1. Aiding Development Alleviating Poverty or Fostering Growth? Session 8 – Sept. 23rd UvA-IDS Lecture Series 2010-2011

2. Red Line of the Series “Alleviating Poverty or Fostering growth? -Invest in projects that foster economic development instead of poverty alleviation -Make a “poverty diagnosis” -Thus: don’t invest in Health or Education, but for instance invest in agriculture -Don’t see AID in isolation, search a “public common goods approach” (examples, climate change, security).

3. Some characteristics of the WRR- report National state oriented One-dimensional view of what development is Does not sufficiently cover complexities

4. What did the sessions contribute? –Pronk: historical overview higlighting complexity and COOPERATION is more than AID –Voice Over –Biekart: MORE actors than the national state (focus of WRR report) – complexities /gray zones are most interesting. Are CSO the channel? –Lundsgaarde: AID-Landscape changed: new donors (both states and private donors)

5. Block Two Richards: support to agriculture YES, but tailor very carefully (NOT necessarily agri- business Vd Geest: Health-development nexus not proven. Many micro-factors in health-care provision not adequately understood Sayed: Aid SHOULD support the educational sector – but not for instrumental (= growth related) only, also important from an equity point of view!

6. Block III Working with local actors “Development without AID” –CHINA –Brazil Africa Public Good argument of WRR -> climate change Final session

7. Text Cooperation at different scales: challenges for local and international water resource governance in South Africa –Mirumachi and van Wijk (2010)

8. Essence article Interaction between different stakeholders at multiple levels is a time-consuming process. The state (in all its different levels) still plays a major role in the process. Cooperation does not necessarily address the power-differentials between actors. The “NEW” actors are visible, but have little decision making power Donors play a significant role in this case of multilevel governance

9. Lessons learned from case studies: Decisions among less powerful actors should be taken jointly to endure (case Sablie region) Activism/joined campaigning crucial in having some success in influencing state decisions “empowerment differentials” (i.e. differing starting conditions between interest groups in terms of knowledge, resources, access etc) are threatening in the process

10. Central concepts: Power, interdependency, risk: Power: power-differentials are potential a threat for cooperation Transparency/information and knowledge sharing so far have had a positive effect Interdependency: Interdependencies in water governance are complex and sometimes disguised In interstate relations Interdependencies are not inherently good or bad In relations between different sort of actors participatory processes are crucial in achieving results –Face-to – face cooperation essential in cooperation and social learning

11. Risks: Risk in non-participation (being left behind) Most actors perceive a risk of low return on all time and other resources invested in the process Risk of non-compliance of one of the partners (SA or Lesotho) Cooperation not necessarily addresses the power differentials between actors Participatory processes at local level might need backing/embeddedness at higher levels

12. Conclusion Cooperation not necessarily addresses the power differentials between actors Participatory processes at local level might need backing/embeddedness at higher levels