Scaling-up: a plausible project?

Jambo, karibu tena :)

I've been wondering how scaling up current functional projects could work. Defined as a way of expanding and literally bringing successful projects to larger scale, it would, I believe, make for interesting bottom-up and top-down collaborations. Following Peter Jones’ definition of co-evolutionary partnerships (where actors mutually learn from one another, rather than seeking unrealistic consensus), it could be interesting to explore in what ways government action (which has been lacking since the 80s trend to decentralise most development projects).

Scaling up would be a way to address low sustainable coverage in certain countries, and if not on a global level. 

Of course, after co-management, integrated water resources management and other ‘buzzwords’, it seems difficult to find best practices accommodating and factoring in all the local, regional, national and international interests and associated power relationships. But what if, like I believe we should IWRM, we treat it like a guide, or an ideal to aspire to? 

After all, successful examples of scaling up local projects have been shown to thrive. Because of the time these would take to develop (scaling up water coverage in Switzerland took up to a century, and is continuously evolving), it could be a way to inscribe binding multi-level stakeholders agreements in the long terms. In reality, most of the water services in developing countries are provided by external agents such as lending agencies. This is especially risky, and unsustainable in the long-run, as it implies being financially dependent on donors. Indeed, Investing in low to middle countries involve significant financial risk. Research has shown that, as signs of political instability arise, private funs are usually the first to be cut. Examples from a Tanzanian case-study, the WAMMA programme (integrating water, health and education), showed that scaling up benefited and benefited from policy sector reforms. such as the rethinking of the state’s ‘free water policy’. This example also implied that support from government officials was inherent to success. 

A particularly strong example of scaling-up could be used from a case-study I am particularly fond of, in the Northern Kenyans Rangelands. 

The NRT (Northen Rangelands Trust) is a good example of a good practice scaling up practice. What started as a small portion of land dedicated to community led-conservation with the integration of negotiating with state agents developed and expanded into 36 conservancies scattered across Northern Kenya, to generate additional and sustainable revenue for (and by)  communities. 

Key lessons to be learned from currently applied examples, such as in a pilot water scaling project in Mozambique, are that efforts to scaling work better when actors have the capacity to choose from a wide set of technological options, services and costs. This is of course logical in that to appeal to a wider public, different designs will work better in different contexts in the same county or even region. 

Similarly, the scaling process relies on the need to improve stakeholder coordination. This implies rethinking demand creation, and establishing negotiation platforms where it is vital for costs and required resources to be made clear to all stakeholders. I find that, in line with Jones’ argument for efficient governance, trust is a key notion of capacity building, which must be strong at local level before considering scaling up. From there, like in Kenya, Switzerland and Tanzania, it becomes possible to develop technical and managerial develop at county level first. Close monitoring (like the water project in Rwanda I discussed last week) is equally useful, to ensure objectives are met, and to reinforce accountability. Political will is of course key, however, like with the example in Northern Kenya, the state has come to understand the benefits behind financial and logistical implication in scaling community projects, from a political (reputation-wise) and moral perspective.  

Finally, I believe that independent or neutral facilitators could be useful to such projects, to ensure arbitrary decisions be made, when conflict of interests arise (as they should). Although I do not believe in consensus, I believe in trade-offs, and providing viable alternatives to avoid lock-in (a notion described as being entrenched by a technology or conceptualisation following a way of thinking).

Let me know your thoughts!

Kwaheri