Social Partnership

Assess the contributions social partnership has made to policy-making
Dr Chukwuemeka Nwaneri
Department of Healthcare Management
Institute of Public Administration
National University of Ireland
Dublin.

Table of Contents
Introduction
Mechanics & Institutional frameworks of Social partnership
Characteristic features of Social partnership
Social partnership: From Europe to Ireland
Social partnership pillars
Social partnership agreements: 1987 to 2015
Historical perspectives of Irish Social partnerships
Contributions of the social partnership to policy-making
Limitations and drawbacks of social partnership
Conclusion
References

Introduction
The Irish State since independence have demonstrated different levels of strata and relationship between social partnership with policy-making especially in areas of economic and social issues and management both in short term and long term basis.
When benchmarked with other European States this have an exemplary role on the management of different policies by government putting on board social partners.
Social partnership describes governance and policy making approach whereby government selected social partners work together in a collaborative manner to decide on the future of public policy in their area of involvement (ICSH, 2009).
Public policy is complex because of its diversification and intercalation ranging from agriculture, health, arts, housing, social, gender equality, child welfare to economy. Policy process is a continuous cycle, involving policy making, implementation and monitoring.
Bertie (2005) stated that social partnership had reinforced the people’s strong culture of consensus-building allowing participants a forum for expressing their views on government policies and proposals. Furthermore he stated that social partners constitute an enormous and priceless depot of experiences, expertise and feedback for the policy making process.
Bangs (2006) in quoting ‘the Copenhagen centre for partnership studies 2002’ defined social partnership as a tri or multi-partite arrangement involving employers, trade union, public authorities (the State including the local and regional authorities and others example Voluntary sector). Social partnership is usually concerned with areas of economic and social policy and might be based on a binding agreement or declaration of intent. Social partner is the term used to designate the representative organisations of trade unions and employers.
Mechanics and Institutional frameworks of Social partnership in policy-making in Ireland
The Social partnership bodies act through the tripartite National Economic Development Office (NESDO) which is composed of:
· The National Economic and Social Council ,NESC;
· The National Economic and Social Forum, NESF; and
· The National Centre for partnership and performance, NCPP.
The NESC has over the years since its establishment in 1973 played a leading role in the development of programmes and strategy to improve on economic “paralysis” increasing taxation and excessive debts. The NESC had been an advisory body in which employers, trade union, farmers, senior civil servant analyse policy issue. NESC role is to advise the government on the development of the national economy and the achievement of social justice.
The NESF established in 1993 plays a role in the area of equality especially to combat unemployment and have dominated areas of public policy evaluation and contribution to the formation of national consensus on social, economic issues.
The NCPP looks at organisational change and improvement in performance at the level of workplace at the same time developing models and measurement indices to promote collaborative efforts. NCPP was formed in 2001.
National Implementation body is bedrock of institutional framework of social partnership in Ireland.
Characteristic features of Social partnership
The NESC in its Report, strategy into the 21st century, offered the under listed characteristic features of social partnership (NESC 1996). The partnership process;
· Involves a combination of consultation, negotiation and bargaining;
· Is heavily dependent on a shared understanding of key mechanism and relationship in any given policy area;
· Should be an integral part of government. It provides the arena within which the process operates. It shares some of its authority with social partners. In some parts of the wider policy process it actively support formation of interest organisation;
· Reflects interdependence between the partners. The partnership is necessary because no party can achieve its goals without a significant degree of support from others
· Is characterized by a problem solving approach designed to produce consensus in which various interest groups address joint problems
· Involves trade-offs both between and within interest groups
· Involves different participants on various agenda items, ranging from national macroeconomic policy to local development (NESC 1996; O’Donnell & Thomas 1998).
Social Partnership: From Europe to Ireland
The Maastricht Treaty social chapter protocol lies the foundation of social partnership, which says that member states should and compliment each others activities on:
· Improving health and safety at work
· Working conditions
· The information and consultation of workers
· Equality between men and women with regard to job opportunities and treatment at work.
In October 2004, the European Commission published a work entitled “Partnership for change in an enlarged Europe: enhancing the contribution of European social Dialogue. Through a set of proposed activities the commission provided momentum to the council of ministers call on member states to ‘bind partnership for change’ involving social partners, civil society and public authorities in accordance with national tradition. Partnership for change as it became known, according to the commission, ‘recognises that successful economies in the 21st century will not be possible without a modern system of labour relations and efficient strategies for managing change pro-actively’. Ireland, the social partnership agreement covers a wide range of industries including management of the economy, wage level, workplace issues and social inclusion.
These involve the Government, the Irish congress of Trade Union and the Irish business and Employers confederations.
Four Pillars of Social partnership
1. Employer and Business organisation:
IBEC: Irish Business and Employers confederation
CIF: Construction Industry Federation
CCI: Chambers of commerce of Ireland
ITIC: Irish Tourist Industry Confederation
IEA: Irish Exporters Association
SFA: Small Firms Association
2. Trade Union ICTU: Irish Congress of trade unions
3. Framers organisation:
IFA: Irish Farming Association
ICMSA: Irish creamy and milk suppliers Association
Macra na feirme
ICOS: Irish cooperative Society
4. Community & Voluntary organisation:
ICSH: Irish Council for Social Housing
NWCI: national women’s Council of Ireland
NYCI: national youth Council of Ireland
CORI: Committee of Religious superiors
Centre for the Unemployed
Society of St Vincent de Paul
Protestant Aid
Community platform
Historical perspective of the Irish Social partnership
In the early 1930 and 1940, there were attempt at introducing a form of corporatism (or vocationalism) but it was unpopular among policy makers. About the middle 1940’s, Sean Lemass, although not pro-corporatism, had advocated for a modernization of trade union to suit into the framework of corporation to enhancing the metamorphosis of industrial development (O’Donnell & Thomas, 1998). But by virtue of opposition and lack of support on a background of inherent voluntarist culture of Irish industrial practices, Lemass made infinitesimal progress in his programme. In the 1960’s the social partnership arrangement with government public policy began to gain popularity as the Irish economy brightens. This heralded the appointment of trade union and community representatives in various public bodies in existent within these periods.
In the 1970’s, issues surrounding workers pay at the national level was dominant cumulating to series of National wage Agreement and National understanding (O’Donnell & Thomas, 1998). This heralded the development of periodic agreement commencing in 1987.
Current Social partnership agreements: 1987 to 2015
Since 1987, there have been 7 social partnership agreements in Ireland.
· Programme for National Recovery (PNR)1987-1990
· Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) 1991-1993
· Programme for competitiveness and Work (PWC) 1994-1996
· Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness 1997-1999
· Programme for prosperity and Fairness 2000-2002
· Sustaining progress 2003-2005
· Towards 2016: a ten year framework plan of 2006 to 2015.
Contributions of Social partnership to Policy-making: Economic and Social impacts
Following the drawbacks prior to the first social partnership agreement, a re-examination of the requirement for effective concordance was undertaken (Hardiman 1988, 1992; O’Donnell & Thomas, 1998) and areas of improvement were identified.
It was the policy document produced by the NESC in 1986 title “A strategy for Development” which formed the basis upon which the government at that time and the social partners re-assessed and developed the programme for National Recovery between 1987 and 1990. The programme for National Recovery 1987 to 1990 was a three yearly agreement involving employers, trade unions, government and farming interest as wage levels in both public and private enterprises. This was aimed at correcting and controlling public finance, and enhancing international competitiveness. These programme PNR, extended to government acceptance of tax reform, and maintenance of social welfare payments values in order to reduce the economic burden of the Irish workers (O’Donnell & O’Reardon, 2000).
A theme which revibrates the programme as argued by O’Donnell and O’Reardon (2000) was on macroeconomic dimension of annual year correction, structural adjustment, austerity measure and trends in health expenditure with each member of the partnership agreeing on the balance between inflationary pressure, devaluation and insolvency with external problems. The outcome of the successes of the government economic and social policy was without the contributions of the working groups, committees, and task forces, which involved the social partners in the design, implementation and monitoring of public policy.
Yet another area of contribution of social partners in the Irish public policy was on the employment and job creation and consequences of long term unemployment (O’Donnell & O’Reardon, 2000). They argued that it was the PNR of 1990 that led to the creation of local partnership companies with the involvement of social partners, trade unions, community and voluntary sectors and State agencies in designing and implementing a coordinated, multi-faceted approach to social inclusion.
The PESP (1990-1993) revealed a legislative clause which allowed negotiation at industrial level for a maximum of three percent wage increase amongst workers. This like the PNR 1990 was pioneered by the contributions of the social partners in the design and implementation of a more organised multi-sectoral approach to social inclusion.
In the area of rural development, a complementary community leadership programme was implemented as part of partnership approach. The argument was supported by the work of Sabel (1996) on OECD evaluation of Irish local economic development policies.
The PCW (1994-1996) extended the development initiative on increasing the number of people at work and reducing the level of unemployment. Furthermore this formed the basis of National level discussion and arrangements for the following years to come.
The partnership 2000, re-assessed the ‘weakest link’ in the previous agreements of PNR, PESP and PCW arguing that there was a discrepancy in the representation of national level partnership at the enterprise strata, addressing issues surrounding the unattainability of benefits of social partnership with respect to trade unions and limitations of the economic benefits such as in training, information and support to employers’ and employees’ representatives and provision of encouragement (O’Donnell & O’Reardon, 2000).
Another important contribution of the social partnership was in the widening inclusion in the partnership process by the establishment of the NESF. In 1993, the government as a result of the impressive contributions of the social partnership, established a new partnership body, the National Economic and Social forum (NESF) with its membership encompassing trade unions, employer association and farmers organisations, and representative of the community and voluntary sectors and of the main political parties in Ireland, which had been outside the partnership structure originally. The trend of change was also seen in the widening of membership of NESC to include a representative from the Irish National organisation of the unemployed (INOU) among the Government nominees.
The Gross Domestic Product over the decade of 1986 through 1996, increased by about 4.9percent, compared to an OECD average of 2.4percent. Employment grew by 1.8percent per year compared to an OECD average of 1.0percent and an EU average of 0.3percent. Between 1993 and 1996, the GNP rose by 7.5percent per year and employment by 4.0percent per year. The debt/GDP ratio fell drastically to 76percent by 1996 from 1986 value of 117percent. In the Irish State, inflation had fallen below the EU average. There was correction of public finances and improved economic growth and performance.
The Irish Council for Social Housing became a member of the community and voluntary pillar of social partnership since 2003 after the ratification of sustaining progress. Having identified affordability and supply as the unaddressed areas within the housing sector, the ICSH in 2006 during the social partnership forum influenced the deliberation of issues of housing (including RAS) especially in terms of continued high demand for social housing due to lack of affordability for private housing, the fall in the provision of State land for social housing, the reduction in the national social housing stock, the persistence of homelessness nationally despite an increase in services, and accommodation for the homeless and imminent rise in demand for elderly sheltered housing due to an ageing population and the continued need for housing for people with disabilities (ICSH, 2009).
Limitations of social partnership: wider perspectives in Europe
Regardless of the impact of social partners in policy-making the works of Huzzard et al (2004) titled ‘strategic unionism and partnership: boxing and dancing’?, Steven Boyd, Scottish trade union congress, STUC in 2002 titled partnership working, European social partnership models and the Trade union congress, TUC and the work foundation in September 2004 titled ‘Trade union and employee involving in public services reform’, evaluate the limitations of social partnership in the context of policy making decisions (Bang, 2006). Bang argues while referring to the work of Huzzard that as long as employers stick to short term interests, that are securing the fastest and greater return on capital, the room for social partnership is limited if not non-existent.
Conclusion
Social partnership over the years in Ireland has maintained a consistent and relevant consensus-led strategic framework in areas of macroeconomic policy, austerity measure and structural adjustment programmes and income distribution (O’Donnell, 1993, 1998; NESC 1996). The achievements of these economic policies go beyond the outcomes of the agreements to collaborations in policy making. The achievements and limits of social partnership have been analysed in numerous studies of economic performance, industrial relations, unemployment and poverty, although there will remain a concern of the influence of social partnership on social policies.
Finally, the impact of partnership on policy is complex, variable and contingent in nature (O’Donnell & Thomas, 1998).
References
Bangs, J. (2006). Social Partnership: the wider context. Forum: Vol. 48 Number 2, pp 201-208. Available at http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=forum&volume=48&issue=2&year=2006&article=11_bangs_forum_48_2_web. (Accessed 01/02/2009).
Ahern, B. (2005). Evaluation and evidence-based policy-making: getting the evidence into policy making. Speech delivered by Taoiseach at NESF/UCD Conference, Dublin. Available at http://www.bettergov.ie/attached_files/.../Evidence%20based%20policy%20making%20speech%. (Accessed 01/02/2009).
Boyd, S. (2002). Partnership Working, European Social Partnership Models. Scottish Trade Union Congress. Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2004/05/19376/37359. (Accessed 01/02/2009).
Huzzard, T., Gregory, D., & Scott, R. (2004). (Eds) Strategic Unionism and Partnership: boxing and dancing? London: Palgrave Macmillan
Irish Council for Social Housing: Social Partnership. Available at http://www.icsh.ie/eng/policy/social_partnership. (Accessed 01/02/2009).
O’Donnell, R.& O’Reardon, C.(2000). Social Partnership in Ireland’s Economic Transformation. From Social Pacts in Europe-New Dynamics, Edited by Giuseppe Fajertag and Phillipe Pochet, European Trade Union Institute/Observatoire Social European, Brussels. Available at http://www.nesc.ie/dynamic/docs/Social%20Partnership%20in%20Ireland's%20Economic%20T (Accessed 01/02/2009).
O’Donnell, R., & Thomas, D. (1998). Partnership and Policy-making. Review of chapter 7 of Social Policy in Ireland: principles, practice and problems: Sean Healy and Brigid Reynolds. Available at http://www.nesc.ie/dynamic/docs/PARTNERSHIP%20AND%20POLICY-MAKING.doc. (Accessed 01/02/2009).
The Trades Union Congress & The Work Foundation (2004). Trade Union and Employee Involvement in Public Services Reform. London: Cabinet Office, Office for Public Services Reform.

Environmental Health

House Water Treatment and Storage has gained prominence in recent years as an interim solution to improving access to safe water.

Dr Chukwuemeka Nwaneri
Centre for Global Health
Trinity College
University of Dublin
Ireland

Table of content
Introduction
Overview of Household water treatment and storage
Household water treatment strategies
· Chlorination
· Filtration
· Boiling by thermal technology
· Solar disinfection method
· Flocculation and Coagulation disinfection combination method
Household water storage strategies
The effectiveness of various HWTS (including cost-effectiveness) technologies
The challenges of scaling up some of the main options promoted
Conclusion
References

Introduction
The consequences of natural disasters, environmental health issues including drought and flooding, with resultant outbreaks of infection diseases such as cryptosporidium, cholera do weigh adversely to the limited healthcare facilities, hence deplete the economic and human resources available in such countries.
The versatility and feasibility of utilization of household water and storage makes it a useful intervention tool in addressing such waterborne diseases and emergencies as an interim solution. It has been emphasized that HWTS is not solely for situations of emergencies or outbreaks of diseases but also can be used in the prevention of contamination of home stored water (UNICEF, 2008), from unsafe wells or piped water sources (WHO, 2009).
Overview of Household Water Treatment and Storage
Household Water Treatment and Storage implies the systems and methodologies of achieving potable and clean water devoid of potential harmful disease causing pathogens and other water-borne diseases at the point of use. The purpose is to improve the water microbial quality and reduce the burden families’ face in accessing safe water sources for consumption (Sobsey, 2002).
It is documented in WHO Report of 2008 titled: “Managing water in the home: accelerated health gains from improved water supply” that regardless of whether the source of water is contaminated or not, transporting and storing provides a source of contamination following unhygienic collection, handling and storage practices and behaviours. Therefore there is need to device a means of improving and maintaining the microbial water quality which should be feasible, accessible, and sustainable and for dissemination in the local population based on requirements (Sobsey, 2002; 2008).
Household water treatment and storage can be uncomplicated, effective, cheap and attainable in terms of value for money. The advantages of household water treatment cannot be over-emphasized; it ranges from drastic reduction in worldwide incidence and burden of diarrheal diseases (between thirty to forty percent), to the contribution of the achievements of Millennium Development Goals (Schmidt & Cairncross, 2009).
According to the WHO (2005) report, about 1.5 million deaths result from the consumption of unsafe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene issues, majority been children below the ages of 5. Unclean water serves as reservoir from hepatitis B, typhoid, leptospirosis and other pathogens especially in vulnerable persons such as those with HIV/AIDS and other immunodeficiency states (UNICEF, 2008).
The recent figure by WHO/UNICEF in 2006 is frightening as an approximate 1.1 billion people mostly living in the developing world are without potable water (UNICEF, 2008).
According to literature, Conroy (2001), Doocy (2006), and UNICEF (2008), identifies various methods including solar, chlorination at point of use combination of disinfection and flocculation methods, boiling, which have been demonstrated to be valuable in the prevention of waterborne diseases in fragile states and epidemic circumstances.

Household Water treatment Strategies
The principle behind household water treatment and storage is derived from the general water treatment which occurs in four stages; coagulation and flocculation; sedimentation; filtration and disinfection. The various technologies utilize one or a combination of the stages at a household level.
There are various types of water treatment options available throughout the world. They range from chemical disinfection, solar disinfection, filtration, ultraviolet radiation disinfection through sunlight, combined flocculation-chlorination methods to boiling and safe storage, depending on the availability, acceptability and applicability in the community setting and population, although of varying efficacies and effectiveness’s.
It is suggested that households, should continue treating their water especially in emergency situations until appropriate tested and safe water is supplied, and for stable population without potable water, appropriate water treatment and storage intervention should continue to reducing microbial quantity, preventing waterborne infections UNICEF, 2008).
The following are the types of treatment modalities available to improve the microbial quality of household water:
I. Chemical technologies
a) Coagulation-flocculation combination
b) Ion exchange
c) Chemical disinfection (chlorine tablets or sachets)
d) Precipitation
e) Adsorption
II. Physical technologies
a) Boiling
b) Heating (using sunlight in the form of solar and fuel)
c) Filtration
d) Ultraviolet light radiation disinfection (sunlight and lamps)
e) Sedimentation

Chemical disinfection-Chlorination method
Globally, chlorination in various forms have wide acceptance, and probably the most practiced method of water treatment at household and community levels next to boiling method. Chlorine can come from household bleach (hypochlorite), sachets, tablets, and lime. Bleaching powder, stabilized/tropical sources, high-test hypochlorite are other sources of chlorine, with varying percentages of chlorine. They are easily available, accessible, simple, practical, cheap and easy to use (UNICEF, 2008). Some of the disadvantages of chlorination are in the taste and odour of the water and possibility of excessive chlorination of the water as well as its inability to remove turbidity form water.

Filtration method
Filtration can be in the form of ceramic filters, slow sand filters or ‘Biosand’ filters. In settings where filters are easily affordable it can serve as an alternative to water purification measure. It poses an advantage of retaining the aesthetic properties of water without introducing taste or odour problems. Another advantage is in the accessibility and been inexpensive (UNICEF, 2008). The disadvantages include the fact that training and education is needed in areas of fabrication and maintenance. Ceramic filters can be produced in commercial quantities in the rural communities with the expertise and if properly maintained can be very durable and long lasting (WHO, 2002).

Boiling by thermal technology
The reliability of boiling as a method of disinfection of household water is not in doubt as this is evidenced by the WHO GDWQ recommendation which suggest bringing water to a rolling boil for about 5 minutes which assures that an adequate high enough temperature has been attained to result in extermination of enteric pathogens and others organisms including viruses and ova of worms. The only draw back is in the cost and time consumption and utilization in the purchase of kerosene, gas or firewood as well as the issues of indoor pollution and consequent respiratory tract infections (UNICEF, 2008). It also has the problem of not been able to remove the turbidity of water.

Solar disinfection method
Ultraviolet light disinfection combines heat and UV light radiation in the disinfection of household water. According to Hobbin (2004) and UNICEF Report (2008) UV light disinfection has been demonstrated to eliminate microbial organisms hence increases the quality of household water and therefore reducing the diarrhoeal prevalence associated with contaminated water sources. The most popular of the solar technologies is the SODIS system which was introduced by the Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Sciences and Technology. The advantage is that it is easy to practice, accessible, economical and available to many settings and communities. The only disadvantages are that bottles are used in the storage process and issues around its inability to remove the turbidity of water and re-contamination after disinfection if not properly stored.

Flocculation and Coagulation disinfection combination method
In communities with water of high turbidity, other modalities can be disadvantaged in the reducing physical turbidity of the household water even after disinfection has been completed. Flocculation and coagulation combination reduces turbidity by the use of Alum (aluminium sulphate) which brings suspended particles together and settles out during sedimentation. Alum is inexpensive, accessible, and affordable, as well as effective (WHO, 2007). It can be used to augment physical sedimentation or on its own reduce the turbidity and reduce the protozoan load which chemical technologies rarely remove. According to the report by UNICEF, flocculation and disinfection unlike any other technology reduces the arsenic levels in household water in vulnerable settings (UNICEF, 2008).
Amongst the listed methodologies, only chlorination and storage in safe containers and ultraviolet light disinfection have been widely studied to reduce the microbial contamination hence reducing the potential diarrhoeal and other water borne infectious properties. Sobsey stated that apart from the more complex, inaccessible treatment technologies, the majority of the methods prove to be cheap, simple and easy to use as well as accessible to the populace in both emergencies and epidemic settings (Sobsey, 2002).
In respect to the improvement of the microbiological quality of the household water, boiling, solar in combination of heat and or UV radiation (sunlight or lamps); chlorination of stored water in appropriate vessels and chlorination and chemical coagulation and filtration combination have been proven to be promising in terms of dissemination, development and implementation. Regardless, each method poses unique strengths and weaknesses (Sobsey, 2002).

Household Water Storage Strategies
Different researchers have reported various strategies of water storage being contributory to the decreased microbial quality level (WHO, 2007). Examples of storage vessels which increases the risk of waterborne infections from inadequate storage following increased vulnerability of the containers or vessels to contamination by faecal pathogens include, water jars, capped plastic vessels, metal jars, clay jars in homes, elevated tanks at home and public places, plastic vessels, drums, barrels and buckets (Miller, 1984). Other factors have also been identified by Black et al (1983) and Iroegbu et al (2000) as been responsible for possible bacterial contamination of the stored water at home, these include tropical whether and elevated temperatures prolonged duration of storage, unhygienic practices and poor hand washing techniques, high dust particulates and the utilization of contaminated stored water in preparing fresh meals that are not properly cooked, use in child and infant food preparation.
It is reported in literature (WHO, 2007) that containers with taps or spigots tend to protect against contamination and reduce the likelihood of microbial quality from poor handling during storage. For safe storage of water, different vessel designs have been advocated such as light weights with dispensing devices, solar-radiation friendly containers.

The effectiveness of various HWTS (including cost-effectiveness) technologies
In terms of household water treatment and storage cost-effectiveness is the measure of cost of household water treatment and storage, and its effectiveness in identified health outcome such as diarrhoeal diseases. The WHO guidelines for Drinking water Quality (GDWQ) aim to identify the major health-associated quality constituents of water and match it with the standards as measured by Hazard Analysis-Critical Control Points (HACCP) management tool. For the safety of the vulnerable population there is need for continual monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of household water treatment and storage systems (Sobsey, 2002).
The efficiency of chlorination in exterminating enteric pathogens is about 99.9%, though cryptosporidium and mycobacterium are spared (Arnold, 2006).
Filtration has been practiced from the ancient time, but there have been modifications to the traditional practice. Hijnen (2004) reported that when slow sand filters are properly designed and operated its efficiency is about 99% or more in removing enteric pathogens. Some of the filters are pre-treated with microbicidal silver which enhances its efficiency to nearly 100%.
Whether by direct heat or solar heating, boiling household water has been documented to be effective against a wide spectrum of faecal coliforms. It is evidenced that boiling household water is effective in the destruction of a wide range of organisms including bacteria, ova of worms, protozoan, viruses, spores and non-spore pathogens and fungi. Boiling has an advantage of eliminating other organisms’ chlorination spares such as cryptosporidium, and Entamoeba and Giardia species (Sobsey & Leland, 2001). The effectiveness of boiling as a method of disinfection of household water treatment is often questionable if water is stored in a different container than one used in the boiling as there is potential re-contamination, or if stored for a prolonged time before usage and also at high altitude (WHO, 2002).
Combination of flocculation and coagulation disinfection therefore provides about 99.9% reduction in waterborne cysts, viruses and enteric bacteria (Souter, 2003).
The utilization of solar forms of disinfection has been proved to be effective as documented in the studies of Acra et al (1984) which pioneered the research into the most effective approach of UV light disinfection of household water. The efficiency and effectiveness of UV light disinfection is more marked if the bottle is black in colour which enhances the absorption of heat (Joyce et al, 1996; Sobsey, 2002). The SODIS system achieves effectiveness up to 99.9% in the destruction of faecal viruses, bacteria and fungi. The type of container, the structural material in the design of the container, the capacity affects water temperature and heating and ultraviolet radiation penetration hence microbial quality. Also the exposure of the containers to full sun lights without shades, duration of exposure (usually acceptable duration id 6-8 hours) influences water temperature and ultraviolet penetration (Sobsey, 2002).
Household water treatment and storage has been demonstrated to be cost-effective method of preventing diarrhoeal diseases resulting from water sources in resource poor and fragile states. The implication of promoting HWT and storage helps provide water security to these groups (UNICEF, 2008), and improve water microbial quality (WHO, 2002).
Clasen et al (2007) reported that household water treatment was cost-effective when benchmarked against international standards especially with chlorination at resource poor setting and filtration at household level where resources were better off and consequent improvement in health gains. Their research highlighted the importance of local conditions, cost recovery potentials and user preference in the selection and acceptability of the particular household water intervention (Clasen et al, 2007).
Table shows the cost-effective ratios (adapted from Clasen, 2008)
Sub-region
Intervention
Cost per DALY averted in US $
Cost-effectiveness
(CMH Benchmark)
Afr-E
Source
Household Chlorination
Household Filtration
House Solar disinfection
Household flocculation disinfection
123(14-322)
53(41-447)
142(83-223)
61(38-104)
472(70-813)
Highly cost-effective
Highly cost-effective
Highly cost-effective
Highly cost-effective
Cost effective (highly cost-effective at net cost of US $354)

The challenges of scaling up some of the main options promoted
Schmidt and Cairncross (2009) reported reviewing the evidence of non-health benefits, acceptability, adverse effects and scalability as a determinants in establishing the possibility of global acceptable of scaling up of household water treatment and storage.
Clasen (2008) identifies that in communities where household water and storage is to be scaled up, there exists special challenges which include the belief that diarrhoea is not a disease; doubts about the effectiveness of the particular intervention strategies; technical shortcoming and evidence of inequality and utilization.
For scaling-up of these technologies especially chlorine based products such as tablets, household filters and solar disinfections, concerted efforts geared at procuring more funds from donors, commercial structures, community collaboration and participation with stakeholders such as Ministry of Health, Water and Environment, should be encouraged (WHO, 2001).
For the effective outcome and utilization even in the state of availability and accessibility, community mobilization and participation, acceptance and effective social marketing is important (Schmidt & Cairncross, 2009). WHO documents that about five million households in about seventeen countries mostly in developing parts of the world have benefited from household water treatment and storage interventions through a combination of social marketing, public and commercial mobilization (WHO, 2001).
Clasen (2008b) in his study identified hindering challenges in the scaling up of HWTS. These challenges include the need to engage the participating communities and other stakeholders in a collaborative, participatory manner to increase acceptability and wider utilization and coverage. He also informed of the need for governmental role in educational campaign in the dissemination and awareness creation of the HWTS to encourage increasing demand (WHO Global WASH programme, 2001).
Effective and radical implementation of the HWTS utilization in the wider settings should be encouraged but there is the need to promote partnerships with private sector, social marketing agencies in the household water treatment scaling up programmes.
Conclusion
Household water treatment and storage has gained prominence in recent years as an interim solution to improving access to safe water. Various studies have shown that improving the microbial quality of the household water at point of use, using different modalities which is appropriate for the population and community setting, do reduce the diarrhoeal and other waterborne infections, of course a function of the efficiency, practicability and availability of the technology. There still remain challenges of scaling up some of the main options promoted, which includes issues of sustainability, affordability, acceptability and technical difficulties.
References
Acra, A., Raffoul, Z., & Karahagopian, Y. (1984). Solar Disinfection of Drinking and Oral rehydration Solutions-Guidelines for Household Application in Developing Countries. UNICEF, American University of Beirut. [Online]. Available at http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/600/610/614/solar-water/unesco/. (Accessed: 8 March 2009).
Arnold, B. & Colford, J. (2007). Treating water with chlorine at point-of-use to improve water quality and reduce child diarrhoea in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. Vol. 76. No. 2: pp 354-64.
Clasen, T. (2008). Scaling Up Household water Treatment: Looking Back, seeing forward. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Clasen, T (2008b)> Household Water Treatment: effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and the challenge of scaling up. [Online]. Available at http://www.iom.edu/object:file/master/59/296/clasen.pdf. (Accessed: 8 March 2009).
Clasen, T. (2008). Developing a National Strategy for Scaling Up Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage in Lao PDR. [Online]. Available at http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/594CFEBE-3C10-474A-8C4C-1098A1B043D4/0/MissionReport_DrClasenLaoPDRJune2008_.pdf .(Accessed 8 March 2009). Clasen. T., Haller, L., Walker, D., Bartram, J. & Cairncross, S. (2007). Cost-effectiveness of Water quality for preventing diarrhoeal disease in developing countries. Journal Water Health. Vol 5. No. 4: pp 599-608. [online]. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17878570. (Accessed: 8 March 2009).
Conroy, R.M., Meegan, M.E., Joyce, T., McGuigan, K., & Barnes, J. (2001). Solar disinfection of drinking water protects against cholera in children under 6 years of age. Arch Dis Child Vol. 85. No. 4: pp 293-295.
Doocy, S., & Burhnam, G. (2006). Point-of-use water treatment and diarrhoea reduction in the emergency context: an effectiveness trial in Liberia. Trop Med Int Helath. Vol 11. No. 10: pp 1542-1552.
Joyce, T.M., McGuigan, K.G., Elmore-Meegan, M. & Conroy, R.M. (1996). Inactivation of fecal bacteria in drinking water by solar heating. Applied & Environmental Microbiology. Vol. 62. No. 2: pp 399-402.
Schmidt, W. & Cairncross, S.(2009). Household water Treatment in Poor Population: is There Enough Evidence for Scaling up Now? Environmental Science Technology. Vol. 43. No. 4:pp 986-992. [Online]. Available at http://www.pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es802232w. (Accessed: 8 march 2009).
Sobsey, M.D. (2002). Managing water in the home: accelerated health gains from improved water supply. Geneva: the world Health Organisation (WHO/SDE/WSH/02.07).
Sobsey, M.D., & Leland, J.S.E. (2001). Antiprotozoan and Antihelminthic Agents. In: Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 5th Edition. S.S. Block (ed.). new York, Lippincott Williams & Wikins.
UNICEF. (2008). Promotion of Household water treatment and safe storage in UNICEF wash programmes. [Online]. Available at http://www.portal.worldwaterforum5.org/wwf5/en-us/lists/learning%20.pdf. (Accessed: 8 March 2009).
World Health Organisation. (2001). Household Water management at Global WASH Forum: Scaling up. [Online]. Available at http:www.who.int/household_water/advocacy/was_forum/en/. (Accessed: 8 March 2009).
World Health Organisation. (2002). Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage Following Emergencies and Disasters: South Asia Earthquake and Tsunami. [Online]. Available at http:// who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/emergencies/em2002chap7.pdf. (Accessed: 8 March 2009).
World Health Organisation. (2009). Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage. [Online]. Available at http://www.who.int/household_water/en/. (Accessed: 8 March 2009).

EU Integation: Intergovernmentalism Versus Supranationalism

Given the long delay in ratifying the new EU constitution, describe the theoretical arguments that emerge between the proponents of Intergovernmentalism and those of a more supranational persuasion.
Dr CL Nwaneri
Postgraduate Student
Institute of Public Administration
National University of Ireland
Dublin.

Introduction
Following the complexities surrounding the evolution of the constitution system in European Union and the ratification of the new EU constitution of 2004 by the French and Dutch representatives ‘NO’ votes in the referenda in the mid-2005, the document is presently not in use.
This essay attempts to describe the theoretical arguments that emerged between the proponents of intergovernmentalism and those of the more supranational persuasions in the dynamics of European integration. As these paradigms emerged different scholars, academia and politicians have taken different sides in terms of supporting credibility arguments and yet there is no single acceptable view.
As I attempt to describe the arguments, I also explain and highlight the different paradigms.

Overview of the Paradigms or theoretical frameworks of European Integration
Neil Nugent (2006) defined the paradigms in his work entitled: The Government and Politics of the European Union. He defined Intergovernmentalism as “...arrangements whereby nation states, in situations and conditions they can control, cooperate with one another on matters of common interest. The existence of control, which allows all participating states to decide the extent and nature of this cooperation means that national sovereignty is not directly undermined.”
While supranationalism “involves states working with one another in a manner that does not allow them to retain complete control over developments, that is, states may be obliged to do things against their preferences and their will because they do not have the power to stop decisions. Supranationalism thus takes inter-state relation beyond cooperation into integration, and involves some loss of national sovereignty” (Nugent, 2006).
Supranationalism in the form of federalism or neofunctionalism or spill-over neofunctionalism is a concept model in the European Union integration policy. Neofunctionalism focuses on human welfare needs, not political conflicts and law, and that individuals aggregated into interest groups as the main actors in integration. Neofunctionalism developed and refined between 1955 and 1975 by Haas, Philippe Schmitter, Leon Lindberg, Stuart Scheingold, Donald Puchala, Joseph Nye, and many others still remains the most comprehensive and sophisticated attempt to provide a general theory of European Integration and a touchstone for subsequent scholarly works (Moravcsik, 1993).
Neofunctionalism was used to analyse European integration at the supranational level. Since 1975, despite many insightful case studies of specific issue-areas, overviews of the European Community history, and criticism of neofunctionalism, no comparable theoretical synthesis has appeared (Wallace et al, 1983., Moravcsik, 1993). The neofunctionalistic central prediction was that European economic integration would be self-sustaining. The theoretical basis for this prediction was the concept of “functional & Political spillover” whereby initial steps towards integration triggers endogenous economic and political dynamics leading to further cooperation. As Mikkelsen put it the ‘integration within one sector will tend to beget its own impetus and spread to other sectors’ (Mikkelsen, 1991: p4).
Intergovernmentalists take on a completely different perspective towards European integration, focussing on State actors and the dominant concept of national sovereignty and security in interstate relations (West, 2004). Intergovernmentalism proposed the Logic of diversity, which ‘set limits to the degree which the ‘’spillover’’ process can limit the freedom of action of the governments. The implications of the logic of diversity are that on vital issues of common interest, losses are not compensated by gains on other issues’ (Hoffman, 1966:p882). Moravcsik’s liberal intergovernmentalism has three essential elements which combine; a liberal theory of national preference formation; an intergovernmentalistic analysis of interstate negotiation and; the assumption of rational state behaviour.
Syncretic Model of European Integration is based on the premise that the European Union was founded on ambivalence in terms of objectives that were secondary to the overarching objectives of making another European war unthinkable. The Syncretic model is based on the common sense view that the EU is a mixed system, a hybrid of both supranational and intergovernmental elements which co-exist along side each other.

Theoretical arguments that emerge between the proponents of Intergovernmentalists and Supranationalists
In an attempt to convince the people on the reasons for proposing and possibly choosing a particular theoretical framework for European Union Integration, different theorists began to engage in political debate over EU policy making in terms of autonomy and authority (Rosamond, 2000). Those who support intergovernmentalism consider key actors to be nation states and their governments while supranationalist supporters argue that it is supranational organizations and their institutions who represent it.
It is worthwhile to define the basis for the different schools of thought and the issues which form the foundation of the proponents’ arguments. Their main cases for arguments and differences occur in the following areas: who they consider to be the key actors of integration; question of possession of power; their perceptions of EU; what character of decision making they prefer; types of politics they focus on; how they view the relationship between politics and economics; how they approach the question of sovereignty and national security.
Arguments by the Intergovernmentalists
Proponents of intergovernmentalism had cited the limitations of supranationalism exemplified by the Luxemburg compromise in 1965, when then French Ministers boycotted Council meetings in a process later known as the “empty chair” policy, and the failure of the paradigm to take account of the role of strong and influential National leaders and the resilience of the Nation State (Wallace et al, 1983., Wallace & Wallace, 2005).
They also cited the fact that Ernst Haas, the ‘father of neofunctionalism’ recanted and discarded his own theory in 1975 as evidence of impracticability of the framework. The arguments goes further to reiterate its point especially following the events in the late 1990’s when the economic recession and depression culminate din the development of a new non-tariff barriers to trade across the member states of the EU resulting in the empowering the concept of the intergovernmentalistic approach through the formation of the European Council in 1974. In furtherance to the realization of need to establish the intergovernmental aspect of community method of governance in the European community, the Committee of Permanent Representative was established whose function was to prepare legislations for adoption by the Council of Ministers (Wallace & Wallace, 2005).
As the arguments lingers on, the intergovernmentalist suggest that although widely accepted at that time, Federalism was characterised by sceptism as there were differential acceptance of the objectives of a federal Europe by member states of the European Union. The intergovernmentalist believe that the neofunctionalism is flawed because it assumes that integration in low politics such as economic will lead to integration in areas of high politics such as sovereignty, which it states would not be possible since the issues of high politics are integral to the national interest hence integration would only be possible when national interests coincide, though unlikely (Nolan, 2006).
Also in reviewing the assertion made by Hoffmann, proponents of intergovernmentalism proposed that states were uniquely powerful for two reason: because they possessed legal sovereignty; and they had political legitimacy as the only democratically elected stakeholders in the integration process, hence unlike what Hoffmann thought, governments had much more autonomy than in the view of neofunctionalist (Wang, 2007).
They also argued that the neofunctionalistic approach of supranationalism which was short lived would not be acceptable in the current political climate since it failed to predict accurately the outcome of regional integration in Europe. In support of this argument Wallace & Wallace (2005) in citing the 1966 work of Stanley Hoffman, the leading proponent of intergovernmentalism stated that “the nation state was not obstinate, not obsolete”. Different scholars like Milward (2000) had argued that it was the EU national governments who have played a great role in the historical antecedents of the EU which have reinforced and enhanced its integration (Wallace & Wallace, 2005).
It is also seen that the modalities of operation and policies surrounding the European Union have been positively reinforcing and re-asserting the theories of intergovernmentalism especially in terms of neither compromising nor diminishing the values of National Sovereignty of member states.
Intergovernmentalism argues that European integration is driven by the interest and actions of the European Nation States. In this interpretation, the main aim of governments is to protect their geopolitical interests such as national security, defence and national sovereignty (West, 2004).
Arguments by the supranationalism proponents
The Supranationalists argue that following the failure of the Nation state by the end of the World War II, the concept of Nation state had become obsolete and redundant hence the need to promote an alternate form of framework. In its argument, the supranationalistic proponents inform that other alternatives of Nation State are Federalism and neofunctionalism.
In its debate, the proponents argue that federalism played parts in the pre-World War and post-World War era with the formation of the union of European Federalists in 1946, and are today the founding members of the EU. According to the work of Tsebelis et al (2001) which focused on the changing treaty base of the EU, they had stated that from the foundation of the Rome Treaty which was later ratified in 1958, through the Single European Act of 1987, the Maastricht Treaty of 1993 (which was ratified in 1992 and implemented in 1993) to the Amsterdam Treaty of 1999 it was the supranational concepts that established the three institutions of the Commission of the European Communities, The European Court of Justice, and the European Parliament. And that it was only the Council of Ministers that originated from the ideology of intergovernmentalism (Tsebelis et al, 2001).
In illustrating its argument the supranationalistic theorists emphasises that what distinguishes the European Union from all other international organisations in Europe is the institutional structure of EU provided for by the original Paris and Rome treaties of 1951 and 1957 respectively amended, which gave them extensive law making powers in agreed policy areas-a new international legal order, hence in support of supranationalistic paradigm.
The proponents of the neofunctionalism, approach of the supranationalistic paradigm argue on the ground of the functional needs which governments in the EU face in the modern era creates a sense of common purpose, which would invariably lead to a network of international organisation to facilitate international cooperation.
O’Neill (1996) in quoting the work by Ernst Haas defined European integration as: "the process whereby political actors in several distinct nation setting are persuaded to shift their loyalties and expectations towards a new centre, whose institutions process or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing nation states” (O’Neill, 1996). The work of Rosamond (2005) reassessed the statements made by Haas and concluded that Haas never abandoned neofunctionalism but changed it and accepted more the view of ‘complex interdependence’ (Rosamond, 2005).
The supranationalistic framework theorists argue that the intergovernmentalism does not accurately reflect political reality as the institutions of the European Union are clearly invested with extensive law making powers and intense cooperation and integration. It further stresses the point that this paradigm did not fully account for such common purpose and action as were to be seen among the member states. And that the political will in favour of common policies went beyond what one would expect of a conventional intergovernmental organisation.
The complexities and fluidity of the EU, and the argument outcomes between the traditional supranationalistic and the more recent intergovernmentalistic theorists led to the shift in the proposition of the theoretical framework of European integration. The more recent argument is that of the syncretic theoretical framework.

Conclusion
In the process of European Union Integration, it is not entirely surprising that the debate between the proponents of intergovernmentalism and those of the Supranationalistic school of thought have been ongoing, but partly as a result of long delay in the ratification of the new EU constitution. Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism differ not on the role and importance which proponents affirm to member states in the process of European Union integration but also on how they treat the EU institutions. It is on the basis of these arguments that different institutions of EU are found and operate.

References
Hoffmann, A. (1966). ‘Obstinate or obsolete? The Fate of the Nation State and the case of Western Europe’. Daedalus. Vol 95/3: pp862-915.
Mikkelsen (1991). Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC. Journal of International Studies. Vol. 20, No. 1. 1-22.
Milward, A.S (2000). The European Rescue of the Nation-State (1992, revised edition 2000)
Moravcsik, A (1993). Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 31. No. 4.p476.
Nugent, N.(2006).The Government and Politics of the European Union. 6th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. [Online]. Available at http://books.google.ie/books?q=Neil+Nugent%27s+Government+and+politics+of+European+Union&lr=&sa=N&start=10. (Accessed: 7 March 2009).
Nolan, P (2006). Managing in Europe. Lecture Note, Postgraduate Programme. Institute of Public Administration. Dublin.
O’Neill , M (1996).The Politics of European Integration. [Online]. Available at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vDZAGz7IbdEC&pg=RA2PA195&dq=(O%E2%80%99Neill,+1996)+Defines+the+work+of+HAas.#PPP1,M1. (Accessed: 6 March 2009).
Rosamond, B (2000). Theories of European Integration. New York: Palgrave. Basingstoke. London.p.81
Rosamond, B (2005). The social construction of 'the European Economy': discourses of supranational macroeconomic space since 1957. [Online]. Available at http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p70386_index.html. (Accessed: 4 February 2009).
Tsebelis, G., et al (2001). The institutional Foundations of Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism in the European Union. International Organisation. Cambridge University Press. Vol 55(2):357-390.[Online]. Available at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-741538_ITM?email=clnwaneri. (Accessed: 28 February 2009).
Wallace et al (1983). Policy-making in the European Community. 2nd Edn. Chichester: Wiley.
Wallace, W., & Wallace, H (2005).Policy-Making in European Union. 5th Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Wang, R (2007).The Fate of the European Union. Global Politics. [Online]. Available at http://www.global-politics.co.uk/issue2/archive.htm. (Accessed: 28 February 2009).
West, S (2004). Liberal Intergovernmentalism. [online]. Available at http://www.nyegaards.com/yansafiles/liberal%20Intergovernmentalism.ppt. (Accessed: 28 February 2009).