１２３７：副題を変える

今回は、ブログの副題を行き成り変える。前と同じガンディーの言葉である。時代に呼応し、示唆的だ。

コンサルも仕事としてのサービスに対する価値観を変える必要があると今感じているのだ。

余談だが、明日からはセミナー参加が続く。また、元いた会社の大先輩ともお話しもするし、東大主催の国際会議もある。大兄とは、水資源開発管理に対するコンサルの役割についてお話ししようと思っている。

開発から管理という流れの中で、水コンサルとして能力開発の実践にどう取り組んでいくか、大きなテーマである。そのことも副題を変えた理由だ。兎に角、形から入ることにしている。ある程度方向性が定まったら、ブログのテーマもいずれ直ぐ変えることにしよう。

意気込みだけの投稿かもね。２５度の「いいちこ」の金麹でちょっと酔ったからか。

これから能力開発の猛勉強が始まるが、世界の名著という羅針盤を得た。昨日は、別途アマゾンで１９８５年の伝説的な古典を頼んだ。当然絶版なのだが、中古で５ドルはいいね。郵送料が１０ドルだが、円高の昨今、洋書購入は週２回以上となった。

混迷の時代だが、洋書でのお勉強には最適だ。

１２３６：コンサルタントとしての能力開発の実践

米国CSUで洪水管理における能力開発をテーマとして博士号を取得したK君の論文の要旨を見たが、内容を見ることなしに実践的な手法を論じていないことを感じた。

コンサルタントと云う実践者としての視点や論点が見えてこない。

さて、コンサルタントとして能力開発にどう取り組んだらいいのだろうか。最近、クライアントの要請もあり各コンサル会社でも能力開発に取り組む意欲が見える。しかし、実践的な能力開発の経験や知見はあるのだろうか。

残念ながら、今の日本のコンサルタント会社には十分なプロとしての能力開発技術はない。会社社員の能力開発プログラムさえ脆弱であり、開発途上国の能力開発に対してどうアプローチするかの技術があるとは思えないからだ。

では、どうしたらそうした能力開発の実践的手法を学んだらいいのだろうか？クライアント側としてのアプローチは若干進んでいるが、コンサルタントとしての努力や成果を示したものは非常に少ない。

昨日、イギリスより洋書が届いた。

オランダのある機関が纏めた能力開発の実践的手法の最新文献であり、途上国などで能力開発を行う上での参考書としては最新でベストなものだ。この文献からさらに深い内容を論じる文献へと導いてくれる。

途上国で能力開発をコンサルタントとして実践するためのノウハウはヨーロッパにあるようだ。今時、アメリカに留学しても学べない。特に、オランダは最先端を走っている。

昨日手に入れた最新の参考書でも能力開発に対する多くの国際機関（下記参照）の成果が示されている。

ADB
AusAID
BMZ
CIDA
DANIDA
DFID
EU
GTZ
IDA
IFAD
OECD
SIDA
UN
UNDP
USAID
WB

残念ながら、我が国の機関の名前がない。

オランダだから意識的に日本を無視することもあるが、やはりクライアントもここ何年も能力開発を実践していることを考えると、紹介されないと云う現実を真摯に受け止めることが大事だろうか。

コンサルがこれからどれだけ能力開発で成果を上げるかが益々重要になってくることだけは確かである。

１２３５：アフリカ開銀情報（ジンバブエ）

今日は朝から雨。

先週参加した新入社員同期会の写真集が送られた。とはいっても、幹事グループのO君の個人ホームページにアップロードされ、各人がそれにアクセスする形になっている。経費節減でいいアイデアだ。O君もロッカーとしてもがんばっているようだ。ちょっと写真につけているコメントが嫌みだが。余計なお世話的なコメントで、昔からの性格は変わっていないようだ。田舎のおばちゃん的。

さて、アフリカからの最新情報が入る。ジンバブエにおけるドナー（開発パートナー）のトラストファンドが設立された。SWApの一環だと思う。アフリカ各国で広まっている。

日本政府の参加はないようだ。援助協調という考え方の具体的な方法論である。運営が難しいのは勿論のことでもある。

。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。

Zimbabwe Multi-Donor Trust Fund

In 2010, a group of donors in a bid to support priority recovery activities of the Government of Zimbabwe decided to create the Zimbabwe Multi-Donor Trust Fund (the Zim-Fund), as a successor to the Zimbabwe Programmatic Multi-Donor Trust Fund (Zim-MDTF). The African Development Bank was designated to manage the Zim-Fund with the endorsement of the Government, the Donor Community, and the United Nations at their meetings in Harare and Washington in 2010.

Establishment
The Zim-Fund was established on 31 May 2010, following approval by the Boards of Directors of the African Development Bank Group (the Bank) of the recommendations contained in a document entitled “Establishment of a Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Zimbabwe”. Negotiations between the Bank and Donors on the modalities to establish the Fund were concluded in July 2010.

Purpose of the Zim-Fund
The purpose of the Zim-Fund is to contribute to early recovery and development efforts in Zimbabwe by mobilizing donor resources and promoting donor coordination in Zimbabwe, so as to channel financial assistance to such efforts. The thematic scope of the Zim-Fund initially focuses on infrastructure investments in water & sanitation, and energy.

Size of the Zim-Fund
The size of the Zim-Fund is determined by development partners' willingness to contribute to it over time. Donors' commitments to the Zim-Fund currently stand at an equivalent of USD68.8 million, out of which an equivalent of USD51.55 million has been released to the Zim-Fund account as of 4 March 2011. The Zim-Fund was declared effective after the threshold of USD40 million was reached on 19 October 2010. Table below shows donors' commitments and status of disbursement as of 4 March 2011.

Donor
Total Pledged USD million

Australia (FED)
9.00

Denmark
5.32

Norway
7.07

Sweden
5.30

UK (DfID)
16.00

Germany (KfW)
26.20

Funding Sub-Total
68.8


Projects for Financing under the Zim-Fund
Two projects have been identified for financing from the Zim-Fund so far.

Urgent Water Supply and Sanitation Rehabilitation Project: MDTF is providing a grant in the amount of USD29.65 million to support urgent rehabilitation works - restoration and stabilization of water supply and sanitation services in the Municipalities of Harare, Chitungwiza, Mutare, Chegutu, Masvingo and Kwekwe. Targeting a total population of approximately 4.15 million people, the envisaged outcomes include: increased reliability, quality and availability of water supply in the project areas; restored wastewater treatment capacity; and reduced incidence of cholera and other water related diseases.
Emergency Power Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: The Zim- Fund is providing a grant in the amount of USD32.60 million to support improvement of the reliability of power supply in an environmentally sound manner through the rehabilitation of the Ash Plant at Hwange Power Station (HPS) and the sub-transmission and distribution facilities in the country. The project beneficiaries include the entire electricity consuming public in Zimbabwe. Future projects are envisaged depending on successful completion of the identified priority projects, and donors' willingness to continue to support the Fund.
For more information please contact:
Multi-Donor Trust Fund (Zim-Fund)
African Development Bank
15th Floor African Capacity Building Foundation
Cnr. Jason Moyo Avenue/Sam Nujoma Street
Harare, ZIMBABWE
Tel: (+263 4) 700208/10/14
Email: secretary.zimfund@afdb.org

１２３４：アフリカの水と衛生（民営化問題）

６月も中旬過ぎた。今週は暇で、来週は連日セミナー参加である。

菅さんの粘りも凄い。案外続投が続く雰囲気だ。流石に市民運動家から首相にのし上がったど根性が垣間見える。ああいう方を首相にさせた責任は重い。

さて、久々に首記のニュースが入った。元々フランス語なので英語訳は読みにくい。特にコメントはない。アフリカはアジアとは違うことだけは間違いない。

。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。

Africa - Access to Water And Privatisation

9 June 2011
Pambazuka News

Why proclaim access to water a fundamental human right?

Despite UN recognition of access 'to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights,' it is a right that is far from being realised in most parts of the world, writes Jacques Cambon.

On 29 July 2010, the General Assembly of the United Nations recognised, in a proposed resolution by Bolivia and adopted by 122 votes with 41 abstentions, 'the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights.' The resolution also calls upon 'states and international organizations to provide financial resources, capacity-building and technology transfer, in particular to developing countries'.

It was a historical decision. But what explains the need to proclaim this right is that it is barely respected around the world. According to the UNESCO/WHO 2010 report, 884 million people around the world (13 per cent of the world population), among whom 343 million are in Africa, do not have access to an 'improved drinking water supply' (running water network, public drinking fountains, protected wells or springs, rainwater tanks), and 2.6 billion people (39 per cent of the world population) do not have access to 'improved sanitation systems' (mains drainage, septic tanks, latrines). The consequences are tragic: To this day, water-borne diseases (diarrhoea, cholera, typhoid, polio, meningitis, hepatitis, etc) are the main cause of death in the world, killing 8 million people a year according to the NGO Solidarites International (and about 3 million as stated by the World Health Organization). The culprits behind the 'water crisis' are numerous: Climate, demography, lifestyles, economy, politics, institutions, and the like. It is imperative that all are eliminated, so this 'right to clean drinking water' can at last become a reality.

EXPLAINING THE WATER CRISIS

The African climate is often considered the catalyst. While it is true that the world's water is not distributed fairly, the effect of global warming will only accentuate the gaps by bringing more rain in polar, temperate and equatorial zones, and less in tropical ones. Moreover, human needs are spread out over twelve months, usually increasing during the dry season; however, supplies vary greatly during the year. Natural storage (glaciers, lakes, rivers, perennial water flows) is also more scarce in the tropical regions. Those disparities are nothing new, yet they haven't precluded the development of adapted human societies on the world's continents.

It is a different story with demography and globalisation of lifestyles. The world's population rose from 2.5 billion in 1950 to almost 7 billion in 2010 while - it goes without saying - proportionally increasing its water needs. Because those needs add up to less than 10 per cent of water consumption, the list should include more than just domestic use (5 litres per day for survival, 50 litres per day for a decent life, more than 500 liters per day to satisfy North American standards). To accurately measure the impact of population growth on water needs, we should consider the total amount of water used for food, goods, energy production, and the like, which is called the water footprint. On average, this footprint reaches 3,400 litres per day worldwide, varying from 6,800 litres per day in the United States to 1,850 litres per day in Ethopia, while France uses about 5,140 litres per day. The water footprint depends on global consumption, lifestyle and climate. For example, knowing that the output of one kg of beef calls for 15,500 litres of water, one kg of chicken for 3,900 litres and one kg of wheat for 1,300 litres, it is possible to measure the impact that westernisation has had on consumption patterns.

Urbanisation is another key element of the water crisis. Though a fairly simple problem for small rural communities who make do with limited amounts of water, supplying this natural ressource becomes a much bigger problem as the community grows and diversifies its activities: In such cases, we need to look for further water repositories. The water they contain will need to be transported, stored, distributed among a zone too large to be supplied by only one water point, etc. All this is not free.

Nowadays, more than half the world's population live in urban areas, which increases water conveyance and distribution needs, as well as the costs associated with storage, pumping, and potabilisation. This conurbation not only exacerbates purification and storm water drainage problems and their treatment, but also the ones associated with service management. Unlike small villages in which most of the time the community manages its water resources, water service management and purification (when the latter exists) is usually under the leadership of political powers, either the central government or municipal authorities.

In countries recently decolonised, where technical competence was scarce, those services have long been the responsibility of national utilities in the case of cities, and most often of the Department of Agriculture through a programme for water supply in rural areas. The achievements of these utilities is variable, but on the whole they have been, alas, quite poor. Numerous reasons, which too often mirror the country's political and economic landscape, explain these failures: Unfit and corrupt leaders, lack of supervision, shortage of maintenance equipment, insufficient funding, penniless consumers. From these deficiencies, multinational water companies made a lot of profit, being able to say that better (private, of course) management of the water service would help put the situation back on its feet.

PRIVATISATION: A SOLUTION?

In the past, Africa has only marginally interested water multinationals, aside from the Ivory Coast's water taken over by the Saur group, then owned by the Bouygues group, in 1960. In the early 1990s, the increasing intervention of two major international financial organisations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, forced developing countries to put in place structural adjustment policies: The only way to reduce the external debt was by decreasing public spending. Privatisation, including that of drinking water distribution, is at the heart of this system. In sub-Saharan Africa, Saur lead the way in Conakry (1989), Central African Republic (1993), Mali (1994), Senegal (1995), South Africa (1999) and Mozambique (1999). As the leader in the public works and civil engineering sector, Bouygues uses its influence as a water contractor (not always a lucrative endeavour) to be awarded, competition-free, the far more profitable renovation and expansion contracts. Veolia (former Vivendi) and Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux, which did not share the same interests, resisted a bit before following in Bouygues' footsteps: South Africa (1992), Guinea-Bissau (1995), and Cameroon (2000) for Suez; Gabon (1997), Kenya (1999), Chad (2000), Burkina Faso (2001) and Niger (2001) for Vivendi. Some outsiders, not related to 'Françafrique', were also involved, among them Biwater in South Africa, or IPE (Portugal) in Mozambique or Cape Verde. In the more prized North Africa, while SONEDE Tunisia resisted privatisation, Morocco, on the other hand, gave Casablanca to Suez (1997), Rabat to a Lusitanian Spanish group for a short while before Veolia inherited it, the latter also getting Tangier and Tétouan (2002). Algeria, which was contemplating broadening the scope of privatisation, hesitated a bit longer before entrusting Alger to Société des Eaux et de l'Assainissement d'Alger (SEEAL) in 2006 (of which Suez is a shareholder), Oran to the Spanish Agbar Agua, and Annaba to the German Gelsenwasser (2007). Yet, Africa is a lightweight on the scale of multinationals' profits: 8.5 per cent (total for Africa Middle East-India) of Veolia Eau's sales figure (out of 12.5 billion euros), 7 per cent (total for Africa-Middle East) for Suez Environment (out of 12.3 billion euros), but 19 per cent for Saur (of 1.5 billion euros) in 2009.

One possible reason for such small numbers may lie in the poor achievements of these public services' handovers. Almost always translating into a rate increase (up to 40 per cent in Nairobi) without improving the service, privatisations often anger users that are unable to pay any more and who form coalitions to force the government to cancel the contracts. Veolia had to get out of Mali, Gabon, Chad, Niger, and Nairobi, while Saur left Guinea. Movements against water privatisation spread here and there, particularly in South Africa, and movements of about forty other countries joined together in what is called the African Water Network during the World Social Forum held in Nairobi.

In fact, the privatisation model doesn't answer Africa's multiple water problems:
- The water resources being exploited are insufficient, potential new resources are scarce, remote, and expensive to develop.
- Actual production, purification and storing equipments are often run-down because of a chronic lack of technical and financial means to maintain them; therefore they need renovation.
- Distribution networks are in need of renovation and extensions, another costly endeavour.
- Purification networks (not including purification stations) are at best embryonic.
- Public corporations' institutional flaws are just 'the icing on the cake'.

In short, it's pointless to add expertise (even if it is at a high-level) and to improve business management if installations remain in disrepair, a fact that calls for investments that municipal authories cannot make. Moreover, users' buying power will not suffice to pay back a debt through an increased water price tag. And this picture doesn't even include the need of multinational companies to release funds to satisfy their shareholders.

THE EXAMPLE OF MOMBASA IN KENYA

With a population of more than 3.3 million people, 60 per cent of whom live below the poverty line, Mombasa is the second largest city in Kenya, and the capital of the Coast Region. It is Kenya's first touristic destination as well as the main port of East Africa, where more than 10 million tons of merchandise transit annually. Fifty-two percent of the population have access to drinking water supplies, to which 16 per cent of them are directly connected, and 36 per cent get their water through public drinking fountains (PDF). The rest have to make do with water peddlers (whose costs can be as much as 10 per cent higher than the PDFs). The remote two major existing supply installations, 215 km for Mzima and 85 km for Marere, are in ruins (built respectively in 1950 and 1920): 60 per cent of the water is lost to leaks. The actual production capacity is 95,000 m3/d, but once we substract the supply to industries and hotels (a priority), only 26,000 m3/d remain for 52 per cent of the population (17 litres per day). The main consequences of this situation are the consumption of unsafe waters (wells, backwaters, water peddlers, etc) by the population, which brings inevitable sanitary and financial woes, limits to the development of economic activities (which in turn affect employment), and the priority given to production of water, which leads to a neglect of water purification, again with adverse consequences in termes of public health.
Renovating the existing infrastructure and increasing its capacity to 260,000 m3/d would cost about US$1 billion. With the World Bank's terms of lending, a price increase to 50 Ksh/m3 (about US$0.60), from the actual 15 Ksh/m3 charged at drinking water fountains, would necessary to repay the loan, and this 'arrangement' doesn't even include the cost of pumping (production), all of which would be financially unbearable for the population. What good would a DSP do in such a case?

WHAT NOW?

The UN's declaration making water a fundamental human right has not reduced the water multinationals' expansionism. On the contrary, they applauded, considering that this new right would open new markets for them, paid by the states, but in reality funded by the people! Even though it won't be possible anymore to claim, as did the European Union's spokesperson Joe Hennan, that 'water is a good like any other', multinational companies will aim at using water to do 'business as usual.' To fight this, we can use the existing notion of 'common heritage of humankind' which thus far has been applied to the management of seas and oceans, planets, celestial bodies, etc. It includes the following four components:
• Enforcement of a principle of non-appropriation by anyone
• International management by the UN
• Benefit sharing by all nations
• Exclusively peaceful use of natural resources.

'The battle goes on' and the enemy is known: The World Water Council, the private sector-led international organisation which pretends to be the leading political forum for water issues at global level, although it was created and is still managed mostly by water mutinationals.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Jacques Cambon
* Translated from French by Odile Leclerc
* This article is part of a special issue on water and water privatisation in Africa produced as a joint initiative of the Transnational Institute, Ritimo and Pambazuka News. This special issue is being published in English and in French.

１２３３：３０年の時を経ても

６月最初の投稿である。暫く怠けていた。

昨日は昭和５６年入社組の同期会が帝国ホテルで開かれた。海外コンサル部門以外の同期に会うのは随分久々のことだ。

幹事の力量のお陰で参加者は３０名弱で、同期６５名（男子４５名、女子２０名）の約半分が参加したことになる。会社員の同期会としては異例のことだと思う。

海外コンの奴は殆どが出張中で不参加。ちょっと残念だ。農水部門の１名参加だけだった。

寿退社した女性人の参加が目立った。年齢的には４９歳から５３歳だからまだまだお若い。男性陣は５３歳から５７歳という開きがある。浪人、留年、大学院を経て入社した猛者は３人いたが、小生以外は不参加。

男性陣もお姿はかなり変貌しているが、話し始めれば昔と変わらずであった。偉そうなことをいう嫌みな奴が全くいないと云うのがわれら同期のいい性格だ。

幹事が用意し配布した入社当時の資料が面白い。

写真入りの新入社員紹介（社内報）

新入社員研修プログラム

新入社員英語研修で作成した英字新聞

中でも英字新聞の出来栄えが非常にいい。「Jungle Express」というタイトルで、研修参加の新入社員全員が記事作成に参加している。５６年入社組の英語力の高さを証明するものだ。あらゆる業界と比較してもこうした質の高い英字新聞を作成できる新入社員集団はいないと思う。


特にY君と小生は、入社段階で既に実践的な英語力を持っていたことが記事で分かる。入社時点でTOEFL６００点（当時は７００点満点）を獲得できる人材が二人もいたし、当時、最大手の開発コンサル会社でも一般社員や幹部でもそれだけの英語力を持つものは一人もいなかったのだ。Y君とは入社以来良く飲んでいて、いずれどちらかが退社するだろうと予言していた。Y君のお陰でうちの奥さんと結婚できたと言ってもいい。ある意味恩人だろう。うちの奥さんも、今度当時の悪友と飲みたいと言っている。

Y君は今インドネシア出張中だそうだ。同期会に参加したW君は今は国内から海外に移籍し、Y君の案件に参加したとのこと。彼は建築屋だが５０歳過ぎて海外に復帰できるほどの英語力があるのは偉い。

また、来年も同期会を開くと云う。多くは望まないが、次回以降場所はどこでもいいが、ビュッフェの立食は止めよう。うまい料理を少し頂きながらゆっくり歓談できる設定がいいね。

２次会はコンサル辞めて中華屋を開いた後輩のお店へ。

終電がなくなったので、久々歌舞伎町の馴染みのお店に行った。やたらと歌舞伎町も混んでいて、黒人など外人が以前と同じように目立つ。金曜日のせいかもしれない。震災後、人が戻ってきたのだろうか。