Good practices for Social inclusion - Case studies and summary

As every case of effective social inclusion is fundamentally context driven – there is no
blueprint to import. An explorative process design works best. This starts by asking three basic
questions from the perspective of different types of stakeholders (see Nelson et al):
What do you have? - This is about monetary and non-monetary assets, such as
livelihood assets, social networks or established community organisations.
Where do you live?- If you live too far away from the main sewerage and water
networks, or in flood prone places or in a notorious (criminal) area, or are represented
by the ‗wrong‘ party or that you live in an illegal settlement.
Who are you?: Peoples identity is formed on the basis of their religion, ethnicity,
gender, age, disability, financial status, caste, language, place of origin, politics,
tradition, beliefs... all these features can be used to in or exclude groups.
How robust is the set up or design of the social inclusion process?
Robustness of the inclusion process refers to the strength and commitment of the process design
and implementation arrangements with different stakeholders. Successful platforms, networks
or alliances call for a participatory approach, including a combination of informal meetings,
semi-structured discussions, workshops and presentations. Working towards social inclusion
requires time, resources and commitment of different stakeholders or parties. This requires the
formulation of clear objectives, strategies and activities on social inclusion, and understanding
differences. Approaches that are demand driven and integrate several dimensions appear to be
most effective. Possible direct practical approaches are: the introduction of participatory
methodologies; linking improved sanitation with poverty alleviation; providing for flexible
(re)payment arrangements for the poor; well targeted subsidies and improved regulation. Any
direct measure needs a series of generic measures, such as: the provision of adequate
information suitable for non-literate participants or people speak a different native language,
ensuring that procedures and documentation are gender and poverty specific, and improving the
gender equity and sensitivity in the project team. A high standard of facilitation and developing
specific organisational capacities is needed, especially when a Learning Alliance (facilitated
multi-stakeholder group based) approach is followed. Tips and Tricks are:
o
o
o
o
Capacity building for improved planning, conflict resolution and engaging end-users is
crucial. Not every partner has the same objectives and aspirations; clarification of
motives and aspirations needs to be clear when partnerships are formed.
Allowing sufficient time for people to engage in processes and amending these as an
ongoing process improves the outcomes significantly.
If a Working Group spearheads the social inclusion process, new members for this
group need to be recruited continuously to avoid the emergence of ‗group-thinking‘ and
to maintain momentum and enthusiasm with new ideas and questions.
Dialogue facilitation and maintenance cannot be left to stakeholders – external support
is needed.
Are all stakeholder groups, especially the disadvantaged included?
Stakeholders refer to all parties who have a stake in the planning, development and maintenance
of a IUWM -services. Multi-stakeholder platforms (Learning Alliances – ―LAs‖) can be
established at local, intermediate and national level for planning and management of water
resources and water services. Experience from the EMPOWERS project in Palestine, Jordan and
Egypt shows the impact of a fragmented and uncoordinated institutional setting. Here even
though an explicit focus on the most marginalised existed, the fact that the most marginalised
2