Protocol on Water and Health Realistic Targets – Achievable Action Plans

1. Protocol on Water and HealthRealistic Targets – Achievable Action Plans 5th World Water Conference, Istanbul Senior Adviser Carola Bjørklund

2. Realistic Targets – Achievable Action Plans • The UN Millennium Goals No 7 set the target to reduce by 2015 by half the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. • Most European countries enjoy universal access to enough good, safe water to satisfy their needs. However, nearly 140 million people – 16% of Europe’s population – still live in homes that are not connected to a drinking-water supply. In 2006 more than 170,000 cases of water-related diseases were reported • According to the best estimate from the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 13,000 children under the age of 14 die every year in the European region from water-related diarrhoea, mostly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

3. Realistic Targets –Achievable Action Plans • The Protocol on Water and Health was the first legally binding international agreement adopted specifically to ensure an adequate supply of safe drinking water and adequate sanitation for everyone, by linking water management and health issues. • The challenges prevail • The Protocol is a unique, comprehensive and modern response to water and health problems that our region should be proud of. • Coordinated Government and Donor actions needed.

4. Realistic Targets – Achievable Action Plans • The Member States of the Protocol designed the Agreement structure and functioning with the understanding that the true mechanism of the Protocol needs four pillars for its proper functioning: •  - Firstly “road maps” or “action programs” clear targets and targets dates and measurable indicators of progress • - Secondly, the establishment of surveillance and response systems • - Thirdly, a mechanism to measure and report on progress achieved and a compliance procedure • - Finally, a system of mutual assistance and international support between Parties is necessary to help all Parties to comply with the targets set in the Protocol

5. Realistic Targets – Achievable Action Plans • Article 11 and 14 the call upon international assistance and support to enable all Parties to comply with the Protocol. • Parties are required to assist each other in implementing the Protocol in setting targets and target dates with due reference to national plans. • To meet these obligations, in 2007 the Norwegian Government proposed that an Ad Hoc Project Facilitation Mechanism (AHPFM) should be established to promote the coordination of international aid and enhance the capacity of recipient countries, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and central Asia (EECCA) and south-eastern Europe (SEE) to receive funding. • At the First Meeting of Parties in January 2008 the Parties decided to establish an Ad Hoc Project Facilitation Mechanism (AHPFM) to help mainstream international support for national action. • From legal language to concrete actions • The Project Facilitation Mechanism is the key factor for a proper implementation of the Protocol.

6. Realistic Targets – Achievable Action Plans • The key Characteristics of the Ad Hoc Project Facilitation Mechanism • Clear, concise, transparent and effective rules regulating international support to Parties under the umbrella of an international agreement. •  Active support structure Administrative and logistic support provided by the joint WHO-UNECE Protocol Secretariat •  A clear commitment from both sides

7. How does the Project Facilitation Mechanism work? • Structure • The AHPFM is composed of two elements: • the Facilitator assisted by the WHO/EURO-UNECE Protocol Secretariat •  the Ad Hoc Project Clearing House which gathers Parties and non-Parties (both from donor and recipient countries) and from global and regional financial institutions, relevant international organizations, competent international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international foundations with cooperation programmes of recognized importance for water and health.

8. Comparative Advantages to the Donor and Recipient Community • Advantages for donors • Consistency. Through the built-in consultation process, donors can still pursue their respective national policies and priorities • Possibility to align international commitmentestablished in international agreements with global or regional commitments defined nationally • Coordination and harmonisationof action in the region promotes synergy and help avoiding duplication of effort and opens up for that long term projects may be addressed.

9. Comparative Advantages to the Donor and Recipient Community • Cooperative approach allows countries to undertake projects which are beyond the individual funding capacity of a single donor (for example, long-term projects can be funded by several donors). • Good budget control and oversight. The donor maintains direct steering and control of project implementation. • Quality of project proposals:the Mechanism guarantees to donors that projects are well-prepared and politically supported and well founded in the recipient country. • Review and assessment.The Meeting of the Parties will assess the effectiveness of the Mechanism to address water and health problems in the region and to support implementation of the Protocol

10. Comparative Advantages to the Donor and Recipient Community • Advantages for Recipients • Single entry point for assistance. The Mechanism offers one single forum where to find donors willing to offer financial support and thus avoid waste of resources for applying in different venues •  Recipient countries have ownershipof the projects • Technical and scientific support. Needs perceived at the national level can be examined by of technical experts and scientists from other Parties that will provide a broader evidence base than what is available locally, thereby strengthening the scientific and technical soundness of the proposal.

11. Comparative Advantages to the Donor and Recipient Community • Projects will utilize local expertise • Project formulation.Recipient countries may receive assistance in the formulation of projects and thus increase their chances of being funded • Supporting national policy. National approval on project proposals and integration in national strategic development plans, as opposed to individual project proposals from individual institutes, in line with country needs and priorities, and with optimal use of national experts and resources.

12. Comparative Advantages to the Donor and Recipient Community • Past Experience • Moldova and Ukraine were the first countries to submit a project proposal on target setting under the Protocol ad hoc project facilitation mechanism. Both proposals were taken up by donors (namely Israel, Norway and Switzerland) • Several recipient countries have indicated that they will present project proposals at the next meeting of the Ad Hoc Project Facilitation Mechanism in July 2009

13. Lesson Learned • The lesson learned that the Project Facilitation Mechanism provides; • New possibilities • Better cooperation and harmonization • Improved consistency • Improved control, review and assessment.