A Distributed Networks Approach to Sustainable Development Governance

Networks are emerging, for example, to address priority water and sanitation issues, thanks in large measure to the galvanizing effects of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development’s multi-year agenda.

For instance, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for countries to develop integrated water resources management (IWRM) plans by 2005. For us, IWRM is particularly important in that, if done well, it brings all stakeholders to the table in a participatory, decision-making mode and thereby makes institutions accountable to their constituents. These are the hallmarks of good governance in general and good water governance in particular.

After many months of consultations with a number of interested countries, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations, a group of actors has coalesced around the Global Water Partnership as a mechanism to help developing countries that wish to develop and implement IWRM plans. Several donor countries are working through this effort and we expect that 18-20 countries throughout the world will receive support through this mechanism. In addition to donors, other key actors -- such as the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and -- most importantly -- the recipient countries themselves -- are involved.

Of course, this is not the only mechanism to deliver IWRM nor is it a substitute for traditional bilateral programs. But we have chosen to advance IWRM in concert with other donors through the GWP because it gives us greater reach and flexibility than we might have through traditional programs. It complements our bilateral programs by giving us a more nimble way to overcome problems that we alone could not solve. By working through this multilateral effort, we raise the profile of IWRM, enhancing its importance, and hopefully, the willingness of other parties to join with us. Further, by working through a common framework, we find it possible to conduct a more comprehensive "gap analysis" to better identify those countries that might need particular help -- something we alone could not do.

The UN Development Program’s new "Shared River Basin Management Initiative" is another example. This initiative offers a mechanism that enables multiple donors and international organizations to pool their strengths and deliver capacity building in a coordinated way to those riparian states that want to pursue joint management of shared water resources.

In another case, the World Health Organization and UNICEF are developing the "Water and Health Partnership" as a mechanism to help developing countries come up with water safety plans to address water and sanitation needs over the long-term. And, to help local communities address urgent needs for clean water in the short-term, this partnership can also promote low-cost, point-of-use purification technologies.

Each of these emerging networks -- GWP, UNDP’s Shared River Basin Management Initiative, and the WHO/UNICEF work on water and health -- demonstrate similar traits: international organizations, governments, and NGOs have come together to implement elements of the JPOI. They are taking it upon themselves to identify discrete goals that relate back to a common purpose, organize their efforts, and coordinate with one another to bring concrete results, country-by-country, community-by-community.

Distributed Networks Point the Way Forward

These three examples emerged from the UN’s focus over the past two years on water, sanitation, and human settlements. More broadly, other institutions beyond the water sector have adopted similar methods to create networks to promote sustainable development. In the realm of development financing, for example, the World Bank struggled a few years ago to see how its traditional mode of providing structural assistance loans translated into on-the-ground results. At the personal direction of World Bank President James Wolfensohn in 1998, the Bank organized its first "Development Marketplace" as a way to fund promising grassroots initiatives and projects that were not picked up through traditional funding systems. This innovative forum has evolved into an annual global event through which the Bank has channeled nearly $25 million for more than 500 innovative local projects over the last six years. As we speak, the Bank is considering some 2,600 proposals submitted for this year’s $3 million to be awarded. I had the privilege of a guided tour by President Wolfensohn to the event in 2002 and I can personally attest to the energy and enthusiasm generated by this new mechanism.

The Bank has now extended the reach of this model by supporting "Country-level Development Marketplaces" that are customized to address regional or country-specific issues and to help promote synergies among local and regional social entrepreneurs. This year the Bank is supporting nine such marketplaces encompassing 14 countries, with themes aligned to each the country’s poverty reduction priorities. This distributed network, or franchise, of the Development Marketplace has further devolved responsibility, authority, and organization away from Headquarters and into the hands of those closest to the action.

In commenting on this program in 2002, the Harvard Business Review observed:

"Systemic problems are not solved by a few smart people … thinking really, really deep thoughts about really, really important things. They are solved when a vibrant and competitive marketplace first tests and then confirms or disproves an array of possibilities and approaches."

These distributed networks are also emerging within the philanthropic community. Many potential donors value a direct connection to the specific projects to which they donate. They prefer not to contribute anonymously to large organizations. "Global Giving," a newly created organization meets this need. It uses web-based technology to link individual donors directly with grassroots projects, serving as the hub for a distributed network of charitable projects that address issues from water, to health, to women in development. By clicking on its website, a donor can choose from a menu of projects by subject area, region, or country. This new mechanism works. Within two weeks of its start up in 2001, Global Giving enabled private donors in the U.S. to fund construction of a separate toilet block for girls at a school in Coimbatore, India. This has helped girls to stay in school, furthering their education and economic prospects.

Reforming the UN Commission on Sustainable Development

The UN Commission on Sustainable Development, the lead UN body for advancing sustainable development and the JPOI, is undertaking a series of reforms that reflect this changing work environment. It has shifted its focus from producing consensus texts to producing results. Each year the CSD now includes a Partnerships Fair and a Learning Center, providing immediate, on-the-spot capacity building. The CSD’s work plan features two-year cycles of thematically related issues designed to focus international attention and action in priority areas. Water was first, energy is next, then followed by agriculture. In addition, this year’s CSD has already produced a novel menu of policy options and practical steps that governmental and non-governmental actors can undertake.

New ways of doing business also require that the CSD Secretariat redefine its role. With a multitude of actors, institutions, and mechanisms emerging, the premium is on gathering and managing new knowledge and information about what is happening in sustainable development. Thus, an effective Secretariat will need to focus less on preparing static reports, and more on disseminating knowledge and information – often obtained from other sources. UN DESA is uniquely positioned to assume this role. And, in fact, its "Partnerships Database" is a good step in this direction. The "Secretariat of the Future" we see is one that provides us all with web-based collections of information on best practices, case studies, policy options, and practical measures. This approach also can give us transparent mechanisms that enable us to see how we are progressing with implementation.

What This Means for "Sustainable Development Governance"

So, what are the implications of all this for "sustainable development governance?" If there is one thing nearly all 191 UN member states might agree to, it is that there is no "one size fits all" approach to sustainable development. Our challenge is to identify, create, and develop the mechanisms necessary to enable multiple actors to work together to translate our globally-agreed goals into concrete action at local, national, and regional levels.

Our traditional bilateral assistance efforts and international organizations will continue to have a vital role. In fact, the lion’s share of official development assistance from the U.S. -- and other donors -- is likely to continue to flow through bilateral mechanisms -- specifically in-country representation. And, private flows will continue to dwarf ODA. In 2003, non-trade U.S. financial flows to developing countries totaled about $48 billion, nearly triple our ODA. And, the U.S. imported some $604 billion from developing countries -- nearly 8 times the $77 billion of total donor country ODA flows. There are some in the sustainable development community who would like to "better manage" these flows, to "strengthen the governance" for such flows, as if it were even possible, let alone desirable.

As opposed to "strengthened governance," the emerging networks of likeminded actors can play a large role in highlighting common goals and identifying specific actions that can help ensure that both public and private financial flows go toward priority areas. These networks, with their internal organizing meetings, already drive priorities and promote action. For example, based in part on CSD’s focus on water, Rotary International has directed each of its clubs to develop at least one water project in its portfolio.

In fact, we are now seeing the emergence of increasingly refined networks. For example, Japan hosted an international meeting last December specifically on IWRM issues. The World Bank has begun to organize annual "Water Weeks" and "Energy Weeks." Regional development banks and other fora are moving toward this paradigm, as well. Stockholm Water Week organizers recently raised the possibility of taking on a more visible role with this type of activity. And, we’re even seeing the emergence of a forum specifically devoted to partnerships with next week’s "2nd International Forum on Partnerships for Sustainable Development" in Morocco. As these networks continue to develop, we expect to see similar responsive efforts from the full range of actors, not just governments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the task for those of us concerned with sustainable development governance, is to figure out how we engage directly with these networks as they develop and expand. These networks are the ones carrying out the programs, doing the work of sustainable development. Engaging with them will not be easy. Each of these networks has its own sets of actors, meeting times, objectives, and idiosyncratic work habits. Even so, I remain personally optimistic and enthusiastic for the following reason: each of these networks, each of these nodes in these vast arenas of operation, is within our grasp. Enthusiastic and committed people, working together to common purpose, can produce good things. Thank you very much.