Comments on 'Financing water supply and sanitation under Agenda 21' by John Briscoe and Mike Garn

This article presents comments on "Financing water supply and sanitation under Agenda 21" by Briscoe and Garn (B&G). B&G argue that greater cost recovery in the urban sector can provide more resources for the sector as a whole. They state that subsidies benefit the rich but the authors disagree stating that subsidies are necessary but should be better targeted and that decisions should be made through community participation. Regarding financial sustainability, the authors, unlike B&G, argue for meeting the water and sanitation challenge through a combination of financing strategies and not through a reliance on market forces alone. Advocating a more holistic approach to both sector management and environmental considerations, they emphasize that poor rural areas must not be forgotten. They also state that to achieve the goal of universal coverage and usage, the choice of appropriate and affordable technology will be crucial. Regarding the "new view" to financing, the authors state that B&G fail to address the necessity to mobilize the community within a financing mechanism in which the government participates through subsidies or rural credit schemes. The authors also disagree with B&G's assertion that the "some for all rather than more for some" principle has failed and that their use of Kerala as an example of the low equilibrium trap is an inaccurate one. In general, the authors conclude that B&G advocate a return to large bulk water supply projects and a reversal of the trend which the authors support of focusing on household water supply and sanitation at community level, health, and environmental issues.