Gibhr Workshop Report

8/9/2019 Gibhr Workshop Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gibhr-workshop-report 1/7

GIHRBA 2015

FOR STAKEHOLDERS IN HARARE

WORKSHOP26 May 2015

Harare, Zimbabwe

WORKSHOP REPORT

osted by Community Water Alliance



welcome you all, residents' associations andouth organizations, to the Gender Inclusiveuman Rights Based Approach training workshoposted by Community Water Alliance. Communityater Alliance is a membership driven civicganization with a National Water Councilructure of which I chair, Northern and Southerngional structures, catchment structures,

onstituency structures and ward structures.his workshop is a platform for residentsssociations and youths to learn, sharexpe r iences and reflec t on you r wo rkterventions. It introduces essential elements ofender and rights based approaches to waterervice delivery. It explores the rationale formbarking on a journey that calibrate a needsased approach and aim to recognize rights

olders as agents of change in situations of water,anitation and hygiene (WASH) deprivations andolations.

e are all aware of the challenge of waterhortage in Harare. In some cases it is watersconnections, in others water cuts, whilst othereas like Southerly Park have no municipal water.

believe residents associations will not forget the008/2009 cholera outbreak in Harare and even

diarrhea cases reported in suburbs of Mabvuku,Tafara and Dzivarasekwa. All this indicates thatthere is a strong need to address root causes ofpoor water service delivery.

I therefore urge you to utilize this platform offeredby this workshop to reflect on what we are doing ascivil society organizations, and then try to reasonon the effectiveness of our interventions to solvethe problem.

Ms Hildaberta Rwambiwa

Chairperson -National Water CouncilCommunity Water Alliance

FOREWORD TO THE WORKSHOP

M.S H. RWAMBIWA



NTRODUCTION

The Gender Inclusive Human Rights BasedApproach (GIHRBA) training workshop, held inHarare on 26 May 2015, is a fulfilment of the

ommitment made by Hardlife MudzingwaCWA Programmes Manager) at the GIHRBAraining of trainers workshop organized by

HEKS/EPER during seven days in March 2015 inBulawayo. The GIHRBA training workshop in

Harare was supported by HEKS/EPER.

The Harare training workshop was attended by 20participants represented by 10 organizations. Theorganizations included Chitungwiza ResidentsTrust (CHITREST), Chitungwiza Residents andRate-payers Association (CHIRRA), CommunityWater Alliance (CWA), Simukai ResidentsResidents Trust, Combined Harare ResidentsAssociation (CHRA), National Association of YouthOrganizations (NAYO), Harare Residents Alliance

HARA), Chitungwiza Progressive ResidentsAssociation (CHIPRA), Norton Residents Allianceas well as a representative of Harare MetropolitanResidents Forum. There was one facilitator who isa product of the HEKS/EPER GIHRBA training ofra iners 1 , severa l par t i c ipa to ry g roup

presentations, three brain-storming sessions andone representative from HEKS/EPER for qualityontrol.

During the workshop participants contributed to the

analysis of the water sector using Human RightsBased Approach tools as well as utilizing HRBA inprogramming. The tools used included problemree analysis, framework analysis, rights-actorable, pattern analysis, force field analysis, andSWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities &hreats). The WASH sector challenges requireaddressing root causes of the problem andembracing interventions that ensures sustainabilityof water service delivery. The workshop facilitatedbuilding residents associations' appreciation of

GIHRBA by introducing essential elements ofender and rights-based approaches to the waterector. It explored how gender perspective can be

gnored and emphasized the essentiality of gendern WASH provision. The workshop explored theationale for embarking on a journey that moves

beyond needs assessments and embrace rightsbased approaches. The rights based approach callor rights holders as agents of change in situationsof WASH deprivations and violations. It empowersghts holders to claim their rights and develop theapacity of duty bearers to meet their WASH

obligations and to be held to account for theirperformance in this regard. The training calls foradopt ing r ights based approaches wi thonsideration and attention to different identities,

particularly gender, in the WASH sector. It requirestakeholders to examine their understanding ofraditions and culture.

The workshop focused on four sub-themes whichinclude human rights to WASH knowledge;Introducing Human Rights Based Approaches;Gender and Water; Utilizing Human Rights Based Approach Analysis.

Human Rights to WASH (Water, Sanitation &Hygiene) Knowledge

In this session brainstorming exercise showed level

of understanding where participants were requiredto contribute in what are human rights to WASH(water, sanitation & hygiene), what specialattributes of rights are and give relevantinternational instruments relating to rights to WASH.Participants were encouraged to contextualize theirunderstanding to Harare in particular andZimbabwe in general.

The human right to water entitles everyone tosufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible

and affordable water for personal and domestic use(Committee on Economic, Social and CulturalRights, General Comment 15). Contributions madeby representatives of residents associations andyouth organizations demonstrated that their rationaland empirical understanding of the human rights toWASH is limited. To integrate the sufficiencycomponent the World Health Organization (WHO)standard of between 50 – 100 litres of water perperson per day was used. These litres were viewedas requirements to meet most basic needs and few

health concerns. Almost all participants concurredthat Harare City Council is failing to provide thisamount of water to citizens on a daily basis. Casesof suburbs that have not received water for yearswere referenced. The debate cascaded to whetherwater disconnections violate the sufficiencycomponent. Publ icat ions by Catarina De Albuquerque (UN Special Rapporteur on theHuman Rights to Water and Sanitation) show thatprocedural safeguards before, during and afterdisconnections should be put in place, including

provision of alternatives for those who cannotafford. The High Court ruling of Mushoriwa vs City ofHarare established that any disconnections shouldbe accompanied by a court order. The safety ofHarare water which relates to freeness from micro-organisms, chemical substances and radiologicalhazards that constitute threats to human health,was highly questioned. Reference to the 24 May2015 Sunday Mail headline, “Harare City WaterPollution Shocker” was a point of reference fordiscussions on safety. Participants noted that thereis need to ensure that Local Authorities localizestandards in line with the World Health Organization(WHO) Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Although the acceptability component encompassthe colour, odour and taste of water as well as thecultural appropriateness dimension, the workshopconcentrated on gender sensitivity, life-cycle andprivacy requirements. Participants noted that



although general gender policies and the NationalWater Policy has rhetoric on gender sensitivity, theituation on the ground at Local Authority levelhows insensitivity. The WHO standard of having a

water source within 1000 metres of the home andhe collection time of less than 30 minutes, was usedas the basis to discuss the physical accessibilityomponent of rights to WASH in Harare. The

affordability component raised interest amongstparticipants since residents within communities had

been disconnected from water using the 1913 WaterRegulations by-law in Harare. Participantseiterated that they have not promoted non-

payment for water services and that residents areot major debtors as the Harare City Council would

want to portray. The affordability component in linewith the United Nations Development Programmeuggestion that water costs should not exceed three

percent of household income, was viewed as amajor area of engagement with the Harare CityCouncil.

nternational instruments giving legal foundations tohe human rights to WASH were noted as the 28 July010 UN General Assembly, through Resolution

64/292; Convention on the Elimination of All Formsof Discrimination against Women and Children;Convention on the Rights of a Child (Article 14(2))and the November 2002 International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)General Comment No. 15 Article 1.1.To illustrate special attributes of rights two individual

exercises were done. The first one involved apicture depicting a man giving a present to a womanon one hand and a male worker receiving a salaryrom a female manager on the other hand. Theexercise was to evoke perceptions of participantson the relationship between giver and receiver aswell as between a rights-holder and duty-bearer.Participants were tasked to list what they think thoseat the receiving end felt about the present and thealary awarded. The exercise culminated into self-

ntrospection on what residents associations and

outh organizations think their interventions andprograms elicit among people of their concern, i.ewhether they had a beneficiary/receiver tag or aghts holder tag. The second exercise involved a

picture depicting a lonely man on an Island on oneand and two men on an Island with the otherrinking water on the other hand. Individual

participants were asked to state under which of thewo scenarios would a person say “I need water” orI have a right to water” and why?. Both of thendividual exercises showed that most interventionsn the WASH sector by CSOs is mainly confined toeeds based approaches rather than rights based

approaches. However two contrasting positionsame out from the exercise; one saying whetherhere is a lonely man or not the statement shouldalways be “I have a right to water”; the other positionwas that a lonely man should say “I need water”whilst the other man accompanied by another

person drinking water should say “I have a right towater.”The session ended on questions whether CSOswere rights-holders or duty bearers and whetherCSOs should disclose their budgets and if so towhat extent. Though CSOs facilitated citizens'empowerment to demand services and alsocapacitating Local Authorities to deliver, theworkshop noted that CSOs are also duty bearers insome respect especially in the context of them

accounting to people of their concer

Introducing Human Rights Based Approach

To ignite graduation from a needs based approachamongst participants and facilitate mindset shift

towards Human Rights Based Approaches,participants were given a simple common fish story.The fish story that “if you give a person a fish, he orshe will eat for one day but if you teach the personhow to fish, he or she will eat forever” was tabled forindividual assessment to determine the truth of itand state reasons for either supporting it or notsupporting it. Two positions came out; onesupporting the statement and the other taking asituational approach (it depends with the situation).The fish story presented a call to find new ways of

thinking and a paradigm shift from responding toneeds and embrace a rights based approach. Thefish story brings to the fore the need to embraceimportant considerations like access to the river,possession of fishing tools, whether the river isclean or polluted thereby exposing people to healthconcerns, access to the market and several otherbarriers to development.

An individual exercise with questions was given toparticipants to establish key elements of the rightsbased approach. The exercise brought to the forethat in rights based approaches marginalizedpeople must have access to their rights and CSOsshould show solidarity to people of our concern asthey hold duty bearers to account. People of CSOs'concern should take control of their lives, fulfill theirroles, responsibilities and aspirations. HRBAasserts the responsibility that duty bearers are

http://www.un.org/es/comun/docs/?symbol=A/RES/64/292&lang=E

















accountable to rights holders and develops theapacity of duty bearers to meet their human rights

obligations. It works on non-discriminatory basis,ensures people are the compass, address rootauses of the problem, promote non-violent conflictesolution and promote working with others.

The role of CSOs change from being anmplementer to a facilitator. The session ended onroup exercises on the differences between needs

based and rights based approaches.

Gender and Water

Participants were tasked to brainstorm on whatender is. The exercise showed that there isonfusion on the difference between gender andex. Majority of participants also defined genderuite closely to gender roles. Information on gender

esponsiveness and gender analysis is lackingamongst some residents associations and youthorganizations.The next task that aimed to relate gender to thewater sector was group work on analyzing a pictureof a man giving the instruction that for a fair selectioneverybody had to take the same exam and orderedanimals present to climb a nearby tree. The animals

iven the instruction were an elephant, a bird, a dog,a fish, a penguin, and a monkey. This exercise

emonstrated that what seems fair has to be

npacked at the level of vulnerabil i ty. Itemonstrated that people setting parameters canbe blind to circumstances and fail to take intoonsideration diversity. General statements can beender blind because people have differentulnerabilities. This exercise was followed by aandout exercise to establish the value of gender

mainstreaming in human rights based approach.The handout showing how women are differentlyaffected in water provision framework drew theonclusion on why even at international level afterhe Universal Declaration of Human Rights, therewas need to also come up with the Convention onhe Elimination of Discrimination Against Women soas to unpack situations as they come and recognize

ifferent stakeholders in the water sector.Gender analysis is therefore important so thatCSOs work is responsive and sensitive to gender.

Utilizing Human Rights Based ApproachAnalysis

Facilitator explained the use of the problem treeanalysis tool. Participants were divided into threegroups. After agreeing that the main problem waswater shortage, groups were tasked to establishcauses and effects using the problem tree analysis

tool. The groups identified the following root causesto water shortage; obsolete water infrastructure;failure to maintain and upgrade infrastructure; poorplanning and management; low revenue collection;lack of confidence with Local Authorities; flawedbilling system; corruption; lack of good effectiveaccountability systems; poor citizen engagement;uncoordinated local authority institutionalframework; centralization and interference by theexecutive arms of government; brain drain; greedy;poor ineffective water governance frameworks;

irrelevant policies and laws; inconsistency ofpolicies, laws and regulations; conflict of interest;poor prioritization of issues; destruction of watersources e.g wetlands; lack of political will and poorbudget allocations.

The effects of the problem were identified as:disease outbreaks e.g dysentery, typhoid andcholera; abuse of women and children at boreholes;loss of productive time queuing for water; waterdisconnections at residents households; poor

sanitation; proliferation of unprotected watersources; de-industrialization; privatization of water;family disintegration; conflicts at water sources;instability and lack of social cohesion; degradinghuman dignity; violations of human rights to waterand sanitation.

The causal analysis indicated that ineffective andpoor water governance frameworks were thecentral problem in the water sector. Facilitatorexplained the use of framework analysis tool andgroups were tasked to utilize the tool in water sectordiagnosis. On the legal framework the followinglaws were listed: Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 20, ZINWA Act, Water Act, RuralDistrict Councils Act, Urban Councils Act, RegionalTown Planning Act, Public Health Act, EnvironmentManagement Act, Debt Assumption Act, PublicPrivate Partnership Bil l , and 1913 Water



Regulations By-law. Policy frameworks identifiednclude the National Water Policy, the ZimbabweAgenda for Sustainable Socio-EconomicTransformation (ZIMASSET), the forthcomingSanitation and Hygiene policy, the National HealthStrategy and the National Climate Change StrategyPaper. It was noted that there is a lot ofnconsistency in the legal, policy and regulationsramework and hence there is no guarantee for theespect, protection and fulfilment of rights to WASH

n accordance with international standards andprinciples. On the institutional framework theNational Action Committee on Water whichembraced the concept of integrated water resourcemanagement and the National Coordination Unitwere listed as coordination mechanisms at nationalevel. Below them are Provincial Water andSanitation Committees followed by District Waterand Sanitation Committees. In rural areas theyascade down to village development committees

whilst in urban areas they cascade to ward

evelopment committees. The other sort of parallelnstitutional framework noted was the one fallingnder ZINWA which has Catchment Councils andub-catchment councils. The National Water Policyhrough its National Water Supply Services UtilityNWSSU – Section 1.3.3) was viewed as an avenueor another institutional framework that will havewater utility boards at municipality level e.g theHarare Water Utility Board. Participants noted thathere are many, unnecessary and uncoordinatednstitutional frameworks in the water sector. The

nformal value framework included churches,Community Water Alliance, Combined HarareResidents Association, Harare Residents Trust,Harare Residents Alliance, Epworth ResidentsDevelopment Association, Norton ResidentsAlliance, Chitungwiza Residents Trust, ChitungwizaResidents and Rate-payers Assoc ia t ion,Chitungwiza Progressive Residents Association,Simukai Rural Residents Trust, BulawayoProgressive Residents Association, BulawayoUnited Residents Association, Gweru Residents

Association, Masvingo United Residents andRatepayers Association, Mutare ResidentsAssociat ion, National Associat ion of YouthsOrganizations, the Institute of Water, SanitationDevelopment, UNICEF, World Vision, PracticalAction, Leonard Cheshire, Mvuramanzi Trust,WHH, Commonwealth Local Government Forum,Zimrights, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights,World Bank, Swissaid, USAID, AUSAID (DFAT),EU, DFID, SIDA, CIDA, Hivos and several otherCSOs as well as community based organizations.

Participants agreed that priorities from thehallenges identified include synchronizing of wateraws, policy and regulations with the nationalonstitution; citizen engagement as well as policynd institutional reform.

The Rights-Actors table was explained but using thetool had challenges as majority of the participantswere not privy to sections of laws, policies andregulations that had a bearing on WASH.Community Water Alliance was therefore tasked tocompile relevant sections so that CSOs can makeeffective use of the Rights- Actors table as a tool.Time constrains did not allow group exercises on theforce field analysis and SWOT analysis.Discussions held however showed that CSOs used

SWOT as a tool to analyze their organizations ratherthan to assess communities where there are peopleof their concern.

The group feedbacks and discussions showed thatthere is greater need for civic education, monitoringand obse rva t ion o f WASH, i n fo rma t iondissemination, advocacy and lobby, as well asnetworking and capacity building. 'page 7

Workshop Report

Author: Hardlife Mudzingwa- CWA ProgrammesManager

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank many people who made theworkshop a success. We would particularly like tothank the National Water Council Chairperson MsHildaberta RwambiwaCWA Board Secretary Ms Aretha Mare,

CWA National Coordinator Mr Timothy Chitambure, Mr Ruben Akili and Ms Farai Jangara both from theCombined Harare Residents Association.

We acknowledge the free venue offered by CHRAand the commitment made by CSOs in sending theirrepresentatives to the workshop HEKS/EPER is acknowledged for funding supportand contributions to the workshop.



ANNEXURE 1 – WORKSHOP PROGRAM

D9 b 5 9 w Lb / [ Ü{ Lë 9 I Üa ! b wLDI Ç{ . ! { 9 5 ! t t wh ! / I Çw! Lb Lb D – 26 MAY 2015NO 12, OXFORD ROAD, NEWLANDS, HARAE Facilitator: Hardlife Mudzingwa

Activity Lead Pers

30hrs Opening remarks and introductions, expectations and fearsObjectives of the workshop

Hilda RwaCWA NatiCouncil CCWAParticipant

00hrs Human Rights KnowledgeBasics to the right to waterLegal foundations of the right to water and relevant instruments.State obligations for the promotion of the right to water.

Facilitator

rs Break All15hrs Introduction to HRBA

What are HRBA?

Why HRBA?

Key elements of HRBA?

Why departure from NBA?

Difference between NBA & HRBA.(Group Assignments on Difference Between NBA & HRBA)

FacilitatorParticipant

15hrs Gender & WaterIntroduction to gender concepts.

The intrinsic linkage between gender and human rights in relation to water.

Facilitator

5hrs Utilizing HRBA in Programming in the programme cycleGroups Assigment


rs Utilizing HRBA Analysis1. Framework Analysis2. Rights-Actors Table

(Group Assignments on Analysis Tools)


00 hrs LUNCH ALL00hrs Utilizing HRBA Analysis

1. Force Field Analysis2. SWOT



35hrs Utilizing HRBA Analysis1. Solution Finding



20hrs Group feedback and discussion on analysis tools Participant

30hrs HEKS THEMATIC AREAS Belinda NcHEKS Re

Documents

Gibhr Workshop Report