Nice article - it’s very helpful to understand the different solution frameworks. Do you have any suggestions on how corporations can get involved in this space?
Rajesh, This a timely and inspiring article. I agree wholeheartedly with the big Next Step you outline in the article: “the first social development exchange.” Now that there is a fully-transparent platform, it’s time to allow everyone to participate in it—whoever they are, wherever they are, whatever they do—because this problem is going to take everyone to solve. That’s the power of everyone and my hope for the coming iterations of PWX.
Thank you for articulating so beautifully why techno-fixes and linear thinking are not going to solve our deepening and pervasive problems like poverty and hunger. I had not heard the term “Vaccine Thinking” but it illustrates your point and makes your thinking accessible. I hope it also spurs a “social development exchange.” Having worked in the field of development for over 20 years, my sense is people really do want to share experience—failures and successes, but the nature of funding and reporting makes it very difficult.
One minor point, on knowledge transfer, it might be worth noting that knowledge transfer is not a one-way street. You rightly note the need for south-south dialogue but the paragraph on knowledge transfer is more unidirectional than I think you intend.
Thanks Rajesh. Some useful thoughts. Knowledge transfers - each way - are crucial but the key from my experience is ownership (not sure about transfer here). Too much emphasis has been on spending and hardware and not enough on helping communities identify solutions and mobilise their own assets and resources to implement them, matched with external resources where necessary.
I love the articles that detail a specific solution to a problem.
A few questions. First, are you familiar with NGOs that do in fact manage hundreds of water projects, not only nationally but worldwide? Although some of these may have been proven unsustainable (after five, ten, or fifteen years), others have not. With just five years under its belt, how can PWX compare itself in terms of sustainability? After five or ten years, if people are still using it like the water committees Oxfam helped mobilize 20 years ago (which are in many cases still working), then we can really say it’s working.
Second, a lot of people believe that ultimately, as a natural resource, water should be publicly owned but sold to private citizens, if necessary through private enterprises that bid for management. You know, like we do in most wealthy countries and many middle-income and poorer countries. This is hotly debated, but it is also massively important. Forgive me if I missed it, but how does PWX address that?
Thanks again for a thought-provoking article. I look forward to hearing more from your group.
@Linda, corporations can help the transformation. They are used to experimenting with new approaches and learning from failures. They should showcase their philanthropic results, including failures and support the ‘failures’ to become learnings and to help fix them.
Their CSR programs should go beyond getting a photo/blurb for the annual report but ‘invest’ in projects for the long-term, insist on getting info on the long-term sustainability of projects.
Their employees can become ‘citizen reporters’ as they go traveling and provide valuable independent reports on projects, even if not funded by the their corporation - the network effect.
@bragdonsh - you are right, not much space in two pages to mention that year after year, every peer review humbles me as a richness of knowledge and experience comes out of the remote areas, not to mention a passion and dedication.
All civilizations had ways to handle and preserve water, some of that knowledge is still available if we hunt for it.
@Jon, you are so right. I just returned from Sierra Leone where in a year plus several communities have managed to have every household construct a toilet themselves - out of local materials only. And ensure that nobody goes ‘kaka’ elsewhere. Amazingly successful ownership of the problem and solution..
However, at the end they did not feel empowered, do not feel that now they can address any problem. So a solution has to include empowerment somehow too.
First, PWX is not an implementer. It is trying to change how implementers and funders work. You are right, many organizations have been working for decades and have many successful implementations. However, the failures are hidden and not a source for learning or showing what the system-wide reality is. Ask a chess player if they learn and improve more from games they win or lose. PWX keeps projects alive along with the application (the plan). They can be visited and reported on by anyone, the implementer, current PWX members, and random visitors. So we will know what’s happening in the field, which projects to revisit, what to fix, and what learnings are out there. We put all projects, not just successful ones on the map and its taken a few years for our partners to trust us and each other and start reporting their non-flagship projects.
Regarding your second question about the privatization debate, PWX is a platform on which philanthropic, gov’t, and private projects can be placed. Only with transparency, collaboration, and long-term results, will the debate get resolved. I also believe, that there is not one solution or approach that will work globally.
Dear Mr. Shah,
I am done with a 30 year career as Architect & Developer.
No more concrete/steel/glass…no more buildings. We need more nature, parks, and water.
I want to work in conservation and preservation of our water for the rest of my life.
I have vast education, experience, expertise and excitement.
Can I help PWX or BWN ? Thank you.
Scott Coburn
We would love to find a way to utilize your experience and excitement.
The best way might be via email/phone and you can use the contact info on our website to reach us: http://peerwater.org/home_page/about_pwx
Great analysis on the biggest crisis we face in this 21st century. I agree wholeheartedly with you that this global crisis requires in fact many different local considerations. Watersheds are different in different places, and so are communities and their social and cultural qualities. About a year ago we (me and my buddy Michiel) spoke at Stanford about some of these issues. We were then (and still are) en route down to Ushuaia, Argentina; cycling the entire 30.000 kilometers on our bamboo bicycles and learning about different freshwater issues. We’ve been visiting many different projects dealing with access to clean drinking water, pollution of water resources, effects of climate change, effects of mining and urbanization, and many more; filing reports and sharing what we learn with a global audience. The main thing that has stood out so far is that communities themselves need to be included in the solution, and that when they do have that sense of ownership, that is a beautiful thing to see.
COMMENTS
BY Linda Qian, Intel Corporation
ON August 19, 2011 11:39 AM
Nice article - it’s very helpful to understand the different solution frameworks. Do you have any suggestions on how corporations can get involved in this space?
BY T.J. Cook, HiDef Web Solutions
ON September 8, 2011 01:59 PM
Rajesh, This a timely and inspiring article. I agree wholeheartedly with the big Next Step you outline in the article: “the first social development exchange.” Now that there is a fully-transparent platform, it’s time to allow everyone to participate in it—whoever they are, wherever they are, whatever they do—because this problem is going to take everyone to solve. That’s the power of everyone and my hope for the coming iterations of PWX.
Cheers,
T.J.
BY bragdonsh
ON September 8, 2011 07:00 PM
Thank you for articulating so beautifully why techno-fixes and linear thinking are not going to solve our deepening and pervasive problems like poverty and hunger. I had not heard the term “Vaccine Thinking” but it illustrates your point and makes your thinking accessible. I hope it also spurs a “social development exchange.” Having worked in the field of development for over 20 years, my sense is people really do want to share experience—failures and successes, but the nature of funding and reporting makes it very difficult.
One minor point, on knowledge transfer, it might be worth noting that knowledge transfer is not a one-way street. You rightly note the need for south-south dialogue but the paragraph on knowledge transfer is more unidirectional than I think you intend.
BY Jon Edwards
ON September 9, 2011 05:34 AM
Thanks Rajesh. Some useful thoughts. Knowledge transfers - each way - are crucial but the key from my experience is ownership (not sure about transfer here). Too much emphasis has been on spending and hardware and not enough on helping communities identify solutions and mobilise their own assets and resources to implement them, matched with external resources where necessary.
BY Elizabeth Kronoff, Insaan Group
ON September 9, 2011 09:18 PM
I love the articles that detail a specific solution to a problem.
A few questions. First, are you familiar with NGOs that do in fact manage hundreds of water projects, not only nationally but worldwide? Although some of these may have been proven unsustainable (after five, ten, or fifteen years), others have not. With just five years under its belt, how can PWX compare itself in terms of sustainability? After five or ten years, if people are still using it like the water committees Oxfam helped mobilize 20 years ago (which are in many cases still working), then we can really say it’s working.
Second, a lot of people believe that ultimately, as a natural resource, water should be publicly owned but sold to private citizens, if necessary through private enterprises that bid for management. You know, like we do in most wealthy countries and many middle-income and poorer countries. This is hotly debated, but it is also massively important. Forgive me if I missed it, but how does PWX address that?
Thanks again for a thought-provoking article. I look forward to hearing more from your group.
BY Rajesh Shah
ON September 14, 2011 10:48 AM
@Linda, corporations can help the transformation. They are used to experimenting with new approaches and learning from failures. They should showcase their philanthropic results, including failures and support the ‘failures’ to become learnings and to help fix them.
Their CSR programs should go beyond getting a photo/blurb for the annual report but ‘invest’ in projects for the long-term, insist on getting info on the long-term sustainability of projects.
Their employees can become ‘citizen reporters’ as they go traveling and provide valuable independent reports on projects, even if not funded by the their corporation - the network effect.
BY Rajesh Shah
ON September 14, 2011 10:53 AM
@T.J. - thank you!
@bragdonsh - you are right, not much space in two pages to mention that year after year, every peer review humbles me as a richness of knowledge and experience comes out of the remote areas, not to mention a passion and dedication.
All civilizations had ways to handle and preserve water, some of that knowledge is still available if we hunt for it.
BY Rajesh Shah
ON September 14, 2011 10:58 AM
@Jon, you are so right. I just returned from Sierra Leone where in a year plus several communities have managed to have every household construct a toilet themselves - out of local materials only. And ensure that nobody goes ‘kaka’ elsewhere. Amazingly successful ownership of the problem and solution..
However, at the end they did not feel empowered, do not feel that now they can address any problem. So a solution has to include empowerment somehow too.
BY Rajesh Shah, Peer Water Exchange
ON September 14, 2011 11:10 AM
@Elizabeth, thank you for the questions.
First, PWX is not an implementer. It is trying to change how implementers and funders work. You are right, many organizations have been working for decades and have many successful implementations. However, the failures are hidden and not a source for learning or showing what the system-wide reality is. Ask a chess player if they learn and improve more from games they win or lose. PWX keeps projects alive along with the application (the plan). They can be visited and reported on by anyone, the implementer, current PWX members, and random visitors. So we will know what’s happening in the field, which projects to revisit, what to fix, and what learnings are out there. We put all projects, not just successful ones on the map and its taken a few years for our partners to trust us and each other and start reporting their non-flagship projects.
Regarding your second question about the privatization debate, PWX is a platform on which philanthropic, gov’t, and private projects can be placed. Only with transparency, collaboration, and long-term results, will the debate get resolved. I also believe, that there is not one solution or approach that will work globally.
BY Scott Coburn
ON October 3, 2011 02:44 PM
Dear Mr. Shah,
I am done with a 30 year career as Architect & Developer.
No more concrete/steel/glass…no more buildings. We need more nature, parks, and water.
I want to work in conservation and preservation of our water for the rest of my life.
I have vast education, experience, expertise and excitement.
Can I help PWX or BWN ? Thank you.
Scott Coburn
BY Rajesh Shah, Peer Water Exchange
ON October 19, 2011 04:57 AM
Dear Mr. Coburn,
We would love to find a way to utilize your experience and excitement.
The best way might be via email/phone and you can use the contact info on our website to reach us:
http://peerwater.org/home_page/about_pwx
Regards,
Rajesh
BY Joost Notenboom, Cycle for Water
ON November 27, 2011 03:20 AM
Dear Mr. Shah,
Great analysis on the biggest crisis we face in this 21st century. I agree wholeheartedly with you that this global crisis requires in fact many different local considerations. Watersheds are different in different places, and so are communities and their social and cultural qualities. About a year ago we (me and my buddy Michiel) spoke at Stanford about some of these issues. We were then (and still are) en route down to Ushuaia, Argentina; cycling the entire 30.000 kilometers on our bamboo bicycles and learning about different freshwater issues. We’ve been visiting many different projects dealing with access to clean drinking water, pollution of water resources, effects of climate change, effects of mining and urbanization, and many more; filing reports and sharing what we learn with a global audience. The main thing that has stood out so far is that communities themselves need to be included in the solution, and that when they do have that sense of ownership, that is a beautiful thing to see.
Thank you again for sharing your insights!
BY Sandeep Srivastava
ON February 2, 2012 03:04 AM
Rajesh Ji. lt is well written article.You peeled development sector with great observation . At least, I can say in context of India. Keep writing .