. The Kantipur article concluded by stating the community leaders’ views, that they would not let the differences of national level party opinions prevail and hinder the local development programme. They realised that, in the end, political parties are united by a desire to contribute to development of the community and the nation. 

That a leading newspaper thought to write a piece with a focus on collaboration and partnership effort is recognition of its importance: As we well know at BPD, there is indeed no other way to succeed than to work together in partnership at all levels, for the benefit of the community as a whole.

11th Sanitation Community of Practice (SanCoP) Meeting: Learning from Failure in Sanitation

by Aliki Zeri for BPD Water and Sanitation 

The main river crossing in Kibera slum, Nairobi
Credit: BPD Water and Sanitation

What do we mean when we talk about ‘failure’? How can NGOs in the development sector and in particular in the field of sanitation, use ‘failure’ as a learning mechanism? Is it prudent to ‘market’ ‘failure’ and if so is there a right way of doing it? 

These were just a few of the questions the 11th SanCop, which was held on the 14th of November 2012 at WEDC (Loughborough University), strived to answer. ‘Strive’ appears undoubtedly to be the right word, since after considerable debate a number of issues still remained unanswered. And although this may be perceived by some as a ‘failure’, for me it represents a clear indication of the meeting’s success. Bringing together more that 40 academics, engineers, NGO representatives and sanitation experts the meeting provided a ‘safe space’ where ‘failure’ was recognised and embraced as part of the development-aid organisations’ learning curve. 

Is there a difference between ‘lessons learnt’ and ‘admitting failure’?
‘Failure’, ‘lessons learnt’, ‘learning opportunities’ and ‘learning return’ were used interchangeably by participants throughout the debate; illustrating the difficulty of defining the precise context and the ambit of this concept. Is in fact the term ‘lessons learnt’ radically different from the term ‘admitting failure’? Participants appeared to think so. The former was perceived as indicating a backward-looking process, a mechanism of revisiting a project/programme and assessing what went wrong. On the contrary, an ‘admission of failure’ is associated with a process of learning which is embedded within the project’s/programme’s structure, allowing implementers to constantly re-assess the project/programme and adapt it to changing and often unforeseen circumstances. 

Reassessing perceptions of failure
Within this context participants were implicitly prompted to reassess their perceptions of ‘failure’. The commonly shared understanding that, a failed project or programme means that potential beneficiaries are no worse off than they were before the intervention took place, was accordingly challenged. The need to “reframe the public image of development”  (traditionally perceived as something that is inherently benign and could therefore have no negative effect) was commonly agreed.  

Incentives and disincentives of recognising failure 
Having recognised the malleability of ‘failure’ as a concept, participants shifted their attention to the incentives and disincentives of recognising ‘failures’ - the fear of displeasing donors and the associated ‘competition for a piece of the donor pie’  appeared to be the main concerns. Could EWB Canada’s ‘safe spaces’ counteract these disincentives? And more generally could they provoke a fundamental change in the ‘donor culture’, one that would result in donors not only actively promoting an honest reflection of what is not working, but also rewarding NGOs that are openly admitting their failures? 

The dilemma of marketing failure in WASH
Building a ‘safe space’ across the development sector (the WASH sector included) is unarguably challenging; expanding this ‘space’ outside this limit is expected to be even more difficult. ‘Marketing failure in WASH’ was the title BPD Water and Sanitation chose for its discussion group. Is it indeed advisable or even prudent for NGOs to ‘market’ (i.e. communicate) their ‘failures’ to the public? Could Bellemare’s cynical argument that: “admitting failure is the not-for-profit world equivalent of corporate social responsibility in the for-profit world”  be the answer to this question? As Terence  argues: “if you’re the first NGO trying to do it you’ll find yourself at the sharp end of a ‘first penguin to leap off the ice sheet’ type collective action dilemma (i.e. it’s the first penguin that has the highest chance of getting chomped by the sea lions). Who’s going to keep giving money to the one NGO that’s forever feeding journalists with stories of what it did wrong?”  Even though there is some truth in this argument, it is equally true that:  “the more people who are honest about how challenging the work is and how rife it is with failures - not because of incompetence but because we are courageously taking on some of the most complex and dynamic problems- the more the public will see the admission of failure as a sign of transparency, humility and learning/innovation cultures and not as a sign of weakness.” 

An encouraging first step in the ‘development-aid failure’ debate 
Acknowledging the novelty of the issue and the breadth of arguments that could be raised within each of the aforementioned themes is unarguably the first step in engaging the sanitation sector with the ‘development-aid failure’ debate. Taking this first step within the context of the 11th SanCop, was for me a particularly challenging, yet fulfilling experience. The high-level of discourse, the enthusiasm and commitment of all participants, not only during the formal sessions but also during the breaks and the group-discussions was indeed admirable. In this sense, the participants’ promise to revisit the issue in the future SanCops was particularly encouraging. 

For examples of 'failure' in sanitation and also water projects, see this ongoing blog from Improve International.

Read more about Sanitation Community of Practice (SanCoP)