professionalising rural water services: a response to the sustainability challenge

Professionalising rural water services: a response to the sustainability challenge

Sustainable Services at Scale - Triple-S

Stockholm World Water Week - September 2010

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Grantee Workshop

Triple-S - sustainable services at scale 2

The power of water

Benefiting from ‘water capital’

3

Political interests - local, national and international

Fundraising - charity giving and tax payers

Development organisations – professional careers

Triple-S - sustainable services at scale


But after the ribbon has been cut?

Slippage

Lack of sustainability

Low functionality


Progress has been made, but many challenges remain

High levels of system failure - 30 to 40% - a universal problem

Wasted financial investments

Health, dignity, well-being and livelihoods affected

@Fairwater


Triple-S multi-country study

Better understanding of service delivery and drivers –

To inform principles framework

Participative process – national stakeholders

Understanding the political economy of the sector

..... presentation of partial results - financing not included


Thirteen study countries

Range of sector maturity, aid dependency, business markets and reforms


Decentralisation

Mixed experience with decentralisation processes

Rapid and complete – with support programmes (Colombia, South Africa and Uganda) or with less structured support (Burkina Faso)

Phased process – starts with deconcentration (Benin, Mozambique) or partial (Ghana)

Some evidence of re-centralisation (Colombia)

....... and remember the timescale for decentralisation


Sector reform for rural areas

Separation of functions with formalisation of community management (Ethiopia – legal issues remain)

New demands on local government as service authority

New roles for centralised agencies – often resistance to change (SANAA Honduras, PHED India, CWSA Ghana)

Reforms delivered through a series of projects with risk of fragmentation or gaps (Ghana) or limited commitment (Honduras)


Study findings – sanctioned models


Community management

Community management still predominant service delivery model

Trend away from volunteerism

Out-sourcing of specific functions - plumbing or billing functions (Honduras, Sri Lanka)

Full delegation of O&M and administration for more complex systems

Community decision-making retained (Ghana, USA)


Beyond community management

Increase in commercial approaches - small towns and RGCs

Construction and/or maintenance contracts with area based contracting - Benin, Burkina Faso, South Africa, Uganda

Local government acts as service authority to let delegated contracts

Continued need for oversight and support from external agencies


Delegation options – Benin

Simple technology – hand pump

More complex technology – mechanised boreholes and piped systems

Delegation of one supply to one local operator Delegation of many similar systems to one local operator Delegation to one operator of many different types of systems – geographic or territorial lease

Delegation by Commune of the operation to a private operator Delegation by Commune through concession contract - for both operation and investment costs Delegation by Commune to an operator with no risk (not depending on tariff income to make profit) Delegation by Commune to an operator, but with no direct relation with consumers (no recovery of bills)


Post-construction support

Mainly applies to community management models

Formally mandated and part of policy - Ghana, South Africa, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Thailand

But, not adopted systematically in most cases because of financial and capacity constraints

Exceptions in Honduras – Técnico en Operación y Mantenamiento and USA through RCAP and NRWA


Capacity support

Typically provided by deconcentrated offices of central ministries

Technical Support Units in Uganda

Other examples from Ghana, South Africa and Benin – new efforts in Burkina Faso

‘Support to the supporters’ most commonly local government - districts, communes or municipalities

Addressing gap in (newly) decentralised contexts – both for community management and more commercial arrangements


Monitoring of sustainable services

Few examples of comprehensive monitoring systems – focus on monitoring of outputs, not services (Ethiopia and Mozambique)

Only 6 of 13 countries have any indicator for functionality – exceptions like Honduras or Uganda with ‘10 golden indicators’

Fewer countries have specific sector goals relating to sustainability (Honduras and Colombia)

No globally agreed upon definition for sustainability - some promising examples of composite indicators - Honduras and Bolivia


Accountability and regulation

Direct accountability mechanisms between consumers and service providers are vulnerable – cycle of poor service, low tariffs

Some evidence of ‘long-arm’ of accountability involving local or central government - Communes in Burkina Faso and Water Service Authorities in South Africa, DWD in Uganda

Weak local government capacity is a major constraint

Limited experience with regulation of rural service providers – Colombia case illustrates risk of in-appropriate regulatory frameworks


Professionalisation as a trend

Move towards professionalisation across different service delivery models – increasing with system complexity and service levels

Spectrum of change in community management – specialisation of functions, partial outsourcing and fully delegation

Trend in Latin America to strengthen existing committees and associations (Colombia - programa cultura empresarial)

In other regions, out sourcing is done with NGOs/CBOs and ‘commercial’ operators – increasing delegation options with coverage and service levels

Space for innovative business approaches?

RURAL (VILLAGE)

RURAL - HIGHLY

DISPERSED

RURAL GROWTH CENTRES

AND SMALL TOWNS

VOLUNTARY BASEDSEMI-

PROFESSIONALISEDFULLY

PROFESSIONALISED

Delegated contracts to

private operators

Community-based management

Direct local government or municipal

provider

Urban utility

(public, private or

mixed)Association of

CBM or user

associationsSelf Supply

A global taxonomy?

New business models and packages


Building blocks for professionalisation

Institutional roles and separation of

functions

Post-construction and capacity

support

Monitoring of services as outcomes

Appropriate accountability and

regulation

Strong national

leadership and vision


National leadership is all important

‘Political’ support for professionalisation of rural water

Long-term commitment to sector capacity building

Government vision and leadership is key – Honduras still struggling despite reforms since 2003

Need for common and widely sanctioned agreements on service levels and different service delivery models (Ghana)


Meeting the costs of professionalisation

Think beyond capital and operation expenditures

Financing of less politically expedient costs is essential through 3 ‘T’s

All costs have to be met to shift from ‘business as usual’ and really address the sustainability challenge


Triple-S

Supporting indefinite and sustainable rural water

services at scale_______

www.irc.nl/page/[email protected]

[email protected]

professionalising rural water services: a response to the sustainability challenge

Technology