vol 1 water sector governance
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
1/102
Water Sector Governance
inAfrica
Volume 1Theory
and Practice
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
2/102
Water Sector Governance
inAfrica
Volume 1Theory
and Practice
ISBN 978-9973-071-48-4
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
3/102
This document was prepared by the Water Partnership Program (WPP) of the AfricanDevelopment Bank.While every effort has been made to present reliable information, the African Development Bankaccepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences arising out of its use nor is any opinionexpressed in this publication necessarily the opinion of the Bank. The material in this publication iscopyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission of theAfrican Development Bank may be a violation of the applicable law.
AcknowledgementsThis study was coordinated by Thomas Roberts, Senior Water and Sanitation Engineer, with support
from OWAS / AWF during review of the study outputs during the three stages of its development.
The Bank acknowledges the authors Michael McGarry, Silver Mugisha, Luc Hoang-Gia, Per Unheimand Meghan Myles from Cowater.
The African Development Bank Group undertook the study with the financial support of its WaterPartnership Program donors i.e. the Government of Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada (CIDA).
Logo
African Development Bank
External Relations and Communication UnitYattien-Amiguet L.
Graphical Conceptualization
African Development Bank, External Relations and Communication Unit in cooperation with FinziUsines graphiques; Justin Kabasele T. and Mouna Lazzem
Photos
Pictures on pages ix, 3, 31, 39, 44, 73 and 75 by Cowater.All other pictures by AfDB.
Printing
Finzi Usines Graphiques
Coordination
Consultants Bent Nrby Bonde and Sren Bauer
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
4/102
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
5/102
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
6/102
iii
Table of contentsAcronyms ivForeword vii
Executive Summary ix
1.1 Governance 11.2 Sector Policy and Legislation 51.3 Regulation 111.4 Decentralization 181.5 Sector-wide Approaches 261.6 Sector Financial Management 301.7 Monitoring and Evaluation 341.8 Water Resources Management 401.9 Transparency and Accountability 441.10 Corruption 471.11 Civil Society Participation 521.12 Alternative Service Providers 571.13 Gender 621.14 Rights and Voice 661.15 Equitable Service Delivery 70
Annex A: Field Assessment Results 74
References 78
List of Tables
Table 1: Broader Aspects of Governance and their Linkages to the Water Sector 4Table 2: African Water Sector Regulation Models 11Table 3: Alternative Service Providers 58Table 4: Access to Improved WSS in Sub-Saharan Africa (2006/1990) 70Table 5: Improved Sanitation Coverage by Wealth Quintiles in 38 Developing Countries 71Table 6: Distribution of Those who Usually Collect Water 71
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
7/102
iv
AfDB
AMCOW
ASP
AWF
CIDA
GIS
GWA
GWP
H&A
IFPRI
IMF
IPCC
IRC
IWMI
IWRM
JMP
M&E
MDG
MTBFMTEF
MTFF
MWE
NDW
NWSC
ODA
ODI
OECD
OSS
OPM
OWAS
PFM
PHAST
African Development BankAfrican Ministers Council on WaterAlternative service providerAfrican Water FacilityCanadian International Development AgencyGeographic Information SystemGender and Water AllianceGlobal Water PartnershipHarmonization and alignmentInternational Food Policy Research InstituteInternational Monetary FundInternational Panel on Climate ChangeInternational Water and Sanitation CentreInternational Water Management InstituteIntegrated water resources managementJoint Monitoring ProgramMonitoring and EvaluationMillennium Development Goals
Medium Term Budget FrameworkMedium Term Expenditure FrameworkMedium Term Financial FrameworkMinistry of Water and Environment, UgandaNational Directorate of Water, MozambiqueNational Water and Sewerage CorporationOfficial development assistanceOverseas Development InstituteOrganization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentSahara and Sahel ObservatoryOxford Policy ManagementWater and Sanitation Department, AfDBPublic financial managementParticipatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation
Acronyms
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
8/102
v
PPP
PRSP
PSP
RBORWSS
SADC
SWAp
TA
TI
TPTC
TWRM
UNICEF
WHO
WHS
WPM
WSP
WSS
Public-private partnershipPoverty Reduction Strategy PaperPrivate sector participation
River basin organizationRural water supply and sanitationSouthern African Development CommunitySector-wide ApproachTechnical assistanceTransparency InternationalTripartite Technical CommitteeTransboundary water resources managementUnited Nations Childrens FundWorld Health OrganizationWorld Health SurveyWater Point MappingWater and Sanitation ProgramWater supply and sanitation
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
9/102
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
10/102
vii
equitable service delivery. The study highlights
current thinking and research on all these key
elements and issues affecting their quality.
Contemporary literature on water sector financing
understandably focuses on the mechanisms and
challenges associated with funding tangible water
supply and sanitation services. This study however
draws attention to the importance of financing
overarching water management and governance
functions, from strategy, planning and policy-
making and engagement with sector stakeholders
to water resource development, allocation and
management.
Based on the reports findings, indicators and
targets have been developed to improve the
sectors governance. Volume 1 titled: Theory and
practice presents the findings, indicators and
targets to be achieved while Volume 2 presents
concrete Assessment guidelines for conducting
water sector governance assessments forprograms and projects in Africa, based on the
findings of Volume 1.
The Bank is pleased to offer this thought-
provoking assessment and the tools developed as
a contribution to efforts at improving governance
in Africas water sector.
Bobby J. Pittman
Vice President
Infrastructure, Private Sector & Regional Integration
AfDB
ForewordWater governance has been described as the
range of political, social, economic and
administrative systems that are in place to develop
and manage water resources and the delivery of
water services, at different levels of society.
Good governance mainly depends on the quality
of leadership, the strength of the institutions and
how efficiently, effectively, sustainably, and
transparently the resources are managed by
sector institutions and main stakeholders.
On the African continent however, rigorous
technical, financial, economic and institutional
assessments undertaken in support of projects
have not guaranteed sustainability of project
outputs and outcomes. This checkered history of
water sector projects over the past three decades
provided the rationale for the African DevelopmentBank to launch this initiative to assess water
sector governance in Africa.
This report takes preliminary steps to investigate
whether poor governance has been a major
contributing factor to this lack of sustainability.
Specifically, the report provides an overview and
assessment of the state of water sector
governance in Africa looking at a very broad
range of governance-related elements, including
legislation and regulation, decentralization and
devolution, sector-wide approaches, financial
management, monitoring and evaluation,
accountability and corruption as well as civil
society participation, gender, alternative service
provision, public-private partnerships and
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
11/102
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
12/102
ix
Not surprisingly, the Study identified numerousbut common governance risks that havecontributed greatly to this chequered history. Itfound that these are readily identifiable andeasily mitigated against, and that substantialgains would be made if governanceassessments became standard procedure andgovernance criteria were introduced into donorproject approval procedures.
This report, an abridged version of the Studyssecond chapter, provides an overview of thestate of water sector governance in Africa andhighlights current thinking and research on thekey elements and issues affecting its quality.These include: sector policy, legislation and
Executive Summary
The objectives of the AfDB-financed AfricanWater Governance Study1 from which this reportwas derived were to assess the state of watersector governance in Africa, develop indicatorsand targets for its improvement, and raiseawareness among all stakeholders.Furthermore, Volume 2, AssessmentGuidelines provides guidelines for AfDB watersector staff and other water sector practitionersto use when developing programmes andprojects in Africa.
The current state of water sector governanceacross Africa was assessed through missionsto seven countries, a literature review, and four AfDB-OWAS and in-country workshopsorganized between June and December 2008.
The chequered history of sector projects over
the past three decades provided the rational forthis initiative. This history has amplydemonstrated that despite the rigoroustechnical, financial, economic and institutionalassessments undertaken in support ofprojects, the sustainability of project outputsand outcomes remains far from certain. TheStudys underlying assumption was that poorgovernance has been a major contributingfactor in this regard.
1Cowater International, (2008b) AfDB Study on Water Sector Governance: Final Report, Water and Sanitation Department
(OWAS), African Development Bank, Tunis, December.
AfDB and Cowater representatives at a workshop on the Water sector Governance Study
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
13/102
x
been the subject of significant debate and areaddressed individually in the report. In short,however, it can be said that:
i) sector policy is widely recognized a meansfor creating the enabling environment necessaryfor sector development, despite the lack of aclear blueprint on what related policies shouldentail;
ii) legislation is the mechanism forincorporating this policy into national politicaland legal frameworks, ensuring the effectivefunctioning of the sector, protecting individualand communal water rights and establishingconflict resolution mechanisms; and
iii) regulation entails the system of instrumentsthat enforces and oversees the implementation
of sector policy and legislation.
Decentralization has become a keymechanism in sector reform since the conceptof subsidiarity the management of waterresources at the lowest appropriate level wasintroduced within the Dublin Principles in 1992.
regulation; decentralization and devolution;sector-wide approaches; water sector financialmanagement; monitoring and evaluation (M&E)integrated and transboundary water resourcesmanagement (IWRM and TWRM); transparency,accountability and corruption; civil societyparticipation; alternative service provision andpublic-private partnerships; gender; rights, voiceand recourse; and, equitable service delivery.
The Studys findings are summarized below.
While local and national institutions have themost visible role to play in governing the watersector, it is the sectors underlying policies,legislation and regulations that provide thefoundation for its overall governance. Some ofthe key roles sector institutions andorganizations need to fulfil in developing and
carrying out the underlying legislation, policiesand regulations include strategic policy-makingand planning for water and related sectors;conflict resolution and arbitration; and, theregulation and monitoring of water users andservice providers. The various approaches andprinciples underlying each of these roles have
Rural water supply,
Cape Verde
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
14/102
2Van Hofwegen, Paul (2006) Task Force on Financing Water for All: Enhancing Access to Finance for Local Governments;
Financing Water for Agriculture, World Water Council (WWC), Global Water Partnership (GWP) and the 4th World Water Forum.
xi
sector. Whereas in some countries, such asUganda SWAps appear to be having a positive
impact on sector governance, their impact in themany Sub-Saharan African countries that lackthe appropriate institutional capacity to managethem effectively appears to be neutral at bestand inhibiting at worst, particularly if theresources devoted to managing them arediverted away from more critical pursuits.
The contemporary literature on water sectorfinancing epitomized by the 2006 Gurria TaskForce on Financing Water for All2 focusespredominantly on the mechanisms andchallenges associated with funding tangiblewater supply and sanitation services, from ruraland urban water supply schemes to sanitationinfrastructure. Yet what this focus on financing
The concept of decentralization a general termcommonly referring to the transfer of political,
financial and administrative authority, includingdecision-making and management, from centralgovernment to lower levels is first distinguishedfrom devolution, which falls under the largerconcept of decentralization and refers to thetransfer of management and decision-makingpowers, rights and assets to local institutions,governments or communities that are largelyoutside the direct control of the centralgovernment, and from deconcentration referring to the transfer of administrativeresponsibility for specific functions to lowerlevels within the central governmentbureaucracy without any real transfer ofauthority between levels of government. Thesection goes on to note that while the process ofdecentralization has become widespreadthroughout Africa, the devolution of water sectordecision-making authority to local levels is
occurring with varying degrees of success, inmany cases due to excessive central controlover sector revenues and intergovernmentaltransfers. This can often serve as a majorconstraint to effective and transparent planning.
With regards to sector-wide approaches(SWAps), it is noted that while each arepromising in theory, debate continues over theireffectiveness in practice across the developing
world, particularly with regards to the water
Water pipeline, Sidi Bel Abbs, Algeria
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
15/102
3 Rees, Judith, Winpenny, James and Hall, Alan W. (2008) Water as a Social and Economic Good, TEC Background Papers
No. 12, Global Water Partnership.4Dublin Statement (1992) Dublin Statemet on Water and Sustainable Development, International Conference on Water and
the Environment, Dublin, Ireland.
water supply and sanitation (WSS) servicesignores, others argue, is the importance of
financing overarching water management andgovernance functions, from strategy, planningand policy-making and engagement with sectorstakeholders to water resource development,allocation and management3. In other words,effective water governance depends not only onhow much financing can be mobilized, but alsoon the extent to which these resources aremanaged and allocated efficiently, effectively andsustainably by recipient institutions across the
sector. While the literature demonstrates astrong degree of consensus on the importanceof decentralizing WSS delivery and expendituremanagement responsibilities to the lowestappropriate level, this is accompanied byrecognition of the need to first improve themanagerial and technical capacities of localauthorities.
Monitoring and evaluation has become anessential tool not only for good watergovernance, but also for sector developmentand environmental sustainability. Nevertheless,the calibre of water sector M&E systems acrossthe African continent is generally recognized tobe at an early stage of development. Mostmonitoring systems are project-based and haveserved mainly the purposes of donors, doinglittle to support sector planning, budgeting and
management processes. Far more in-depth and
better quality monitoring istherefore needed for sector
management, transparencyand accountability, especiallywithin the budget supportframework.The section on integrated andtransboundary water
resources management
(IWRM and TWRM,respectively) notes that thetwo are inter-related concepts
that have been the basis forsector reform in recent years. Although the principles to beapplied in the sector underIWRM are sound, actual implementation iscompli-cated. African countries tend to belagging behind in this regard, althoughadvances are beginning to be seen in thesector. The Dublin Principles4 form the basis
for IWRM, which has since become anaccepted model for improved governance inthe water sector by providing a viableframework for the sustainable use andmanagement of water resources based on thecatchment or basin being the most appropriatescale for water resources management. TWRM, on the other hand, represents asituation in which water governance iscomplicated by issues of politics and
competition for scarce resources between two
xii
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
16/102
xiii
Africa, leading to increased costs to users forWSS service provision. According to
Transparency International, the water sector isespecially vulnerable to corruption for severalreasons: the existence of numerous agencies,actors and government institutions in a singlesector blurs lines of accountability and reducestransparency; the water sector involves theprocurement of significant quantities of goodswith large volumes of public money; informalservice providers less subject to officialoversight mechanisms play a key role in service
delivery; and the widespread presence ofmonopolies promotes unfair or discretionarybusiness practices. Finally, informal providers,often vulnerable to corruption, also play a keyrole in service delivery. Others add that thesector is characterized by widespread financialdisorder, few service providers are accountableto their customers and financial management isnot transparent.
With regards to civil society participation in
sector governance, the involvement of all users
in the process of developing appropriate policies
and regulations for water resources
management and use is essential for effective
water sector governance. Participation of civil
society and the permanent mechanisms that will
enable it are essential in every aspect of
governance, from project and programme
selection and planning, to budgeting, policy andregulation. This not only improves sustainability
of services, but also improves transparency,
accountability and regulatory enforcement.
or more countries. The literature on thesubject notes that TWRM cannot be
conducted purely on a state-to-statebasis, however, for many otherstakeholders from the local to theinternational level typically need to beinvolved. Furthermore, weak legal andregulatory frameworks, a lack ofbasin-wide institutional arrangementsfor joint development andmanagement of transboundary waterresources, poor water resources
information systems, poor financingand a lack of stakeholder participationalso affect the success of TWRM.
Two basic principles discussed widely in theliterature and considered prerequisites for goodwater governance are transparency andaccountability, which are closely related to oneanother within the context of governance
systems. For instance, transparencynecessitates strong sector performancemonitoring systems, which will enhanceaccountability for the use of resources byservice providers. Decentralization provides anopportunity for the introduction of transparencyand accountability measures, but alsointroduces threats to the same if communityand civil society voices are not well articulated.
Moreover, corruption in the water sectorresults from a lack of transparency andaccountability. Corrupt practices are endemicto most WSS institutions and transactions in
A Well in Northern Malawi
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
17/102
Womens participation in water sector
governance has become widely recognized as
essential to the sectors development. Manydeclarations have been agreed upon and
commitments made at international meetings
in support of gender equality. The Dublin
Statement (1992) recognized the pivotal role
of women, the Rio Declaration (1992)
recognized their full participation as essential
to sustainable development, the World
Summit on Sus-tainable development called
for ensuring that infrastructure and services
are gender sen-sitive, and the MDGs include2015 targets on gender equality and
empowerment of women. Gender equality
and mainstreaming in the sector have also
xiv
been given extensive attention, and methods
by which these can be assessed and
addressed are being demonstrated. Yet thereis still little evidence to suggest that water
management has deliberately and consciously
addressed gender concerns. National water
policies rarely include more than the mention
of womens important role and do not have a
comprehensive and consistent gender focus.
Closely related to the questions of gender and
civil society participation in water sector
governance are the issues of rights, voice andrecourse and equitable service provision.
Numerous international conventions protect
individual rights to basic services such as
Diama dam,
Senegal
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
18/102
xv
sufficient, clean, accessible, and affordable
water and sanitation and seek to protect
vulnerable and marginalized groups fromdiscrimination. All too often, however, research
indicates that water is not distributed equitably
among all users, resulting from factors relating
to transparency and accountability underscored
by inadequate mechanisms for citizen
participation. Of particular concern are the large
and increasing numbers of slums and peri-
urban areas and their female inhabitants in
particular who, despite being responsible for
water, sanitation and the health of their families,
are often disempowered and left out of
decision-making processes.
Finally, public private partnerships and
alternative service providers are shown to play
a significant role in the water sector in Africa
and that further investment from the private
sector will be required to meet the MDGs.
Nevertheless, there is no clear blue print
solution for private sector participation in water
sector reforms. Yet if the realities of their
situation are understood, the poor can stand to
benefit from it.
Queuing for Water in
Nampula province,
Mozambique
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
19/102
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
20/102
1
1.1 Governance
The concept of governance applies at both themacro (country level) as well as micro(institutional or sectoral) levels. As a result, itsmeaning depends on the context within whichit is used.
For the purposes of this study, governance atthe macro level is defined as:
The exercise of economic, political and
administrative authority to manage a countrysaffairs at all levels it comprises themechanisms, processes and institutionsthrough which citizens and groups articulatetheir interests, exercise their legal rights, meettheir obligations and mediate their differences5.
While this definition implies that governmentsat the central, regional or local level are the
primary actors in a countrys system ofgovernance, public institutions are in fact onlyone category of actors with a determiningstake in national governance. Civil society,composed of non-governmental andcommunity-based organizations (NGOs andCBOs), donors, research institutes, religiousgroups, media, lobbyists, and individuals,among others, also play an important role. Ananalysis of governance must therefore focus on
all the actors and structures in place to makeand implement the decisions that shape andregulate the lives of citizens.
Governance at the macro level is increasinglybecoming a central focus of development
assistance. As a result, several different toolsand frameworks have been developed toassess the quality of governance withinindividual countries. These include indicatorsthat enable comparisons over time as well asacross countries and regions. They generallyfocus on specific subsets of governance thatrelate to democracy, human rights, policies,public sector management, accountability,legislation, corruption, financial management
and internal conflict.
Nevertheless, while indicators such as theseprovide a general overview of governance in acountry, they seldom address the gap betweenformal arrangements and realities on the
ground. It is therefore prudent to use them onlyas one of many sets of tools to inform policyand decision-making in any particular country.
5 UNDP (2001) in Rogers, Peter and Hall, Alan, (2003) Effective Water Governance, GWP TEC.#7
Rwanda
Announcement
We are pleased to inform
you that each jerrican is
sold at 5 Rwandan
Francs. Whoever sees
someone selling at ahigher price is asked to
contact us under the
following number ...
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
21/102
2
Subsets of micro-level indicators, such aswater sector policy, can be used to explore
specific aspects of governance. In both cases,however, attention should be paid to marginsof error as few governance indicators areobjectively measurable; most includesubjective perceptions.
Some of the most informative data sets ongovernance in the public domain include:
World Bank Country Policy and Institutional
Assessment (CPIA-WB); African Development Bank Country Policy
and Institutional Assessment (CPIA-AfDB); World Governance Indicators (WGI), Kauff-
man, Kraay and Mastruzzi, World Bank; Corruption Perception Index (CPI), Trans-
parency International; Failed States Index, Fund for Peace; Millennium Challenge Corporation Coun-
try Scorecards; and, Ibrahim Index of African Governance.
From these assessments, trends in the quality ofgovernance in individual countries across theworld can be observed. The World GovernanceIndicators, for example, demonstrate significantchanges in 31 percent of countries over the pastdecade in at least one of its six aggregate
indicators. This indicates that changes in gover-nance can occur within relatively short periods of
time, even if those changes are not necessarilypostive; after 12 years of monitoring governanceusing these indicators6, there is no convincingevidence to conclude that there have beensignificant improvements worldwide. With respectto corruption, Transparency Internationals latestCorruption Perception Index rates all sub-Saharan African countries below 6 out of 10, and mostbelow 57. Some countries have experiencedsignificant changes from the last index, while
others have witnessed significant deteriorations.Overall, the CPI serves to highlight thatperceptions of corruption are capable of changingquickly both positively and negatively.
6Kauffman et al, (2008), Governance Matters VII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996 2007, World Bank,
Washington.7Transparency International, (2008), Corruption Perceptions Index.
Water and Sanitation Development Board Offices, Ashanti, Ghana
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
22/102
8UNDP, (2004), Water Governance for Poverty Reduction, UNDP, New York, p.17,9 Plummer and Slaymaker, (2007), Rethinking Governance in Water Services, Overseas Development Institute, London, UK
3
Water Sector Governance
As described above, the concept of governancecan be applied at both the macro and microlevels: to countries as a whole as well as toindividual institutions and sub-sectors withinthem. Water sector governance, at the microlevel, is defined by GWP and UNDP as: therange of political, social, economic andadministrative systems that are in place todevelop and manage water resources and thedelivery of water services, at different levels of
society8. Many of the processes and institutionswill be defined directly by the central government,and these must function within the existinggovernance framework in the country.
Good water governance is based on principlesof good governance, which include equity,efficiency, participation, decentralization, inte-gration, transparency and accountability. Yet
there is also a tendency in the water sector toreduce issues to their component parts andthereby lose sight of the overall governancepicture. Until recently, most aspects ofgovernance have been treated in isolation. Theapplication of mitigation measures (e.g.decentralization, participatory planning, etc.) has
often been seen as an end in itself. Real
improvements in governance have become lost
and linkages between sector governance and
the wider governance context overlooked.
Table 1 (adapted from Plummer and Slaymaker,
2007) demonstrates how water sector
governance is closely tied into broader aspects
of governance at the national level.
Moreover, recent studies have demonstrated
that there is a direct correlation between the
countries most lacking water services and those
with the weakest governance9. Improving
governance in the water sector is therefore notonly about government systems and services
delivery; it encompasses a much broader range
of factors, including engaging civil society, non-
state agents and their relationship to
government. Sustainable services are not
achieved without involvement of other
stakeholders and particularly water users in the
development of the policies and laws for sector
development. This applies equally well to water
resources management, with good sectorgovernance backed by appropriate policies and
laws being a key determinant of the sustainability
of water resources.
Presidential
palace,
Senegal
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
23/102
4
With an understanding of the linkages betweenthe broad concept of governance and its
application at the sectoral level, water sectorpractitioners are better equipped to formulatepolicies, projects and programmes intended toimprove the governance of their sector and its
subcomponents. The sections that followdescribe how each of the sub-components
noted in the table above affect and fit into watergovernance systems and practices andtherefore contribute to or detract from thequality of macro-level governance.
Governance Aspect Water Governance Context
Political stability and personal securityRole of water in conflict-resolution and as an essential
basic service in recovery and reconstruction.Economic and social policy management
Integrating water into poverty reduction strategies; role of
water services in facilitating economic growth.
Government effectiveness and service deliveryCapacity of local government/utilities in managing, and
maintaining WSS service delivery.
Revenue mobilization and public financial management Financing WSS service provision at national and local levels.
Conditions for private sector investmentPolicies, legislation, regulations and incentives for private
sector participation in WSS service delivery.
Political participation and checks & balancesStrengthening consumer/user voice to enhance
accountability for WSS services.
Transparency and mediaImproving access information on WSS rights, access,
planning, budgeting and expenditures.
Judiciary and rule of lawEnsuring water rights and providing for recourse,
arbitration, conflict resolution and appeal.
Civil societySupport sectoral social accountability mechanisms to
ensure effective service provision.
Respecting human rightsProcess of articulating, agreeing, implementing and
monitoring the fulfillment of rights to WSS.
Pro-poor policy
Water service delivery approaches responding to incre-
asing demand from poor households for adequate and
affordable services.
Gender equityGender-based approaches to service delivery, womensparticipation in user groups and decision-making bodies;
gender-disaggregated data.
Regulatory quality
Regulatory environment that encourages pro-poor service
delivery and minimum standards for water services while
combating water pollution.
Corruption and integrityTackling misallocation and diversion of resources intended
for WSS service delivery improvements.
Table 1
Broader Aspects of Governance and their Linkages to the Water Sector
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
24/102
5
1.2 Sector Policy
and LegislationThe overall purpose of sector policy is to serveas the means for establishing and maintainingthe enabling environment necessary for sectordevelopment. From a governance perspective,involving all relevant stakeholders in the policy-making process is as important as thedefinition of policy objectives and mechanismsthemselves10.
With regards to objectives and mechanisms,
policies tend to either (1) focus on high level
goals such as increasing access to water and
sanitation for the poor, or attaining the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) a
common feature of most contemporary
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)
or (2) emphasize mechanisms such as the use
of local resources in WSS infrastructure
development, mechanisms to finance sector
projects11, means to improve the capacity of
irrigation schemes12/13, or private sector
participation in service delivery, as has been
the case in Ghana14. Many policies take a
more holistic approach by combining
objectives and mechanisms, as has recentlybeen the case in Ethiopias sanitation sector.
There, stakeholders have been working to
create an enabling environment for and
achievement of universal access to sanitation
over the past five years through the
formulation of an appropriate policy and
strategy followed by the launch of a National
WASH programme. The national hygiene and
sanitation strategy sets out key principles,
and the National Hygiene and SanitationProtocol describes what needs to be done to
achieve universal access. Moreover, the
strategy and protocol are rooted in
government programmes like the WASH
Universal Access Programme and the Health
Services Extension Programme15.
With regard to process, the ways in which
policies are developed is a major determinant of
the quality of eventual policy outcomes. Two
broad approaches to policy development
centralized and decentralized policy-making
can be compared.
10 Gordon McGranahan and David Satterthwaite, Governance and Getting the Private Sector to Provide Better Water and
Sanitation Services to the Urban Poor, Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series (International Institute for Environment
and Development, 2006)11 AMCOW (2008) Can Africa Afford to Miss the Sanitation MDG Target? A contribution to AfricaSan 2008, African
Development Bank, World Bank and WSP p. 41.12 nternational Water Management Institute (IWMI) (2006) Water Governance in the Mekong Region: The Need for More
Informed Policy-Making, Water Policy Briefing, Issue 22, based on research by Francois Molle and Randolph Barker, IWMI.13 Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2005) Integrated Water Resources Management Plans: Training Manual and Operational
Guide, GWP, Stockholm, Sweden.14 Fuest, Veronika and Stefan A. Haffner, PPP-Policies, Practices and Problems in Ghanas Urban Water Supply, Water
Policy, Vol.9. No.2 (IWA Publishing, 2007) pp 169-19215AMCOW, 2008, 41.
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
25/102
6
In centralized systems, an executive-level
planning body of senior officials from apex
ministries coordinates and controls sectorplanning and policy development. Policy
formulation is unencumbered by long
consultative processes with local governments
and user associations. Some argue that
governance is thereby strengthened through
rapid development and implementation of sector
policy. This approach seems to have served
Tunisia and Israel well, but it does not allow for
sufficient demand-side input during the policy-
making process. This creates a greater risk of thepolicies not being appropriate to or accepted at
lower echelons. Furthermore, this approach
circumvents the opportunity to build policy
networks with key decision-makers within and
around sector ministries that will help determine
the eventual success of policy at the
implementation stage.
Ismailia Canal, Egypt
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
26/102
7
Ugandas Water Action Plan
16
The first milestone in Ugandas IWRM processwas the development of the Water Action Plan(WAP) the first of its kind following theinternationally agreed principles from the UNConference on Environment and Developmentin Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The WAP outlined aframework for water resources managementbased on identification of the key water resour-ces issues set against the background of gaps
and constraints in the enabling environment,the institutional roles and the managementinstruments. The action plan assisted thedevelopment of the water resources policy andthe legislative framework, defined short termand long-term roles and responsibilities of theinvolved institutions and assessed their needsfor capacities, capabilities and managementinstruments. Cross-sectoral aspects weredealt with in a committee with representativesfrom a number of relevant ministries, fromdistricts, from water services providers andfrom the private sector. A number of actionswere programmed all aiming at supporting theoverall policies and strategies.
Over the last ten years the IWRM frameworkhas been built up to a degree where Ugandahas asserted its role in the Nile Basin, where a
consistent policy and legislation provides theguidance and rules for priorities of water use,allocation and wastewater discharge, andwhere stakeholder participation and decen-tralization provides local level involvement. The
identified programme activities in the WaterAction Plan 1994 has provided the road mapfor this development. This has resulted, amongother things, in empowerment both at local,regional and international levels.
Malis National Sanitation Policy17
Malis first National Sanitation Forum took place
in Bamako in 2006 and concluded that there
was an urgent need for a National Sanitation
Policy and sub-sector strategies. Since thendraft documents have been written by the
DNACPN in collaboration with the National
Directorate for Water (DNH) and with assistance
from international and national consultants. They
were discussed and improved upon at the
second National Sanitation Forum in 2007 by
representatives of central government
institutions, local authorities, international and
domestic NGOs, private sector representatives
and donor agencies. The final version of the
National Sanitation Policy was disseminated the
following week to the Secretariat General of the
Government for discussion and validation. The
new policy determines guiding principles for the
sector, sets goals to be achieved by 2015 or
2020, clarifies the responsibilities of each
stakeholder, proposes the creation of a
coordination mechanism, exposes guidelines for
a sustainable financing of the sector anddescribes the main features of the capacity
building plan and M&E system to be put in
place. The Parliament was expected to pass the
National Policy law by the end of March 2008.
Box 1: Uganda and Mali : Participatory Policy-making Processes
16From Jnch-Clausen, Torkil (2004) IWRM and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005: Why, What and How? TEC Background
Papers No. 10, Global Water Partnership, Annex 4.5, p. 43.17AMCOW (2008), Box 4, p. 42.
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
27/102
8
In the decentralized and participatory policy-making model, local governments and waterusers can play a much stronger role in the policy-
making process. By doing so they can have a far
greater impact on policy and overall sector
governance than they could have under a
centralized policy-making model. Two countries
demonstrating the benefits of decentralized and
consultation-rich policy-making are Mali, via its
National Sanitation Policy18, and Uganda through
its National Water Action Plan19.
Lastly, feeding the policy-making processes
discussed above, and the decentralized
approach in particular, are the institutions,
organizations and individuals recommending a
wide variety of policies and associated
frameworks recognized as best practices. Though some may indeed be suitable for a
number of different countries, research indicates
that caution should be employed by any country
thinking of adopting them before they have been
fully scrutinized and tailored to the local context.
As argued by Carter20 and IWMI21, off-the-shelf
policy proposals not tailored to local contexts but
championed by donors and some international
organizations should be examined critically, as
they may be unsuitable governance tools in manycountries despite their effectiveness in others.
Legislation is the mechanism for incorporating
policy into national political and legal frameworks,
setting water quality standards, protecting
individual and communal water rights, managing
conflict resolution and, perhaps most importantly,
for specifying the roles and responsibilities of
sector institutions. Given the plurality of
institutions involved in developing and managing
the water sector, the latter function can be a
particularly strong determinant of effective water
governance.
In this regard, the World Health Organization
(WHO) advises that the key principle that should
18AMCOW (2008), p.42.
19Jonch-Clausen, Torkil (2004) IWRM and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005: Why, What and How? TEC Background PapersNo. 10, Global Water Partnership, 43.20Carter, Richard C. (1998) Prospects for Sustainable Water Management Policy in Sub-Sharan Africa, in Water Resource
Management: A Comparative Perspective, (Ed: Dhirendra K. Vajpeyi), Greenwood Publishing.21International Water Management Institute (2006)
Water management meeting, Malawi
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
28/102
9
underlie the legislative structure of the drinking
water sector should be to protect and improve
public health through the sustainable provision ofdrinking water of adequate quality in sufficient
quantities to all the population continuously at a price
which is affordable22. IWRM legislation should be
based on a stated national water policy that cuts
across sectoral and stakeholder divisions,
addresses water as a resource and stresses the
societal priority for basic human needs and
ecosystem protection23. In the case of
transboundary water management, clear legislation
is essential to provide clarity over institutional rolesand responsibilities across shared jurisdictions and
be based on the principles of equitable and
reasonable use, duty to cooperate, and dispute
prevention, resolution and compliance24.
As in the case of water policy formulation, expe-
rience cautions against adopting overly rigid or off-
the-shelf legislation. While legislation empowers
regulators, an overly legalistic approach towards
water quality and supply is self-defeating. The
primary concern should be to influence
management decision-making to reduce risks to
public health25. Caution is also advised against
relying on legislation to push forward water sector
reforms, since many are not enforced despite being
set out in law.
In practice, despite the existence of numerous
good examples, African water legislation often
consists of a disparate collection of laws andregulations developed over several decades, many
dating back to colonial times. These are often overly
complex burdened by redundancies as well as
gaps that handicap good governance. For
example, remnants of colonial laws may still exist
that define institutional roles long after named
institutions have been replaced. Similarly,
customary water law, in which water was seen as a
collective right and safeguarded by the tribal group,
may persist in spite of new laws modernizing thesector. Unfortunately, harmonizing and updating
sector legislation can be a daunting task. Strong
political commitment and tenacity is needed to drive
the process forward.
Lastly, policies and legislation may overreach
governments capacity to implement and enforce
them. Policies that are developed without
sufficient finance in place for implementation
complicate sector governance by adding to the
existing collection of unenforceable or unrealistic
legislative or policy initiatives. Likewise, the
pursuit of targets or objectives set out in policy
without sufficient attention being given to the
processes and resources needed to attain them
also inhibits effective sector governance.
22World Health Organization (WHO), WHO Seminar Pack for Drinking Water Quality, WHO, Geneva,
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/S16.pdf23Ferragina, Eugenia, M. Marra and D.A.L. Quagliarotti (2002) The Role of Formal and Informal Institutions in the Water
Sector, Plan Bleu, Sophia Antipolis.24Shultz, Anna (2007) Creating a Legal Framework for Good Transboundary Water Governance in the Zambezi and Incomati River
Basins, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 2007(1), Georgetown University Law Centre, Georgetown.25WHO, WHO Seminar Pack for Drinking Water Quality
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
29/102
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
30/102
11
1.3 Regulation
A regulatory framework is basically a set of
rules, processes, and monitoring and
enforcement mechanisms that ensure serviceproviders adhere to national service and quality
standards. These also serve to level the playing
field between user and provider in an otherwise
monopolistic environment. A functioning
regulatory system is thereby a central feature of
good sector governance.
The effectiveness and enforceability ofregulation is a function of the quality of
governance writ large, or the set of traditions
and institutions by which authority in a country is
exercised26. This can be assessed using
variables measured by instruments such as theWorld Banks World Governance Indicators:
(1) voice and accountability, (2) political stability
and the absence of violence, (3) government
effectiveness, (4) regulatory quality, (5) rule of
law, and (6) control of corruption. The rule of law
is arguable the most important category withrespect to water sector regulation given that it
enables enforcement of existing standards.
Within the rule of law are the key requisites of (1)
sound law courts, and (2) the ability to enforce
contracts.
Regulation is typically applied to urban bulkwater suppliers and service providers. The focus
is on tariffs, service quality and
consumer protection.
Although the usual institutional
model entails reliance on a
single regulatory authority,water sector regulators
encompass many oversightmechanisms including the
authority, a ministry, an asset
holding company or authority,
a customer group, inde-
pendent experts and / or theservice provider itself through
self-regulation. Regulations are stipulated in
legislation, contracts, by-laws, personal
commitments and service charters. They are
enforced by the regulator exacting penalties,
financial incentives (both positive and negative),withdrawing licenses, political pressure and use
of the media.
Self-Regulation
Regulation by
Contract
Regulation by
Contract withRegulator
Regulation by
Agency withLicensing Regime
Municipal Durban, RSA Zambia: 6 utilities
Regional & National Djibouti
Senegal, Gabon
Uganda,
Burkina Faso
Niger
Mali
Table 2: African Water Sector Regulation Models
26Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. (2004). Governance Matters, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Rwanda: This card is used for the sale of water.
The seller ticks a box when selling a jerrican.
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
31/102
12
Performance monitoring regulation by aspecific performance contract review com-mittee (PCRC) made up of a multidiscipli-nary membership. This approach is beingused in Uganda;
Regulation by performance contract is com-mon between asset owner and public or pri-vate utility, as in Uganda and Burkina Faso;
Regulation by contract is also used in ahybrid form in which an independent re-gulator provides supervision but also usescontracts;
Licenses are provided by independent re-gulators, as in the case of Zambia, that setout the terms under which they are to pro-vide services;
Water meter, Senegal
In most countries, urban water services areprovided by the municipality, a public or para-public utility and by private operators that arecontracted by the municipality under perfor-mance contracts. In some cases the utility maybe regional or even national in scope, providingservices to a group of municipalities. The mostcommon ways in which service providers areregulated are listed in Table 2, above, anddescribed in further detail in the list below27:
Self-regulation is most often used by mu-
nicipalities, ministry departments or state-owned companies. Private entrepreneurservice providers also use a form of self-regulation through peer-to-peer regulationin a competitive environment;
27Adapted from Trmolet, s. & C Hunt (2006) Taking Account of the Poor in Water Sector Regulation, WSP, Washington, DC, USA
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
32/102
13
Regulation through an asset holding au-thority such as SONEDE of Senegal thatuses a performance contract as the basisof regulation but otherwise monitors andassures good customer relations by theservice provider; and,
Regulation by a network of stakeholders,each representing an agency facet or sub-sector.
The regulator that is often considered mostdesirable is the independent or autonomous
regulatory authority. The advantage this modelhas is that the regulator is independent fromthe political arena in its decision-making and isable to satisfy the three criteria stipulated forinfrastructure regulatory systems28:
1. Legitimacy: the regulatory systemprotects consumers from the exercise ofmonopoly power, whether through highprices, low quality of service or both;
2. Credibility: investors (e.g. private sectorutilities or capital market investors) musthave confidence that the regulatorysystem will honour its commitments (e.g.maintain agreed minimum tariff levels);and
3. Transparency: regulation and relatedinformation are transparent.
27Adapted from Trmolet, s. & C Hunt (2006) Taking Account of the Poor in Water Sector Regulation, WSP, Washington, DC, USA28World Bank (2006) Handbook for Evaluating Infrastructure Regulatory Systems, Washington, DC.
Water Storage Tank, Uganda
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
33/102
14
Complete autonomy may be the ideal but it israrely seen in practice. There is inevitably someform of government and/or political influence.In practice, partial independence has becomeaccepted although most often with the hopeand understanding that the regulatory systemis transitioning to independence. The country,however, may lack commitment, capacity, orboth. Indeed, the full independent regulatormay be too risky a model to attempt as a firststep in regulation. Also, some aspects of theideal autonomous model regulator may be
incompatible with the legal and cultural normsof a country. In the real world, the bestapproach is to obtain the best fit, instead ofinsisting on a universal set of best practices. This is the case in South Africa, where theDepartment of Water Affairs has pro-activelyassumed the role of sector regulator, though itlacks independence. Although it is said to be intransition, it could take several years to achievethe desired state of independence from
government and the political arena. Onbalance, it is far better that governmentassume a regulatory role at this time than therebe no such role being played at all.
The greatest number and most deprived ofservices are undoubtedly the poor, the MDGsprimary target. They are special in that they areleast served by formal and regulated service
providers such as urban utilities. In 2006, forexample, it was reported that Maputos waterutility provided only 20% of the urbanpopulation through house connections and
20% by standpipes. Another 20% bought theirwater from their neighbours, 30% boughtwater from small unregulated networkoperators and the remaining 10% collected orbought water at wells or boreholes and/or fromvendors.
The poor are unlikely to have house
connections, particularly if connection chargesare high or they do not have land tenure. Theycommonly pay much more per litre than thosethat enjoy piped water. Their services are oftenpoor and intermittent. In addition, they lackinfluence, voice and channels to complain tothe regulator, if regulation exists at all. The poorrepresent the most difficult to reach but need tobe if the MDGs are to be achieved. This is a key
governance issue for the water sector.
Reaching the poor can be facilitated throughspecial provisions in the regulatory framework.
Water vendor, Uganda
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
34/102
15
Trmolet and Halpern have maderecommendations for improving servicedelivery for the poor. These are areparaphrased below29.
Regulating access expansion: Coveragetargets may be overly restrictive by definingservice at higher levels than can be affordedwhether by the utility or the customer. Allowingfor differentiated service levels, such as throughregulated independent networks or vendors,can provide greater access and improve
service delivery. Coverage targets might alsobe too ambitious, making it impossible forutilities to achieve even under pro-poorperformance contracts. Alternatively, usingpositive incentives rather than penalties toencourage achievement of targets (particularlyin poor areas) can be more effective, especiallywhen funds are scarce and capital financingdifficult.
Regulating tariffs: Tariffs need to be set atappropriate levels to permit cost recovery andcontribute to investments while not generatingexcessive profits. Tariffs that are too low,although favoured by politicians, lead tofinancial insolvency and inability to extendservices, particularly in the less accessible poorareas. On the other hand, tariffs that are toohigh, as may happen in non-competitive or
unregulated environments, provide little
incentive to improve productivity and enablepoor management and rent-seeking.
Subsidies, where they exist, need to be welltargeted. The rich are subsidized throughsewerage provision and piped water supply,whereas the poor who are excluded fromsewerage networks and pay higher prices perlitre of water to vendors. Subsidizedconnections such as social connections,using clear cut definitions of poor customers,are often better targeted. Also, differentiated
service levels (regulated standpipes and privateand condominial networks) provide for targetingand a form of self regulation. When faced withlow tariffs and difficulties in extending services,there may be possibilities of providing financialincentives to the provider to specifically extendservices into the poorer areas.
29Trmolet, S., & J. Halpern (2006) Regulation of Water and Sanitation Services, Getting Better Service to Poor People, GPOBA
Working Series Paper 8, Washington, DC
New handpump,
rural Uganda
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
35/102
16
Regulating service quality: One way to keeptariffs at affordable levels is to provide lower-cost services through the use of servicestandards matched to local needs. Servicestandards need to be flexible, and potentialtrade-offs between service quality and priceneed to be recognized. Care also needs to betaken in applying excessively rigid waterresources regulation such as banningentrepreneurs from abstracting from wells nearpoor areas when they are providing a legitimateand improved service. Similarly, the uniform
application of service standards can create lostopportunities of cost-savings and reaching thepoor. An example is mandatory 24 hourpressure. In some areas reduction of pressureand/or intermittent services (using roof tanks)may be appropriate if well-regulated. There areother areas of service standards, such as hoursof service, pressure, taste, physicalappearance and customer service standardsthat could be researched further to findinnovative ways by which costs could belowered without jeopardizing public health.
Regulating alternative service providers: In
some countries, alternative service providers
provide services to up to 60 and 70% of urban
populations. Unfortunately they are often
unrecognized and are regulated against
without understanding what they have to offer
in extending services to the poor. Indeed,
alternative service providers may be the only
alternative many utilities have in extending
services into poor areas. The first step is to geta better understanding of the situation.
Alternative providers offer services in many
ways: piped networks, standpipes and
vendors, and tankers. Domestic resellers
(neighbours) may also provide water to a
substantial percentage of consumers.
Bringing alternative providers into the formal
sector would be complicated, and many
might shy away from being formalized. Theycan be brought under the regulation umbrella
by being flexible and recognizing the very
different conditions and needs in improving
Rural water supply,
Cape Verde
.....
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
36/102
17
services in low income areas. Light handed
regulation is required in order to keep costs
down and avoid driving those providers out of
business. One objective should be to provide
for a level playing field and focus on those
aspects most important to the consumer
(affordability, reliability and quality) while
leaving other less important criteria to market
forces. One approach is through licensing and
defining areas of operation and services
provided. Monitoring can be conducted by
organizations closer to the service areas
contracted to do so by the regulator, such as
an association of alternative providers.
Flap valves of the Massingir dam, Mozambique
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
37/102
18
1.4 Decentralization
The second principle of the agreementstemming from the International Conference onWater and Environment (ICWE) (Dublin, Ireland,31 January 1992) states that:
Water development and managementshould be based on a participatoryapproach, involving users, planners andpolicy-makers at all levels. The participatoryapproach involves raising awareness of the
importance of water among policy-makersand the general public. It means thatdecisions are taken at the lowestappropriate level, with full public consultationand involvement of users in the planning andimplementation of water projects.
Taking decisions at the lowest appropriate levelis referred to as the principle of subsidiarity. Inthe water sector its goal is to achieve more
sustainable use of water resources through theclose involvement of stakeholders at the locallevel30. To achieve this, decentralization needsto be implemented in a transparent, accoun-table and participatory manner31. It also needssupportive and enabling policies, legislation,regulation and adequate capacity within localgovernments. Local stakeholders must parti-
cipate in setting strategic directions, planningand implementation. All of this calls for sub-stantial local government capacity and strongpolitical commitment32.
Decentralization entails the transfer of authorityfor decision-making, financing and mana-gement to representative and accountablelocal governments as well as the delegation ofcertain public functions to autonomous orsemi-autonomous bodies, such as publicutilities. Fiscal decentralization requires bothimproving local revenue generation capacity
30Dinar, Ariel et al. (2005) Decentralization of Basin Management: A Global Analysis, World Bank Policy Working Research
Paper 3637, Washington, USA.31Water Aid (2008) Local Millennium Development Goals Initiative: Local Government and Water and Sanitation Delivery,
London, UK.32Rees, et al. (2008)
Kids enjoying free flowing water
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
38/102
19
and devolving budgeting and expenditureauthority to the lower levels. It can be arguedthat the retention of sector financing control by
the centre can have its advantages, such asbeing able to better respond to nationalpriorities and donors that do not normally dealwith sub-national authorities. On the otherhand, national governments tend to give lowerpriority to the water sector than localgovernments. Control over budgeting andexpenditure by local government facilitatesneeds-based and demand-responsive service
provision33
.
It is recognized that if roles, responsibilities andfunctions are to be devolved to lower levels,and if these lower levels lack human resources,management capacity and financial resources,then water service provision will suffer34. Costsmay actually increase in parallel with decliningservice levels. Obviously, a balance is neededin control over sector financing and
management that is tailored to specific andevolving realities.
Many African countries have attempted todecentralize the water sector but few haveachieved devolution (successful transfer ofdecision-making authority). Most have de-concentrated the apex ministry in some form orother, but are reluctant to truly devolve and
have been slow in resources and assetstransfer. Key staff may have been moved to thelocal levels, but they continue to report to thecentre, which retains power over their functionsand performance. Examples of this among the
countries visited through the Water Gover-nance Study include Malawi, Kenya, Tunisiaand Burkina Faso. Far closer to devolution in
the water sector are South Africa, Uganda andSenegal.
Despite its potential benefits, however, there isalso a danger in decentralizing too quickly,before enabling policies and legislation are inplace and before local capacity and compe-tence can be strengthened. This applies inparticular to the areas of procurement, project
and financial management. A major challengein this regard is the actual level of controlassigned to local level institutions to determinehow funds will be spent on sector developmentactivities. One indicator of central governmentsupport for decentralization is their willingnessto support and facilitate local level financialmanagement without maintaining intrusivecontrol over decision-making35.
33WaterAid, 200834Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2008) Water Financing and Governance, GWP, Stockholm, Sweden35Dinar, et al. (2005)
Massingir dam, Mozambique
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
39/102
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
40/102
21
political influence. While there has beenprogress in putting in place regional waterboards, the management of significant sector
development initiatives is controlled byprogram and project management units, whichcan bypass the government structures.Community participation in decision-making isstill in its early stages.
In assessing what would be the best balanceneeded for decentralization and preservation ofresidual capacity in central government, the
functions at each level need to be determined. The following paragraphs provide examplesunder the principal functions of (1) planning andbudgeting, (2) project supervision andmanagement, (3) procurement, and (4)monitoring and evaluation (M&E). For each one,a suitable balance in the devolution ofresponsibilities between the centralgovernment and the decentralizedstakeholders (regions, local governments, and
communities) is discussed under the generalprinciple of subsidiarity.
These indicators propose a generic point ofbalance applicable in the context of countrieswhere decentralization is still rather limited. They may not be as relevant for countriesalready far along in the decentralizationprocess, such as Benin.
Planning and budgeting. A balanced dis-tribution of functions between the centreand decentralized stakeholders could bethat central government is responsible forcoordinating dialogue on and setting na-
tional sector policy, consolidating budge-ting, mobilizing and allocating resources,and arranging for transfers from the Minis-
try of Finance. Local stakeholders wouldidentify needs, participate in planning (lo-cal development plans and local water andsanitation plans), channel demands andset investment priorities and formulate lo-cal rolling plans and budgets. In otherwords, the central government would bemainly responsible for facilitating the sec-tors planning and budget and setting the
rules for distribution and use of resources,while the decentralized stakeholders wouldbe responsible for local planning, projectdesign and effective use of resources.
Project supervision and management co-
vers tasks linked to implementation: raising
awareness, facilitating community capa-
city building and dialogue with beneficia-
ries, project planning and technical design,
works supervision, information-education-
communication, etc. Most of these activi-ties are carried out by service providers
(companies, consultants, NGOs) under the
supervision of the project team inside the
ministries in charge of water supply and/or
sanitation. An appropriate balance between
the central and local level would be one inwhich these tasks are supervised and ma-
naged by decentralized stakeholders ei-
ther at the regional level or by decentrali-zed project teams that may be supported
by external technical assistance. As such,
the role of the centre would be confined toquality assurance and administrative and
financial management support.
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
41/102
22
Where legal authority for water supply and/orsanitation has been devolved to localgovernment (as in South Africa, Tanzania and
Uganda) they should have the capacity forassuming responsibility for implementation.The reality in most African countries, however,is that decentralization has reached only thedeconcentration stage, and the main flow ofresources is still channeled through sectorapex ministries. Local governments do not yethave the capacity and staff to assume this levelof responsibility (as is the case currently in
Malawi and Mozambique). As a temporarymeasure, a reasonable balance would be thatthe local governments delegate part or totalresponsibility for supervision and managementto the region, or contract with them fortechnical assistance (as is the case in Senegal).
Procurement: Experience in devolving res-ponsibility for procurement has emphasi-zed the essential need to first build procu-
rement skills and capacities locally (e.g.Uganda). A generic point of balance in themeantime could be that the region bemade responsible for preparation of ten-der documents, managing the tender pro-cess and transfer responsibility for contractmanagement to local authorities. The cen-tre would be responsible for oversight, qua-lity assurance and relations with the finance
ministry and donors or lending institutions.This balance is not ideal but is a step to-wards devolution and ahead of an entirelycentralized procurement process (as is thecase in Burkina Faso) without requiringsubstantial reforming of procurement re-
Water supply facilities in a
school, Rwanda
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
42/102
23
gulations. It is stressed, however, that eventhis partial devolution requires trained andexperienced procurement staff.
Monitoring and evaluation is one activitywhere decentralization is critically impor-tant from both data collection and feed-back perspectives. An appropriate balancewould be that all the responsibilities rela-ted to the production of data should be asdecentralized as possible (local govern-ments, water service providers, water userassociations, project implementing teams,
communities), while the responsibilities fordata consolidation and management (i.e.storage, maintenance, publishing) wouldbe located at regional and central levels.The increasing accessibility of online com-munications in rural areas in many Africancountries has made the centralized mana-gement of web-based databases feasible,for their contents can now be made ac-cessible to any authorized stakeholder with
an internet connection.
In this configuration, data collection is theresponsibility of (trained and authorized)local government, municipality or serviceprovider with community support and par-ticipation. Data collection would be at ei-ther local or regional levels and analysis,storage, feedback and disseminationwould be a central responsibility. It shouldbe recognized that the dissemination anduse of data is as important as its collec-
tion and analysis. Management at all le-vels therefore needs to trained in its pro-per use. Likewise, the public needs to be
given access to the full range of informa-tion concerning their systems and overallsector status, including access figures,plans, budgets and expenditure data.
While these represent ideal models to strive for,there is no one-size-fits-all solution to makingdecentralization a reality. Each country isattempting to achieve its own balance and rate
of change according to its stage ofdevelopment, size and administrative capa-bilities. Devolution calls for a major effort instrengthening local government administrative,financial management and technical capacities,increasing financial resources allocated to thesector, and substantial changes in attitudes
Lake Kivu in Cyangugu, Rwanda
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
43/102
24
and perceptions among bureaucrats, politi-cians and the general public. Institutional roles,responsibilities and accountabilities must also
change. While specific tools, such as localdevelopment plans, have been promoted to aiddecentralization, local governments often lackthe necessary skills and political maturity toplan their sector development andmanagement effectively, frequently resulting inunrealistic, non-implementable and inequitablelocal development plans and programs.
Decentralization is normally driven by autho-rities outside of the water sector, such asOffices of the President or Cabinet, throughMinistries of Local Government or Finance.Sector agencies respond to and comply withdecentralization reforms and directives withvarying degrees of enthusiasm and commit-ment. Strong and consistent leadership fromthe highest levels is therefore necessary toencourage change in bureaucratic practice and
process.
Decentralization has developed from a relatively
simple concept expressed as subsidiarity to a
complex and often confusing reality that exists in
many partially implemented forms across Africa.
But certain areas of emphasis are clearly
effective in advancing the process of
decentralization to achieve sustainability of
sector development. These include continued
and more targeted effort in capacity building at
all levels, especially in local governments.
Supporting and assisting stakeholders at all
levels in accepting, adapting to and managing
change is often overlooked, but critical.
To achieve greater success in decentralizingthe management of water service provision tothe lowest appropriate levels, it is recognizedthat the following criteria need to be consideredin designing sector support initiatives:
The lowest appropriate levels for the ma-nagement of service provision have beenidentified for the range of sector services,
considering the comparative advantagesof each level, their strengths and their ca-pabilities;
The functional roles and responsibilities ofall sector stakeholders are clearly definedand separate from one another, so thatconfusion and conflicts resulting from over-laps, duplication and gaps are eliminated;
Stakeholder relationships are clear, legiti-
mized and governed by written proce-dures, agreements or contracts, so that allparties are aware of each others roles andresponsibilities and can monitor eachothers performance and results;
Interests, incentives, mandates and res-ponsibilities are aligned among all stake-holders and there is a shared commitmentto achieving sustainable service provision;
Regional and local level responsibilities areadequately supported by the decentrali-
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
44/102
25
zation of skills, capabilities, assets, humanand financial resources, and mandates;
Capacity building is aimed at ensuring corecompetencies at all levels; and,
Devolved procurement is accompanied bycapacity building, effective monitoring andregular audit.
Lastly, external funding from donor agencies isshifting from project-based to programme-based, and eventually to basket funding and
SWAp mechanisms, as local level financialmanagement competencies and accountabilityevolves. Central governments will thereforeneed to proportionately increase their fundingto the decentralized sector, and localgovernment revenue generation capacity willalso need to increase.
A handpump in rural Senegal
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
45/102
26
1.5 Sector-wide
Approaches
The sector-wide approach (SWAp) hastraditionally fallen under the rubric of theprogramme-based approach to aid delivery:the coordinated disbursement and implemen-tation of development assistance at theprogramme rather than project level with theintention to reduce transaction costs andimprove aid effectiveness. While this may still
be the case in many aid-dependant countries,governments are increasingly viewing SWApsas a means for coordinating and facilitatingsector development. In other words, aiddelivery may only be one part of this mecha-nism. As more countries develop strongerinstitutional capacities to manage them,SWAps are becoming increasingly recognizedas a common sense planning tool that canhelp politicians and planners better divide
public resources over priorities36 and a way ofcoordinating a complex sector, building trustthrough dialogue among all stakeholders andstrengthening domestic ownership37. Amongstthe countries visited through the African WaterGovernance Study, Uganda provided examplesof best practices in this regard. These arecentred on annual technical performanceassessments and joint sector reviews (JSRs)led by a sector-wide stakeholder workinggroup (SSWG).
SWAps typically encompass five mainelements: public financial management, sectorpolicy, accountability and performance
monitoring, aid alignment and harmonization,and institutions and capacities all directlyrelevant to sector governance. They cantherefore link policy and planning objectives tobudgeting, implementation and monitoring; setup a framework for scaling up coverageimprovements over time; and generate buy-infrom ministries of finance and donors.
Eleven African countries are now using SWApsin the water sector and many more have SWApin their health and education sectors (see Table3.2b). As noted above, key elements in movingthe sector forward as a team are being foundto be SWAps SSWGs, regular sector technicalassessment and JSRs. These can draw allsector stakeholders together, harmonizeapproaches, underpin monitoring, reduceadministration and transaction costs, provide
an annual stakeholder review of the sector andidentify key areas for improvement on anannual basis. In doing so SWAps can provide aharmonized approach for donor support to thesector and facilitate the use of earmarkedsector budget support.
Sector policies and strategic plans, importantelements of any SWAp, are meant to providethe enabling environment for and articulate thedirection of sector development efforts. As
36Boesen, Nils and Dietvorst, Desiree (2007) Sector Wide Approaches: From an aid delivery to a sector development
perspective, Reflections from the Joint Learning Programme on Sector Wide Approaches, January 2006 to April 2007: 14,
www.train4dev.net.37 Train4Dev., www.train4dev.net
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
46/102
27
noted in the discussion on sector policy andlegislation in section 1.1.2, they provide aframework for overall sector governance. As
the Joint Learning Programme (JLP) has found,cobbling together a reasonably coherentpolicy framework can be one of the first stepstowards a sector or sub-sector programmeand often a number of policies and acts existthat could begin to form the basis for a broaderapproach38. Yet this is no simple task. One ofthe largest challenges associated withadopting a SWAp in the water sector is the
existence of numerous overlapping policiesand the multiple institutions and actors involvedin their implementation. Given the complexity ofthe sector (with sub-sectors includingagriculture, forestry, environment in addition toWSS and IWRM), it is often said that SWApsare most effectively introduced at the sub-sector level, before being expanded to includeall sub-sectors.
The second major element of the sector-wideapproach is the coordination and management
of a sector budget, which in light of the plurality
of institutions and budgets involved is difficult to
undertake in the water sector. One mechanism
used to simplify budget decision-making and
management processes at the macro level is the
MTEF, a three stage activity and output-based
fiscal planning process fed by fiscal policy
objectives, macroeconomic projections and
medium-term budget estimates. In sectors such
as water, where the development of a sector
budget may be impossible due to the fact that
most budgets are created at the institutional
rather than programmatic level, it may be more
useful to return to the essence of the SWAp as a
governance mechanism. That is, rather thantrying to create a sector budget out of thin air,
the SWAp, in theory, encourages and
necessitates inter-institutional dialogue and
financial coordination in the pursuit of shared
objectives. This is particularly important in
relation to the management of aid contributions
and donor coordination. Since considerable
donor funding is now disbursed at the
programme level, a SWAp is a means throughwhich dollars can be channelled to appropriate
areas within the sector and aligned with national
budgeting processes.
This, of course, requires sufficient financial
management capacity to be in place in the focus
country, which is often far from the case in reality.
Dutch experience in Benin, for example, showed
that although considerable preparatory work has
been done by donors to help setup a pooledfund mechanism, the formal conditions for
SWAp have not yet been met due to the
weakness of local public financial management
capacity39. Similarly, even when basic budgeting
systems are in place, donors and the
government in question may still not agree that
SWAps are the best approach. The Netherlands
found that in Bangladesh, institutional
weaknesses, lack of political commitment and
lack of interest from donors heavily constrained
opportunities for a water sector SWAp, and the
Dutch ended up continuing their project-based
39Van Woersem, Bert and Heun, Jetze, Evaluation of Sector Support and Approaches in the Water Sector, Final Report,
Policy and Operations Department (IOB), Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DGIS), May 2008.38Boesen and Dietvorst (2007), p. 20
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
47/102
28
approach40. Beyond the sectors complexity, an
additional factor behind this reluctance is thebelief amongst some practitioners that SWAps
may increase corruption risks due to the lower
levels of project supervision, particularly on the
part of donors, they sometimes entail.
These elements combine to determine in largepart the scope for capacity building and reach of
performance monitoring also typically included in
sector-wide approaches. A SWAps holistic
approach to sector development can help
prioritize capacity building needs and identify
those willing and able to undertake them. Yet it
can also unearth common disjunctures between
policy objectives and a particular governments
capacity to implement them. Similarly, the
transparency promoted by the inclusion of all
sector stakeholders in planning and budgeting
processes can contribute to increased
accountability. For example, many SWAps now
encourage participation of user groups in the
design and implementation process and
facilitate stakeholder platforms to ensure their
voices are heard41. With regards to monitoring,
mechanisms such as Sector Technical
Assessments and JSRs are said to helpstrengthen mutual accountability between
governments and donors.
40Van Woersem and Heun, (2008)41Boesen and Dietvorst, (2007)
Mulunguzi dam, Zomba, Malawi
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
48/102
29
South Africans water SWAp represents agood example of the way in which suchthese mechanisms are less about donorcoordination than about guiding sectorgovernance and development. Now in itsthird phase, Masibambane, as it is kn ownlocally, has evolved from a water andsanitation policy and strategic planning toolto one that is guiding capacity buildingefforts not only whithin the WSS sub-sectorbut also water resources mangement. Thesethree phases are summarized below.Massibambane I :
Three-year 75m pilot initiative begun in2001 focused only on supporting WSSservices in three of nice provinces. Intra-
sector collaboration is the overriding theme. Managed by the Departement of Water Af-
fairs but seen as a vehicle for sector de-centralization
Water services policy (10-year strategic vi-sion and objectives for the sector) andtransfer policy (decentralization of WSS)developed.
Masibambane II :
Objectives : strengthen water services sec-tor ; support local government ; expandfrom three provinces to entire country.
2004-2007, 60m Identified too much of a facus on infra-
structure as opposed to operation andmaintenance of water services, poor qua-lity of sanitation services, the need for animproved monitoring system and a depen-dency on consulting support.
Masibambane III :
Objectives : promote IWRM in the watersector throughout entire country
Box 2: South Africans Water SWAp
( Masibambane )1
-
8/4/2019 Vol 1 Water Sector Governance
49/102
30
1.6 Sector FinancialManagement
Effective water sector financial management iscrucial if services are to be provided equitably,transparently and efficiently. A review of sectorfinancial management practices can be brokendown into two broad categories: sectorfinancing and financial governance (budgetingand accounting mechanisms).
With respect to sector financing, a variety of
fiduciary mechanisms have been used in Africa
to finance service delivery, including inter-
ministerial transfers, off-budget allocations (e.g.
donor funding), cross-subsidization, taxation,user fees, and public-private partnerships42. The
relative utility and success of these mechanisms
depend to a large extent on the state of
decentralization, poverty levels and affordability
of services, external donor support, and the
effectiveness of financial management systems.In the vast majority of African countries, userfees and debt financing are not a realistic means
to fund service delivery alone43; government and
donor support will be required in most cases for
the foreseeable future.
Budget formulation and expendituremanagement frameworks are key componentsof sector financial governance. As in other
sectors, it is important that water sectorbudget formulation be policy sensitive, in thatpolicy objectives are reflected in sector
allocations. Budgets should reflect sectortargets, such as the MDGs or national sectordevelopment strategies, while also ensuringthat allocations to the water sector arebalanced with those to health and education.Strong accounting and monitoring systemsshould also be in place to ensure resources areallocated equitably to ensure the diverse needsof various user grou