1. A Water and Sanitation Training of Trainers workshop was recently held in Nepal with the participation of some Nigerian NGOs. Download the workshop summary in the link belohttp://www.assemblyonline.info/water/3/nepal.ppt

By M.O Eduvie and D. Bashir, National Water Resources Institute Kaduna

ABSTRACT

Nigeria is endowed with abundant water resources, mineral and agricultural land of

various types. The intense petroleum development in the South and agricultural

activities in the North has a consequent degradation of the ecosystem.

Wells, lakes, rivers and wetlands are drying up with serious implication for the rich biodiversity associated with these systems making their sustainability and use for future generation highly questionable.

In order to effectively manage the nation’s water resources, there is

the need for integrated approach through the establishment of multidisciplinary and

proper coordination of capacity building institutions in Nigeria. The multidisciplinary

nature of IWRM highlights the need for co-ordination among capacity building

institutions in the delivery of IWRM services in the region. This necessitated the

establishment of WA-Net.

WA-Net is the West Africa Network for Capacity Building in IWRM. To further enhance the capability of this network, 31 Institutions involved inteaching, education and research have been identified and 17 of them have registered as members of the network with the National Water Resources Institute Kaduna as the nodal centre for capacity building institution in Nigeria. It is hoped that when the network is fully active, a better-integrated approach in water resources management in Nigeria would be achieved.

INTRODUCTION

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is understood as a process that

promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related

resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an

equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems (Gordon,

1998).

Since the establishment of WA-Net, which is a regional network of capacity

building institutions in West Africa involved in training/education/research in the field of

integrated water resources management (IWRM), there has been a positive move for

countries involved to develop the network for the benefit of the region.

The participating countries includes Benin, Burkina Faso,Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea,

Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.

Due to administrative reasons, there are three nodes with centers in Kaduna (Nigeria),

Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) and Kumasi (Ghana).

These nodes were selected on the

bases of language and geopolitical divisions at the Network Coordinators Meeting in

Accra on the 14th of February 2003. The node in Burkina Faso covers Franco-phone

West Africa including Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau while the Ghana node in addition to

Ghana covers Sierra Leone, Liberia and The Gambia.

Nigeria Nodal Centre

The Nigeria node is serving capacity building institutions in Nigeria and because of its

size and the number of capacity building institutions under its coverage, it is anticipated

that this node will be transformed into a national network. At present there are 17

involved in teaching, education and research institutions registered with the network in

Nigeria.

The Need for Partnership

The Global Water Partnership has identified the following nine IWRM elements: water

sector assessments, water policy and strategy, water legislation and standards,

institutional framework, participatory planning and management, allocation across (sub)

sectors and conflict resolution, functions and values of water resources, trans-boundary

issues, and linkages between land, water and ecosystems (Gordon, 1998).

These are

some examples of the broad perspective of IWRM; sector interaction and conflict

resolution are other examples. Understanding what IWRM entails should go beyond and

combine the above elements.

IWRM is a broad concept difficult to translate into action. It examines a wide range of

solutions, and considers how different actions affect and can reinforce each other.

Despite universal acceptance of the IWRM concept, its implementation has not been

achieved in either developed or developing countries. Additional to other constraints,

there is an obvious education and training needs to “produce” the experts who will be

able to implement IWRM.

WA-Net

The West Africa Capacity Building Network for Integrated Water Resources Management

(WA-Net) was inaugurated in June 2002 and its mission and objectives were clarified on

February 15th, 2003, in Accra. This is one of the emerging capacity building networks

established to improve the human resource capacity for better management of water

resources.

The mission of WA-Net is…

“To promote effective partnership for training, research, education and

dissemination of information in the West Africa sub-region based on the

demand driven approach” (Yillia, 2003).

In achieving this mission WA-Net seeks to:

1. Promote regional co-operation among training/research institutions and

organizations engaged in IWRM related activities through joint regional training and

research activities;

2. Strengthen the capacities of the training/research institutions and organizations

engaged in IWRM related activities in the region for effective training in IWRM;

3. Facilitate demand-driven training/Research activities in the sub-region in IWRM; and

4. Promote the culture of IWRM in the region

The four objectives above provide the cornerstone for action over the next coming

years. Thus, the need for active network programme, which represents the mechanism

by which WA-Net, will fulfill its mission. The focus is on the countries in the West African

sub-region with specific emphasis on trainers, water sector professionals and

stakeholders (Yillia, 2003).

As identified by Cap-Net, “capacity building is the sum of efforts needed to nurture,

enhance and utilize the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at all levels -

locally, nationally, regionally and internationally – so that they can progress towards a

broader goal.

At the basic conceptual level, building capacity involves empowering

people and organizations to solve their problems, rather than attempting to fix those

problems directly. When capacity building is successful, the result is that more people

and institutions are able to provide better products and services on a sustainable basis.”

It is therefore unquestionable that “human resource development through training and

education is the key dimension of capacity building” (Cap-Net, 2002).

Conclusions and Recommendations

The establishments of IWRM network will further strengthen the overall human and

institutional capacity of the water sector in Nigeria and will contribute to the wise use of

water resources for the purpose of water supply and sanitation, agriculture and the

environment.

It will also stimulate regional co-operation in the field of water resources

research and generally increase the accessibility to training for participants from Nigeria

and other regions. A good data base of capacity building institutions and as a source of

local skills would be achieved in addition to improved linkages between network and the

implementing agencies thus increasing the relevance and visibility of the network.

To effectively manage the deteriorating and depleting water resources of Nigeria, there

is the need to raise awareness and promote IWRM principles through trainings, more

participation in the network by institutions involved in water resources training and

research.

There is the need to organise more seminars and Training the Trainer (ToT)

workshops. Lastly, adequate funding should be provided for the network.

 WaterAid is organizing a Training of Trainers workshop on urban water and sanitation reforms Kathmandu, Nepal, 20 – 24 July 2009

The pilot Training of Trainers (ToT) Workshop is designed for (future) trainers and leaders of CSOs interested in engaging in urban reforms processes.

The course programme is suitable for CSO network leaders, urban advocates and NGO members and staff.

Interested participants should apply to WaterAid:

Timeyin Uwejamomere

Policy Officer, Urban

WaterAid , 47 – 49 Durham Street,

London SE11 5JD

Tel: 02077934569

Email: timeyinuwejamomere@wateraid.org

Or

Mary O’Connell

Policy Officer, Capacity Building

WaterAid, 47 – 49 Durham Street,

London SE11 5JD

Tel: 02077934541

Email:maryoconnell@wateraid.org

World Water Day 09 Special: Corruption in transboundary waters.

Every year on the 22nd of March, many individuals and organisations draw attention to a pressing issue in the water sector on World Water Day. The theme of the 2009 World Water Day is on transboundary waters.

Water crosses many borders across the world. Two in every five people in the world today live in international water basins. This creates global interdependencies among nations and people, but also opens opportunities for corruption. The Global Corruption Report 2008 has dedicated an article to the challenges that corruption poses to transboundary water management.

The article by Transparency International states that corruption in transboundary water can cause international conflict, destabilise entire regions and lead to ecological disaster. It can derive from commitments states enter into through multilateral water treaties, 200 of which have been signed in the last fifty years. Or it can be tied to fiduciary duties to govern water responsibly and sustainably, in accordance with established international norms and agreements such as the Dublin Principles or Agenda 21.

Yet, tackling corruption in transboundary water-sharing is difficult for two reasons. It is harder to prevent and punish because of its international context, and it has very grave consequences. TI states that “preserving and sharing the benefits of a common good such as a river basin is vulnerable to a serious free-rider problem: everyone has a strong incentive to take more than their fair share if there is suspicion that others also do so.

Trust in the effective enforcement of commitments on all sides is essential to sustaining such agreements. But water corruption fatally undermines this trust by thwarting enforcement and opening the door to irresponsible water grabs or water pollution.” As a result, shared water ecosystems become more vulnerable to overuse and ecological collapse.

One attempt to tackle these issues is the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses. It codifies important principles of prior notification, equitable and reasonable utilisation and no significant harm for the use of transboundary waters. These principles inform many international water-sharing agreements, but only few countries have so far signed up to the convention.

If you would like to comment on this article or voice your opinions on the issue of corruption in transboundary waters, please join the discussion in the WIN forum.

Download the full article

COMMISSIONING OF WATER SUPPLY SCHEME IN ANAMBRA STATE
70,000 PEOPLE TO BENEFIT FROM CLEAN WATER SUPPLY

The rehabilitation of the water supply scheme of Amawbia town in Anambra State was commissioned on 24 July 2008. The renovated scheme will provide clean water for approximately 70,000 people at a rate of 50 liters per person per day. The rehabilitation has been undertaken by the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Reform Project, which is funded by the European Union.

The Commissioning was be done by senior officials of the Anambra State Government and representatives of the Federal Government. The Charge d’affaires a.i. Mr. Daniel Plas, represent the Delegation of the European Commission to Nigeria .

The works were approved in April 2008 under the EU-assisted Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Reform Programme (WSSSRP) for an amount of 93.5 million naira. Construction started on 1 May 2008 and consists of the rehabilitation of three boreholes, and the construction of an overhead tank and of a 13 km distribution network.

The Amawbia Water Consumers’ Association will be responsible for management of the standpipes and household connections, whereas the State Water Corporation will be in charge of operation and maintenance of the scheme.

The Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Reform Programme is a 5-year project (2005-2010) and is funded by the EU for €87 million (Naira 14.2 billion). The goal of WSSSRP is to contribute to the sustainable achievement of the water-related Millennium Development Goals. The programme aims to strengthen institutions in the sector to make water available more widely and more easily. Direct investments in water and sanitation infrastructure will occur in the 6 focal States (Anambra, Cross River , Jigawa, Kano , Osun, Yobe), as a complement to Government resources.

For further Information, please contact: Mr. Kelechi Onyemaobi, Delegation of the European Commission to Nigeria , Abuja , on 09-5244000-7; 0803-311-3017.

 fOR THE RECORDS

My main arguments are the fact that private sector involvement in countries such as Burkina Faso, Central Africa Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, South Africa managed to improve tariff collection, but failed to enforce payment by government departments and entities, created confusion with regards to the role of government as a regulator. In fact staff members employed in the private sector earn more than those in regulatory bodies and weakens the ability of the government to regulate the private sector.

As a result of that we have the private sector that is so powerful and unregulated that it poses threat to the government and have more bargaining power when concessions are renegotiated. They have more capacity than the regulators, in such a manner that we have a service provider that has resources and a water authority that has resources constraints and this leads to corruption and the poor become the victims of the situation when they do not get access to amenities such as water and sanitation.

The other challenge is that high prices and disconnections meant that the poorest segments of society are likely to be the main losers from privatisation process and there is also an increase in the use of unsafe water sources by the poor which make them vulnerable to diseases.

In most countries it has been difficult having separate bodies responsible for investment and maintenance and also there is competition and role confusion between public utilities and private providers, unclear responsibilities, weak regulation, political influence and lack of independent regulators as public entities are failing to regulate private sector profit accumulative motives which they hide behind the invisible hand of Adam Smith ( Wealth of Nations) now called corporate social responsibility.

The campaigns against privatisation that were prevalent in Ghana, South Africa and Kenya at the beginning of this decade were informed by concerns that communities were not involved as discussion takes place in higher levels. The shooting of anti privatisation protesters in Mali weeks ago are clear indications that the private sector involvement is taking place without the blessing of the poor who are meant to benefit.

It is also a clear indication that private sector involvement could result in civil disobedience if not managed properly as a case in point in Mali where police opened fire to protesters, killing one and injuring some of them.

The latter part of my arguments is that in countries where contracts were withdrawn such as Gambia, Guinea, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe, it was the companies themselves that unilaterally decided to withdraw because feasibility studies were not approved by local authorities such the case of the Kibera Urban Environmental sanitation project that was rejected by Mayor of Nairobi Dick Waweru, tense relations between VIVENDI and the state company called Management service Gambia, the liquidation of Azurix a subsidiary of Enron which coasted Ghanaian taxepayers $800,000 when they opted out of the contract because the World Bank refused to co-finance a project, the cancellation of the ViVENDI contract in Guinea because it was expensive and also because Vivendi was not going to make maximum profits, disgruntled shareholders that were concerned by less return on investment called for cancellation. All these case studies highlight the fact that the private sector require a climate where the returns are expected to be high and their motives are not the same as those of the state actors.

It is therefore imperative to focus on strengthening state utilities, local government and regulatory bodies. The statements postulated by the private operators that state institutions are inefficient, lack capacity and corrupt is propaganda that is ensuring that the richer continue to be rich and the poor continue to lack resources.

There are public utilities that are very efficient in most African states and this need to be scaled up and make sure that there is a mix of public providers as well as private providers. Public providers will fill the gap that private providers create when they put prices so high that they undermine the right to water. Private provision should take into cognizance the right to water.

Water could not be sold like bus coupons where an individual could take a bicycle if buses are expensive. There is no substitute for water, therefore it is a human right and private provision has to a greater extent undermined this basic human right when poor people are denied this right if they are unable to pay, they are cut off or restricted.

The existence of public water supplies depends on a political commitment to deliver clean water to all and on public authorities with capacity to deliver services. Political activity is positively important in order to strengthen this commitment and improve public accountability and transparency.

Donors can assist this by avoiding imposing external policy conditionalities, and by offering public-public partnership to support capacity-building. In Africa we do have municipalities that buy bulk water from public utilities and reticulate it to the users at an affordable tarrifs. The private sector skills could be included to strengthen public –public partnerships e.g. installation of treatment plants, assist municipalities with credit control mechanisms such as billing, performance appraisal systems etc.

 Some of these functions could be performed by private operators without taking over the state ownership and management of water resources that may have adverse impacts on the poor.

Private sector involment is also failing to acknowledge the importance of the 3 factors of production.

Labour-

is needed to build new systems for capturing, treating and distributing water and treating sewage. The needs must be assessed locally and through democratic processes, and then public finance mechanisms need to be used to raise this finance, through central or local governments. Donors can help build capacity for taxation and borrowing, and provide matching financial support for water services, and assist northern investors in southern water services. of water itself needs to be captured at the same time as conserving and allocating its use, and protecting the environment is imperative. Public mechanisms for evaluation and decision-making are needed, and should be supported by donors. I do not foresee private providers acting as champions of IWRM, pro poor policies, environmental impact assessments and resettlement schemes which are one of the policies that informs the AfDBs and other state actors involvement in the sector. These are important responsibilities that governments could not delegate to private operators. Workers are the first to become jobless when private sector involvement replaces a public provider. In most schemes where water was privatised workers were retrenched and those that remained in public providers do not get capacity building , career pathing and actually remunerated far less than those employed by private providers. Labour is required to build, maintain, operate and manage the system and its finances.In conclusion the private sector involvement is imperative, but it is not a substitute for state ownership of water resources, the role of state institutions in championing the human right to water which must be realised by the poorest of the poorest. The most critical enabling environment for private sector participation is strong regulatory capacity of state institutions to defend the rights of those that do not have the means to realise this fundamental right that is being undermined by commodification and corporitization of water and state institutions.

Private sector involvement should enhance and support the state institutions in realising the right to water. The desire of African citizens to get access to clean water cannot be realised through the invisible hand of the private sector, but by strong state institutions that has a mandate to realise Africa water vision, deliver water to the poor.

Amandla!

About the Speaker

: Simphiwe Nojiyeza is a researcher at the Centre for Civil Society of the University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa, a member of Earth life Africa which is an NGO that is hosting the South African Water Caucus, a member of the Steering Committee Member of NAWISA (Network of Water and Sanitation NGOs in the SADC Region, a member of African Network on Water and Sanitation (ANEW) and former Advisory Group Member of FAN (Fresh Water Action Network). He is speaking in his personal capacity as a researcher and his views are not necessarily the positions of any of the organisations that he is associated with. For more information on this and related topics do not hesitate to contact Simphiwe at nojiyeza@ukzn.ac.za / nojiyezais@yahoo.co.uk / +27835595959 / +27787058425 (Mobile) +27 31 260 3374 (Office)

Below is a lette from the Bolivian President about climate change that has been released in the context of the Preparatory Conference for the Conference about Climate Change in Poznan.

Climate Change: Save the Planet from Capitalism

Sisters and brothers:

Today, our Mother Earth is ill. From the beginning of the 21st century we have lived the hottest years of the last thousand years. Global warming is generating abrupt changes in the weather: the retreat of glaciers and the decrease of the polar ice caps; the increase of the sea level and the flooding of coastal areas, where approximately 60% of the world population live; the increase in the processes of desertification and the decrease of fresh water sources; a higher frequency in natural disasters that the communities of the earth suffer ; the extinction of animal and vegetal species; and the spread of diseases in areas that before were free from those diseases.

One of the most tragic consequences of the climate change is that some nations and territories are the condemned to disappear by the increase of the sea level.
Everything began with the industrial revolution in 1750, which gave birth to the capitalist system. In two and a half centuries, the so called “developed” countries have consumed a large part of the fossil fuels created over five million centuries.
Competition and the thirst for profit without limits of the capitalist system are destroying the planet. Under Capitalism we are not human beings but consumers. Under Capitalism mother earth does not exist, instead there are raw materials. Capitalism is the source of the asymmetries and imbalances in the world.

 It generates luxury, ostentation and waste for a few, while millions in the world die from hunger in the world. In the hands of Capitalism everything becomes a commodity: the water, the soil, the human genome, the ancestral cultures, justice, ethics, death … and life itself. Everything, absolutely everything, can be bought and sold and under Capitalism. And even “climate change” itself has become a business.
“Climate change” has placed all humankind before great choice: to continue in the ways of capitalism and death, or to start down the path of harmony with nature and respect for life.
In the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the developed countries and economies in transition committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5% below the 1990 levels, through the implementation of different mechanisms among which market mechanisms predominate.
Until 2006, greenhouse effect gases, far from being reduced, have increased by 9.1% in relation to the 1990 levels, demonstrating also in this way the breach of commitments by the developed countries.
The market mechanisms applied in the developing countries[2] <#_ftn2> have not accomplished a significant reduction of greenhouse effect gas emissions.
Just as well as the market is incapable of regulating global financial and productive system, the market is unable to regulate greenhouse effect gas emissions and will only generate a big business for financial agents and major corporations.
The earth is much more important than stock exchanges of Wall Street and the world.
While the United States and the European Union allocate 4,100 billion dollars to save the bankers from a financial crisis that they themselves have caused, programs on climate change get 313 times less, that is to say, only 13 billion dollars.
The resources for climate change are unfairly distributed. More resources are directed to reduce emissions (mitigation) and less to reduce the effects of climate change that all the countries suffer (adaptation)[3] <#_ftn3> . The vast majority of resources flow to those countries that have contaminated the most, and not to the countries where we have preserved the environment most. Around 80% of the Clean Development Mechanism projects are concentrated in four emerging countries.
Capitalist logic promotes a paradox in which the sectors that have contributed the most to deterioration of the environment are those that benefit the most from climate change programs.
At the same time, technology transfer and the financing for clean and sustainable development of the countries of the South have remained just speeches.
The next summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen must allow us to make a leap forward if we want to save Mother Earth and humanity. For that purpose the following proposals for the process from Poznan to Copenhagen:

 
Attack the structural causes of climate change
1)    Debate the structural causes of climate change. As long as we do not change the capitalist system for a system based in complementarity, solidarity and harmony between the people and nature, the measures that we adopt will be palliatives that will limited and precarious in character. For us, what has failed is the model of “living better”, of unlimited development, industrialisation without frontiers, of modernity that deprecates history, of increasing accumulation of goods at the expense of others and nature. For that reason we promote the idea of Living Well, in harmony with other human beings and with our Mother Earth.
2)    Developed countries need to control their patterns of consumption – of luxury and waste – especially the excessive consumption of fossil fuels.  Subsidies of fossil fuel, that reach 150-250 billions of dollars[4] <#_ftn4> , must be progressively eliminated. It is fundamental to develop alternative forms of power, such as solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric both at small and medium scales.
3)    Agrofuels are not an alternative, because they put the production of foodstuffs for transport before the production of food for human beings. Agrofuels expand the agricultural frontier destroying forests and biodiversity, generate monocropping, promote land concentration, deteriorate soils, exhaust water sources, contribute to rises in food prices and, in many cases, result in more consumption of more energy than is produced.
Substantial commitments to emissions reduction that are met
4)    Strict fulfilment by 2012 of the commitments[5] <#_ftn5> of the developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least by 5% below the 1990 levels. It is unacceptable that the countries that polluted the planet throughout the course of history make statements about larger reductions in the future while not complying with their present commitments.
5)    Establish new minimum commitments for the developed countries of greenhouse gas emission reduction of 40% by 2020 and 90% by for 2050, taking as a starting point 1990 emission levels. These minimum commitments must be met internally in developed countries and not through flexible market mechanisms that allow for the purchase of certified emissions reduction certificates to continue polluting in their own country. Likewise, monitoring mechanisms must be established for the measuring, reporting and verifying that are transparent and accessible to the public, to guarantee the compliance of commitments.
6)    Developing countries not responsible for the historical pollution must preserve the necessary space to implement an alternative and sustainable form of development that does not repeat the mistakes of savage industrialisation that has brought us to the current situation. To ensure this process, developing countries need, as a prerequisite, finance and technology transfer.
 
An Integral Financial Mechanism to address ecological debt
7)     Acknowledging the historical ecological debt that they owe to the planet, developed countries must create an Integral Financial Mechanism to support developing countries in: implementation of their plans and programmes for adaptation to and mitigation of climate change; the innovation, development and transfer of technology; in the preservation and improvement of the sinks and reservoirs; response actions to the serious natural disasters caused by climate change; and the carrying out of sustainable and eco-friendly development plans.
   This Integral Financial Mechanism, in order to be effective, must count on a contribution of at least 1% of the GDP in developed countries[6] <#_ftn6> and other contributions from taxes on oil and gas, financial transactions, sea and air transport, and the profits of transnational companies.  
9)    Contributions from developed countries must be additional to Official Development Assistance (ODA), bilateral aid or aid channelled through organisms not part of the United Nations. Any finance outside the

cannot be considered as the fulfilment of developed country’s commitments under the Convention.
10)         Finance has to be directed to the plans or national programmes of the different States and not to projects that follow market logic.
11)        Financing must not be concentrated just in some developed countries but has to give priority to the countries that have contributed less to greenhouse gas emissions, those that preserve nature and are suffering the impact of climate change.
12)        The Integral Financial Mechanism must be under the coverage of the United Nations, not under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other intermediaries such as the World Bank and regional development banks; its management must be collective, transparent and non-bureaucratic. Its decisions must be made by all member countries, especially by developing countries, and not by the donors or bureaucratic administrators.
Technology Transfer to developing countries
13)        Innovation and technology related to climate changes must be within the public domain, not under any private monopolistic patent regime that obstructs and makes technology transfer more expensive to developing countries.
14)        Products that are the fruit of public financing for technology innovation and development of have to be placed within the public domain and not under a private regime of patents[7] <#_ftn7> , so that they can be freely accessed by developing countries.
15)        Encourage and improve the system of voluntary and compulsory licenses so that all countries can access products already patented quickly and free of cost. Developed countries cannot treat patents and intellectual property rights as something “sacred” that has to be preserved at any cost. The regime of flexibilities available for the intellectual property rights in the cases of serious problems for public health has to be adapted and substantially enlarged to heal Mother Earth.
16)        Recover and promote indigenous peoples practices in harmony with nature which have proven to be sustainable through centuries.
Adaptation and mitigation with the participation of all the people
17)        Promote mitigation actions, programs and plans with the participation of local communities and indigenous people in the framework of full respect for and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The best mechanism to confront the challenge of climate change are not market mechanisms, but conscious, motivated, and well organized human beings endowed with an identity of their own.
18)        The reduction of the emissions from deforestation and forest degradation must be based on a mechanism of direct compensation from developed to developing countries, through a sovereign implementation that ensures broad participation of local communities, and a mechanism for monitoring, reporting and verifying that is transparent and public.
A UN for the Environment and Climate Change
19)        We need a World Environment and Climate Change Organization to which multilateral trade and financial organizations are subordinated, so as to promote a different model of development that environmentally friendly and resolves the profound problems of impoverishment.  This organization must have effective follow-up, verification and sanctioning mechanisms to ensure that the present and future agreements are complied with.
20)        It is fundamental to structurally transform the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the international economic system as a whole, in order to guarantee fair and complementary trade, as well as financing without conditions for sustainable development that avoids the waste of natural resources and fossil fuels in the production processes, trade and product transport.
In this negotiation process towards Copenhagen, it is fundamental to guarantee the participation of our people as active stakeholders at a national, regional and worldwide level, especially taking into account those sectors most affected, such as indigenous peoples who have always promoted the defense of Mother Earth.
Humankind is capable of saving the earth if we recover the principles of solidarity, complementarity, and harmony with nature in contraposition to the reign of competition, profits and rampant consumption of natural resources.

November 28, 2008

Evo Morales Ayma
President of Bolivia

COMMUNIQUE ADOPTED AT THE SOUTH WEST ZONAL WORKSHOP ON NIGERIA’S PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE MDG TARGETS ON WATER AND SANITATION

ORGANIZED BY THE

 WATER AND SANITATION MONITORING PLATFORM, NIGERIA,

LAFIA HOTEL, IBADAN ON THURSDAY 27^TH NOVEMBER 2008

A one day workshop to access Nigeria’s progress towards the achievement of the MDG targets on improved water and improved sanitation facilities by the year 2015, was held in Ibadan, Oyo State Capital, Nigeria on November 27, 2008.

The event organized by the Water and Sanitation Monitoring Platform, a project funded by the European Union Water Facility; and it was attended by several civil society organizations including the Bread of Life Development Foundation, Civil Liberties Organisation, Nigerian Union of Teachers, and Nigerian Union of Journalists.

Participants noted that government failure to achieve this progress is based on the following:

• Ø Poor funding
• Ø Non prioritization of government projects
• Ø Ignorance on the parts of government and citizens
• Ø Lack of maintenance culture
• Ø Lack of monitoring of implementation
• Ø Absence of community participation
• Ø Lack of oversight function by legislators
• Ø Absence of monitoring of implementation of budget on water and sanitation
• Ø Lack of education and enlightenment
• Ø Lack of continuity and government policy
• Ø Corruption

In view of the foregoing, the workshop urges the federal government to:

• 1. Put mechanisms in motion to make the anticorruption agencies independent in appointments, funding and operation
• 2. To establish the offices of these agencies in the zones states and LGAs in the country
• 3. To provide adequate funding for water and sanitation in the appropriation budgets
• 4. To put mechanism in motion to ensure adequate monitoring of the implementation of budgets on water and sanitation
• 5. To ensure popular participation target on water track
• 6. De-merging/separating water resources from ministry of agriculture
• 7. Legislatures all tiers of government should play their oversight functions in monitoring the expenditure of the budget on WATSAN
• 8. That should encourage the maintenance of WATSAN activities
• 9. That should encourage the maintenance of WATSAN activities
• 10. The workshop, after evaluating the good work of WSMP Nigeria, enjoins to:
• a. Embark on more civic education and media campaigns to sensitize both the government and the citizens on the MDG targets on WATSAN by 2015
• b. Encourage stakeholders on WATSAN in Nigeria to independently monitor the implementation of budgets on water and sanitation by building their capacity.

Furthermore, it is observed that some states in the South West are performing better right now.

Finally, the workshop expresses its thankfulness and gratitude to the platform for organizing the South West stakeholders meeting and calls for further collaborations.

Members of Communiqué Drafting Committee

1.         Comrade (Chief) Sam Idowu               (NUT Chairman, Ogun State Wing) 

2.         Mrs. Sokoya Folake                   (Representative of NUJ, Ogun State)

3.         Mr. Adebisi Jimson Kehinde                                 (Ondo State WATSAN Project, Akure)

4.         Comrade Ibuchukwu Ezike                                      (Ag. Executive Director, CLO)