International Summary

Thematic Papers

Multistakeholder Process

The Water Dialogues at External Events

Internal Meeting Reports and Updates

Evaluation

How to Order a Publication

January 2010 – Evaluation Executive Summary

January 2010 – The Water Dialogues: Process and Organisational Evaluation

January 2010 – The Water Dialogues: Process and Organisational Evaluation Appendices

Author biography

The following quotes from the Evaluation report provide a flavour of its content and critique:

PAGE 22
What is the theory of change implicit in the work of TWD?

From observable practice [The Water Dialogues’] ... basic theory seems to have been this:

•		by engaging in an extended, multistakeholder group process, resourced with the findings of valid, evidence based research,

	•		the individual participants will build new, functional relationships, and
	•		expand their perspective on key issues in the sector, allowing them to

	•		develop a more nuanced and systemic understanding of sector functioning, tensions and challenges and
	•		generate some workable solutions to these challenges, and so,

	•		go on to influence their own institutional bases, and
	•		engage in joint advocacy in the broader sector

•

towards the implementation of solutions.

Dialogue is not easy; and multistakeholder dialogue is often very challenging. It is therefore worth briefly addressing some of the common barriers to dialogue. These barriers also put a new gloss on the achievements of TWD: dialogue processes, though of variable depth and impact, were successfully sustained in five different country and cultural contexts over a period of five years.

...[The] absence of a strong guiding purpose which defined specific and shared outcomes at every level of the system, meant that the achievements of the parts (though broadly linked) did not necessarily contribute to an easily apparent whole.

A key lesson ... seems to be this: [while] leadership and management are necessary functions to ensure a minimum of connection and coherence across the whole system ... , there are systemic limits to what can be managed and how much. The original mandate of a MSH process/system (and members’ interpretation of this mandate) seems to create the boundary conditions which define what is and isn’t possible in terms of management and leadership. This is probably especially true of an international MSH process – where it is much more difficult to make changes to the system’s ‘rules’ once it has begun to function. It is tempting to state, reductively, that in these kinds of processes, beginnings largely determine endings...

PAGE 46
“When I became involved in TWD, I wanted to understand the sector better – I got that. Things are more complex than at first meets the eye; a solution is not going to emerge from a technical fix. Understanding the complexities and power relations is as important as getting the finance mechanisms right. There are multiple view points and most have some validity. The blockage to reaching the MDG’s is not just about scarcity, but also about institutional structures, commitment and political will."


PAGE 47
“Don’t expect any miracles from the research outcomes. What’s coming across much stronger is that the practice is the best outcome… Dialogue is a strong tool in terms of pushing for better governance – because all views are taken into account. That means you have a far better chance to get sustainable service delivery. It’s not about sweeping and extraordinary outcomes: the practice of dialogue itself is the lesson.”


The following is a quote from a non-member used in the Report:

PAGE 47
“The national dialogues have done tangible things… You can see the results of surveys; the private and public sector working together in Brazil; small providers getting more exposure in the Philippines and hopefully also increasing their own power to act in the national; the South African interaction between different actors who are very vehement; the possibility for government officials to interact outside of formal spaces.
What remains a question mark is what will happen next? In some ways, this was just the entry point. Once people are able to talk more things could begin to happen. Perhaps the process could focus more on the technical aspects – without ignoring social and economic aspects. That is what I would hope for.”