water sector governance in africa vol 2-

Water Sector Governancein Africa

Volume 2AssessmentGuidelines

WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA Vol.2.Couv.qxd:wpp charte en cours COVER 23/10/10 11:23 Page2

Water Sector Governancein Africa

Volume 2AssessmentGuidelines

ISBN 978-9973-071-49-1

WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA volume 2.qxd:Mise en page 1 23/10/10 11:11 Page1

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 supportfrom 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).

Publication date September 2010

LogoAfrican Development Bank, External Relations and Communication Unit, Yattien-Amiguet L.

Graphical ConceptualizationAfrican Development Bank, External Relations and Communication Unit in cooperation with FinziUsines graphiques; Justin Kabasele T. and Mouna Lazzem

PhotosAll pictures by AfDB.

PrintingFinzi Usines Graphiques

CoordinationConsultants Bent Nørby Bonde and Sören Bauer


WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA volume 2.qxd:Mise en page 1 23/10/10 11:11 Pagei

Table of contents

WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA volume 2.qxd:Mise en page 1 23/10/10 11:11 Pageii

iii

Table of contentsAcronyms

Foreword

1. Guidelines for Governance assessments

1.1 Governance Assessments and the Project Cycle1.1.1 Scoring Guidelines1.2 Key Issues in Water Sector Governance1.2.1 National Level Governance1.2.2 Legal Framework1.2.3 Institutions1.2.4 Sector Management1.2.5 Resources Management1.2.6 Transparency, Accountability & Corruption1.2.7 Participation1.2.8 Equitable Services Provision

2. Application of Assessment Templates

2.1 Light Assessment of Water Sector Governance2.2 Rapid Assessment of Water Sector Governance2.3 Governance Assessment for Project Preparation and Concept Note2.4 Governance Assessment for Project Appraisal2.5 Governance Assessment for Supervision during Implementation2.6 Governance Assessment at Project Completion

3. Follow-up Action Plan

Annex A : Abridged Guide: Project Cycle Governance Assessment

List of tables

Table 1.1 Assessment Templates at Each Stage of Project CycleTable 1.2a Country Governance Matrix – National Level Governance IndicatorsTable 1.2b Country Governance Matrix - Country Level Governance IndicatorsTable 2.1 «Light” Assessment of Water Sector GovernanceTable 2.2 Rapid Assessment of Water Sector GovernanceTable 2.3 Grouping of Assessment HeadingsTable 2.4 Examples of Project Components to Strengthen GovernanceTable 2.5 Governance Assessment for Project Preparation and Project Concept NoteTable 2.6 Corruption Warning Signs

List of figures

Figure 1.1: Assessment Template Purpose(s)

ivvi1

244514161821232630

32

323439484952

53

56

2911333639404250

3

WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA volume 2.qxd:Mise en page 1 23/10/10 11:11 Pageiii

iv

AfDBAMCOWASPAWFCIDAGISGWAGWPH&AIFPRIIMFIPCCIRCIWMIIWRMJMPM&EMDGMTBFMTEFMTFFMWENDWNWSCODAODIOECDOSSOPMOWASPFMPHAST

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 GoalsMedium 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 management Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation

Acronyms

WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA volume 2.qxd:Mise en page 1 23/10/10 11:11 Pageiv

v

PPPPRSPPSPRBORWSSSADCSWApTATITPTCTWRMUNICEFWHOWHSWPMWSPWSS

Public-private partnershipPoverty Reduction Strategy PaperPrivate sector participationRiver basin organizationRural water supply and sanitationSouthern African Development Community Sector-wide ApproachTechnical assistanceTransparency InternationalTripartite Technical CommitteeTransboundary water resources managementUnited Nations’ Children’s FundWorld Health OrganizationWorld Health SurveyWater Point MappingWater and Sanitation ProgramWater supply and sanitation

WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA volume 2.qxd:Mise en page 1 23/10/10 11:11 Pagev

current thinking and research on all these keyelements and issues affecting their quality.

Contemporary literature on water sector financingunderstandably focuses on the mechanisms andchallenges associated with funding tangible watersupply and sanitation services. This study howeverdraws attention to the importance of financingoverarching water management and governancefunctions, from strategy, planning and policy-making and engagement with sector stakeholdersto water resource development, allocation andmanagement.

Based on the report’s findings, indicators andtargets have been developed to improve thesector’s governance. Volume 1 titled: “Theory andpractice” presents the findings, indicators andtargets to be achieved while Volume 2 presentsconcrete “Assessment guidelines” for conductingwater sector governance assessments forprograms and projects in Africa, based on thefindings of Volume 1.

The Bank is pleased to offer this thought-provoking assessment and the tools developed asa contribution to efforts at improving governancein Africa’s water sector.

Bobby J. PittmanVice PresidentInfrastructure, Private Sector & Regional IntegrationAfDB

ForewordWater governance has been described as “…therange of political, social, economic andadministrative systems that are in place to developand manage water resources and the delivery ofwater services, at different levels of society.”

Good governance mainly depends on the qualityof leadership, the strength of the institutions andhow efficiently, effectively, sustainably, andtransparently the resources are managed bysector institutions and main stakeholders.

On the African continent however, rigoroustechnical, financial, economic and institutionalassessments undertaken in support of projectshave not guaranteed sustainability of projectoutputs and outcomes. This checkered history ofwater sector projects over the past three decadesprovided the rationale for the African DevelopmentBank to launch this initiative to assess watersector governance in Africa.

This report takes preliminary steps to investigatewhether poor governance has been a majorcontributing factor to this lack of sustainability.Specifically, the report provides an overview andassessment of the state of water sectorgovernance in Africa - looking at a very broadrange of governance-related elements, includinglegislation and regulation, decentralization anddevolution, sector-wide approaches, financialmanagement, monitoring and evaluation,accountability and corruption as well as civilsociety participation, gender, alternative serviceprovision, public-private partnerships andequitable service delivery. The study highlights

WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA volume 2.qxd:Mise en page 1 23/10/10 11:11 Pagevi

2) Provide an in-depth analysis of the social,institutional and legal aspects of sector go-vernance and use it to develop a methodfor Bank staff to rapidly characterize thestate of governance within the sector; and,

3) Prepare guidelines and a list of targets andindicators for improved governance thatcan be integrated into rural water supplyand sanitation and other programmes andprojects to ensure long-term sustainabilityof water sector investments.

In accordance with these objectives, thisvolume, from the Study’s final report, providesguidelines and indicators for assessing watergovernance in relation to water sectors andprojects at the country-level. Its purpose is toenable Bank staff to rapidly characterize thestate of governance within the sector as itrelates to all stages of the AfDB’s project cycle.

The guidelines and template have been writtenwith first (1) the task manager, task team, andcountry teams and second (2) stakeholders inregional member countries as audiences. It isrecognized that not all users will have sector-wide interests, so the indicators have beendenoted when specific to rural WSS, urbanWSS and water resources. The guidelines beginwith consideration of governance at the country

1. Guidelines

for Governance

Assessments

The Water Governance Study was an OWASinitiative funded by the Multi-donor WaterPartnership Programme. The assignment’smain objectives were to assess the state ofwater sector governance in Africa, developindicators and targets for its improvement, andprovide guidelines for Bank sector staff to usewhen developing, supervising and completingprogrammes and projects. The guidelines willalso be useful to other water sectorprofessionals working on the continent. TheStudy involved missions to seven countries(Senegal, Uganda, South Africa, Malawi,Kenya, Tunisia and Burkina Faso) with theobjective of gaining further information onsector governance and to develop theindicators and guidelines noted above. TheStudy also benefited from meetings with AfDB-OWAS task managers, including personalinterviews and inception, mid-project and endof project meetings. The specific objectives ofthe assignment were to:

1) Provide decision-makers (task managers,project teams and others) from the AfricanDevelopment Bank and its Regional Mem-ber Countries (RMCs) with an in-depth un-derstanding of the concepts, opportuni-ties, and challenges for improvinggovernance in the water sector;

1


1.1 Governance Assessments and the Project Cycle

The project cycle is presented below in six stages.

level that provides the governance environmentin which the water sector functions.

Stage in theProject Cycle Assessment Assessment Description Responsible or

Involved

Pre-projectLightGovernanceAssessment

The “light assessment” is designed to provide a quickoverview of sector governance and enable comparisons ofsector governance between countries. Thirteen indicators areused as listed in Table 2.1

Task manager andTeam, Sector Manager

ProjectIdentification

RapidAssessment

The rapid assessment is used to identify key governance riskareas at sector levels without requiring field work. Thisassessment’s 33 indicators are listed in Table 2.2

Task Manager and Taskteam

ProjectPreparation andConcept Note

Assessmentfor ProjectPreparationand ConceptNote

This is the most detailed sector governance assessment using94 indicators in a checklist format that encouragesconsideration of the full range of governance issues. Thisassessment is for purposes of project preparation (andsubsequent appraisal) by which all risk areas and their relativeseriousness can be identified and assessed. Detailedinformation from the field is required. The template is given asTable 2.5

Task Manager, TaskTeam,AfDB Field Office,Consultants,Stakeholders &Partners

ProjectAppraisal

Preparation ofAppraisalReport

The PAR includes: (1) a statement on governance risks and mitigation; (2) separate descriptions of gender, social andenvironmental impact analysis and likely; (3) a technical annex on project governance for which theProject Preparation Assessment is used; These draw on the assessment undertaken during projectpreparation. (4) the results-based logical framework (RBLF) thatincludes governance related objectives, results andindicators that are specifically designed for the project.

Task Manager, TaskTeam,AfDB Field Office

ProjectImplementation

ProjectSupervision &Monitoring

The indicators used in project supervision and monitoring aredesigned specifically for the governance related components ofthe project and relate directly to its objectives, activities andoutputs. Supervision indicators are described in the projectexample, see table annex A-1

Task Manager and FieldOffice

ProjectCompletionReport

Post-projectAssessment

Indicators used for project completion reporting are specificallydesigned to assess outputs and outcomes of governancerelated project components.

Field Office, TaskManager andConsultants

Table 1.1 Assessment Templates at Each Stage of Project Cycle

2


assessment template (e.g. the LA is to providean initial governance overview) and the stage inthe project cycle at which it will be filled out.

These stages and the assessment tool with whichthey are associated are summarized in Figure 1.1.This graphic illustrates the purpose of each

Pre-Project

PROJECT CYCLE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENTS

Initial GovernanceOverview

1. Light Assessment Template

Project Identification Governance Risk Areasidentified

2. Rapid Assessment Template

Project Preparation and Concept Note

Project Appraisal

Risk Mitigation Activities Defined

LOG FRAME1. Activities, Indicators & Targets

2. Governance Section3. Technical Annex on Governance

Project Supervision Project Specific Indicators for Supervision

3. Project Preparation Assessment

Project Completion Outcome Indicators and Targets

Figure 1.1: Assessment Template Purpose(s)

Based on only thirteen indicators, the LightAssessment (LA) is useful only as anapproximation. The RA is more detailed (having33 indicators) and is undertaken during projectidentification. It is used to broadly identify thoseareas of risk that need to be addressed in theproject. The final template, the ProjectPreparation Assessment (PPA), includes 94indicators under seventeen sub-headings. Itfocuses on the project level and can functionas a checklist to ensure inclusion of allgovernance risks. It also informs the definitionof project activities for risk mitigation and

improved governance within the project. Beingproject specific, the PPA would not normallycover all areas of governance; as such, thePPA template would not be completed in fullbut would be tailored to the sectors covered byeach individual project.

The PPA template also informs the Project’sLog Frame’s activities, indicators and targetsand is the starting point for a technical annexon governance within the Project AppraisalReport (PAR). The indicators in the templateand Log Frame are the basis for selecting both

3


2Kaufmann, D., & A Kraay (2007) On Measuring Governance, Framing Issues for Debate”, World bank 2007 Roundtable on

measuring Governance, Issues Paper

the indicators for project supervision as well asthe subsequent outcome indicators for theproject completion review and report.

1.1.1 Scoring Guidelines

The indicators found in each template arescored along a spectrum from 1 to 5. Those

awarded a score of 2 or below can typically beconsidered areas of governance concern to beprioritized during a project. It is worth noting atthis stage that the use of indicators is alwaysopen to question; however, in light of their ease-of-use and ability to provide reasonableestimates, indicators are useful and undoubtedlythe most affordable of tools2. Where possible,aggregated indicators are used, such as thoserelating to governance at the national level. Mostare subjective, yet these and objective, qualitativeindicators are seen as complementary ratherthan alternative approaches. This is evident in thecase of assessing corruption and gender equitywhere verifiable information is difficult to obtainand a perception-based approach must beused, as compared to estimating access toservices where a fact-base approach may bemore appropriate.

The indicators have been designed torepresent potential areas of risk to governance.

As such they are “actionable.” Being actionabledoes not necessarily make them valuable asindicators if the actions taken do not result insignificant improvements in governance. Forthis reason the template’s indicators havepurposely been selected as being “action-worthy”. Also of relevance is that these “action-worthy” indicators are not biased towardsthose that are easy to improve (“low-hangingfruit”) but are comprehensive in covering the fullrange of risk areas.

The choice of targets and timing of theirachievement will depend on the local context,the governance environment overall, what isdo-able through the project, local norms andexpectations, needs of the project andpotential for achievement. All these factors willimpact the choice of targets and time-scaleand will ultimately be decided by sectorprofessionals of the country in consultation withthe task team and manager.

1.2 Key Issues in Water Sector Governance

This section provides background information onthe eight primary sub-sectors that collectivelydetermine the nature and quality of watergovernance. Its purpose is to provide Bank staffwith a refresher on substantive issuesassociated with each sub-sector in order to

4

1: Poor 2: Unsatisfactory 3: Fair 4: Satisfactory 5: Good


5

Transparency International have developedgovernance indicators and annually monitor keyareas of governance in most African countries.Typically these focus on whether a government isconstitutionally-based, whether its courts aresound and functional, adherence to the rule of law,whether the country is politically stable and absentof violence, as well as the degree of accountability,government effectiveness, and corruption. Suchcross-sectoral indicators provide a generaloverview of governance and often underscore aspecific aspect of governance such as gender orcorruption, but they are rarely sector specific. Onecan, however, select components of indicators toget an overall impression in specific areas.

The water sector governance assessmenttherefore begins with an assessment ofgovernance at the national as opposed tosectoral level. The eight indicators in the first halfof the Country Governance Matrix, Table 1.2a,present data on 52 countries published in fiveprimary governance indexes – the WorldGovernance Indicators (WGI), the Ibrahim Index,the AfDB CPIA, Transparency International’sCorruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and theUNDP’s Gender-related Development Index(GDI) – which collectively provide a generaloverview of the state of national levelgovernance in each country. The indexes andthe specific indicators from each that can be

guide their governance assessments at thecountry level. Sub-sectors covered hereininclude:

• governance at the national level; • the water sector’s legal framework;• the sector’s institutions; • sector management practices; • water resources management systems; • transparency, accountability and corrup-

tion; • civil society participation; and, • equitable service provision.

The descriptions below associated with each ofthe sub-sectors above summarize the contentof associated sections in Vol. 1: WaterGovernance in Theory and Practice. They alsocorrespond with the eight categories ofindicators listed in the “light” and “rapid”assessment templates beginning in Section 2.1

1.2.1 National Level Governance

National governance sets the framework forgovernance in all other sectors across the country.Democracy, human rights, public sectormanagement, legislation, accountability, corr-uption, and financial management are all affectedby national governance. Various international org - anizations such as the Mo Ibrahim Foundation and

3The Country Governance Matrix was developed using national governance indexes and sector-level assessments to providean overview of governance issues affecting the water sector. The national-level governance indicators included in Table 3.2awere deemed to best represent the cluster of governance-related factors that affect the water sector in Africa. The sector-specific indicators in Table 3.2b were selected to illustrate the specific parameters that reflect and are directly affected by thequality of water sector governance.


used in national level governance assessmentsare described below3.

1) World Governance Indicators (WGI): TheWGI provides aggregate scores for 212countries based on hundreds of specificand disaggregated individual variables mea-suring various dimensions of governance.The units in which governance is measu-red follow a normal distribution with a meanof zero and a standard deviation of one ineach period. This implies that virtually allscores lie between -2.5 and 2.5, with hi-gher scores corresponding to better out-comes4.

Three WGI indicators have been includedin our country-level governance matrix: voiceand accountability, which measures the ex-tent to which a country’s citizens are ableto participate in selecting their government,as well as freedom of expression, freedomof association and a free media; govern-ment effectiveness, which measures thequality of public services and the civil ser-vice as well as the degree of its indepen-dence from political pressures, the qualityof policy formulation and implementation,and the credibility of the government’s com-mitment to such policies; and political sta-bility, which measures perceptions of the li-kelihood that the government will be

6

destabilized or overthrown by unconstitu-tional or violent means.

Based on these indicators, a score can beassigned in the “governance at the natio-nal level” cluster in each of the templatespresented in this report. A score of 5 canbe awarded for a WGI score >1.51, 2 to 4for scores between -1.59 and 1.50, and 1for scores < -1.60.

2) The Ibrahim Index: The Ibrahim Index mea-sures the delivery of public goods and ser-vices to citizens by African governmentsand non-state actors. The Ibrahim Indexuses indicators across four main pillars: Sa-fety and Rule of Law; Participation and Hu-man Rights; Sustainable Economic Oppor-tunity; and Human Development as proxiesfor the quality of the processes and out-comes of governance. The Index assessesgovernance against 84 criteria, which aredivided into four main categories and 13sub-categories. The indicators that makeup the sub-categories are based either onofficial data or expert assessments.

The Index assigns all 53 African countriesa score out of 100 across the four main pil-lars. Using it’s assessment of “Safety andRule of Law,” which encompasses sub-in-

5Kauffman, Kray and Mastruzzi, “Governance Matters VIII,” Policy Research Working Paper 4978, World Bank, June 2009, p. 15.


7

dicators for national security, personal sa-fety, rule of law and accountability and cor-ruption, a score can be assigned in the “go-vernance at the national level” cluster in eachof the templates presented in this report. 5can be awarded for scores >80, and 1 forscores <19.9.

3) The AfDB Country Policy and InstitutionalAssessment (CPIA): The Country Policy andInstitutional Assessment (CPIA) provides asnapshot of a country’s policy and institu-tional environment. It assesses the efficacyof the country’s present policy and institu-tional framework in encouraging the efficientuse of scarce development resources topromote sustainable and poverty reducingdevelopment in the Regional Member Coun-tries (RMCs). The CPIA is determined usinga questionnaire administered every year inall of the Bank’s RMCs5. Except for the re-gional integration dimension in the trade andenvironment criteria, the AfDB’s CPIA ques-tionnaire is closely aligned with that of theWorld Bank. All 53 African countries wereassessed in 2008.

The CPIA process rates countries based onscores from 11 assessment criteria thathave been grouped into three main clus-ters: Economic Management, Structural Po-licies, and Policies for Social Inclusion and

Equity. Countries are rated on a scale of 1-6 on each of the 11 criteria in the three clus-ters: 1.0 “highly unsatisfactory for 2 yearsor more;” 2.0 “highly unsatisfactory;” 3.0“unsatisfactory;” 4.0 “satisfactory;” 5.0“good;” and 6.0 “good for 2 years or more.”The average rating for the criteria consti-tutes the overall CPIA rating. Based on theoverall CPIA score, a rating can be assi-gned in the “governance at the national le-vel” cluster in each of the governance as-sessment templates in this report. A scoreof 5 can be awarded for a CPIA > 5.5 anda 1 for a CPIA < 2.5.

4) Transparency International’s Corruption Per-ceptions Index (CPI): The annual Corrup-tion Perceptions Index (CPI), first releasedin 1995, ranks 180 countries by their per-ceived levels of corruption, as determinedby expert assessments and opinion sur-veys. For CPI sources that are surveys, andwhere multiple years of the same survey areavailable, data for the last two years are in-cluded to provide a smoothing effect. Forsources that are scored provided by experts(risk agencies/country analysts), only themost recent iteration of the assessment isincluded, as these scores are generally peerreviewed and change very little from year toyear. To determine the mean value for acountry – using a scale of 1 to 10 – the stan-dardization of reports from all sources is car-

5Except Libya which has not requested development financing from the Bank.


in this report using a 5 for scores >5.5, and1 for scores <2.5.

5) AfDB CPIA Gender Equality Score: An ex-pert assessment of the extent to which acountry has enacted institutions and pro-grams to enforce laws and policies that pro-mote equal access for men and women tohuman capital development opportunities,and productive and economic resources;as well as give men and women equal sta-tus and protection under the law. Indicatorsare based on a range of 1 to 6, with 6 beingthe best.

It is recommended that the task team and sectormanager responsible for each national governanceassessment sign off that data has been drawnfrom these sources.

Table 1.2b is presented to provide additionalbackground information to task managers onspecific aspects of water sector governance thatcan be used to inform their governanceassessments. Indicators and data have beendrawn from a variety of sector-related studiesand surveys described in the footnotes belowthe table. Of particular relevance to theseassessments are the indicators on access towater supply and sanitation services, equitableservice provision and the presence of sector-wide approaches.

ried out via a matching percentiles tech-nique. A rating can be assigned in the “go-vernance at the national level” cluster in eachof the governance assessment templates

8

Signs like this one in Gombe State, Nigeria, are necessary for transparency


9

)Country

AfDB CPIA (1)

Voice and Accountabi-lity (2)

Government Effective-ness (2)

Political Stability (2)

Law, Transparen-cy & Corruption (3)

Corruption Perception Index (4)

Environmental Po-licy & Regulations (5)

Gender Equa-lity (6)

1 to 6 -2.5 to 2.5 -2.5 to 2.5-2.5 to 2.5

0 to 100 1 to 10 1 to 6 1 to 6

Algeria 3,98 -1,05 -0,50 -1,15 55,88 2,8 3,5 3,5

Angola 3,30 -1,07 -0,98 -0,43 41,64 1,9 3,0 3,0

Benin 4,06 0,34 -0,52 0,35 69,16 2,9 4,0 4,0

Botswana 4,62 0,55 0,67 0,96 85,08 5,6 4,0 5,0

Burkina Faso 4,19 -0,33 -0,67 -0,11 61,86 3,6 4,0 4,0

Burundi 3,14 -0,66 -1,21 -1,43 48,37 1,8 3,0 3,0

Cameroon 3,67 -1,02 -0,80 -0,53 51,29 2,2 3,0 4,0

Cape Verde 4,36 0,95 0,05 0,85 89,94 5,1 4,0 4,5

C. African Republic 2,89 -1,00 -1,45 -1,77 43,00 2 3,0 2,5

Chad 3,20 -1,45 -1,48 -1,92 35,64 1,6 3,0 2,5

Comoros 2,46 -0,43 -1,88 -1,01 59,21 2,3 2,5 2,5

Congo-Brazzaville 3,14 -1,16 -1,34 -0,61 44,92 1,9 3,0 3,0

Congo, D.R. 2,84 -1,48 -1,89 -2,34 31,43 1,9 3,0 2,5

Cote d'Ivoire 2,72 -1,24 -1,39 -1,91 37,70 2,1 3,0 3,0

Djibouti 3,32 -1,12 -0,98 -0,13 56,02 2,8 3,5 3,5

Egypt 4,10 -1,19 -0,37 -0,67 63,08 2,8 4,0 3,5

Equatorial Guinea 3,16 -1,89 -1,43 -0,09 47,58 1,8 2,5 2,0

Eritrea 2,49 -2,20 -1,41 -0,84 45,30 2,6 3,0 3,5

Ethiopia 3,44 -1,30 -0,43 -1,79 49,85 2,7 4,0 3,0

Gabon 3,40 -0,84 -0,70 0,23 55,10 2,9 3,0 3,5

Gambia 3,42 -0,97 -0,77 0,14 57,72 2,9 3,0 3,5

Ghana 4,03 0,48 -0,08 0,06 71,25 3,9 4,5 4,0

Guinea 3,24 -1,32 -1,39 -1,91 43,74 1,8 2,5 3,0

Guinea-Bissau 3,07 -0,79 -1,26 -0,38 46,94 1,9 3,5 3,5

Kenya 4,17 -0,16 -0,60 -1,25 53,27 2,2 3,5 4,0

Lesotho 3,84 0,04 -0,31 -0,03 68,93 3,3 3,5 4,0

Liberia 3,60 -0,29 -1,36 -0,99 45,74 3,1 3,0 3,5

Libya 3,86 -1,90 -0,84 0,48 52,59 2,5 4,0 2,5

Madagascar 3,96 -0,16 -0,59 -0,42 63,41 3,0 3,5 4,0

Malawi 3,66 -0,18 -0,65 0,05 65,60 3,3 3,5 3,5

Table 1.2a Country Governance Matrix – National Level Governance Indicators

Ranking Criteria and Governance Template Score:

Very Good (5) > 5.5 > 1.51 > 1.51 > 1.51 >80 > 5.5 > 5.1 > 5.1

Good (4) 4.6-5.4 0.01-1.50 0.01-1.50 0.01-1.50 55-79.9 4.6-5.4 4.1-5.0 4.1-5.0

Fair (3) 3.6-4.5 -1.09-0.00 -1.09-0.00 -1.09-0.00 40-54.9 3.6-4.5 3.1-4.0 3.1-4.0

Poor (2) 2.6-3.5 -1.59--1.10 -1.59--1.10-1.59--1.10

20-39.9 2.6-3.5 2.1-3.0 2.1-3.0

Very Poor (1) <2.5 <-1.60 <-1.6 <-1.6 <19.9 <2.5 <2.0 <2.0


Country

AfDB CPIA (1)

Voice and Accountabi-lity (2)

Government Effective-ness (2)

Political Stability (2)

Law, Transparen-cy & Corruption (3)

Corruption Perception Index (4)

Environmental Po-licy & Regulations (5)

Gender Equa-lity (6)

1 to 6 -2.5 to 2.5 -2.5 to 2.5-2.5 to 2.5

0 to 100 1 to 10 1 to 6 1 to 6

Mali 4,21 0,28 -0,78 -0,21 62,38 2,8 3,5 4,0

Mauritania 3,74 -0,92 -0,97 -0,93 46,31 2,5 3,5 4,0

Mauritius 4,42 0,88 0,60 0,84 86,96 5,4 4,5 4,0

Morocco 4,20 -0,70 -0,09 -0,47 61,83 3,3 4,0 4,5

Mozambique 3,73 -0,02 -0,38 0,29 62,47 2,5 4,0 4,0

Namibia 4,26 0,57 0,31 0,96 79,53 4,5 4,0 4,5

Niger 3,70 -0,41 -0,79 -0,75 56,38 2,9 3,5 3,5

Nigeria 3,73 -0,60 -0,98 -2,01 50,57 2,5 3,0 3,0

Rwanda 4,16 -1,24 -0,20 -0,14 55,53 3,3 4,5 4,5

Sao Tome & Principe

3,38 0,24 -0,74 0,29 67,51 2,8 3,0 3,5

Senegal 3,97 -0,16 -0,12 -0,16 61,85 3,0 4,0 4,0

Seychelles 3,10 -0,04 -0,01 0,91 75,46 4,8 4,5 4,0

Sierra Leone 3,40 -0,28 -1,13 -0,23 52,42 2,2 3,5 3,5

Somalia 1,00 -1,85 -2,51 -3,28 9,06 1,1 1,0 1,0

South Africa 4,91 0,68 0,75 -0,04 70,28 4,7 4,0 5,0

Sudan 2,84 -1,77 -1,41 -2,44 23,83 1,5 2,0 3,0

Swaziland 3,42 -1,20 -0,66 0,22 63,31 3,6 3,5 3,0

Tanzania 4,01 -0,09 -0,45 0,01 64,59 2,6 4,0 3,5

Togo 2,96 -1,13 -1,43 -0,10 55,27 2,8 3,0 2,5

Tunisia 4,77 -1,26 0,35 0,29 62,54 4,2 4,5 5,0

Uganda 4,28 -0,47 -0,51 -0,88 56,03 2,5 4,0 4,0

Zambia 3,86 -0,09 -0,66 0,29 66,46 3,0 3,5 3,0

Zimbabwe 1,67 -1,52 -1,56 -1,56 28,92 2,2 2,5 2,0

4) Transparency International (2009) Corruption Perception Index 2009 (www.transparency.org). Scores assigned on a scale of 1 to 10,based on surveys of perceived levels of public sector corruption.5) AfDB 2008 CPIA Country Policy and Institutional Assessments Scores (AfDB, 2009)6) AfDB 2008 CPIA Gender Equality Score: An expert assessment of the extent to which a country has enacted institutions and programsto enforce laws and policies that promote equal access for men and women to human capital development opportunities, and productiveand economic resources; as well as give men and women equal status and protection under the law. Indicators are based on a range of1 to 6, with 6 being the best. (AfDB 2009)

10

NOTES1) AfDB 2008 CPIA Country Policy and Institutional Assessments Scores (AfDB, 2009). Countries are rated on a scale of 1 (“HighlyUnsatisfactory») to 6 (Highly Satisfactory).2) World Bank, Governance Matters 2009, (http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp); Kaufmann D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi2008: Governance Matters VIII: Governance Indicators for 1996-2008.3) Ibrahim Index Indicator for <Safety and Rule of Law> (Ibrahim, 2009, www.moibrahimfoundation.org). Indicator is an aggregate measure ofthe quality of four sub-indicators measuring national security, personal safety, the rule of law and accountability & corruption.


11

Country

pAWSecivreS fo ytiuqEsseccAsrotacidnI rotceS retaWMRWIState of Water Resources

IWRM Plan Progress (7)

National Strategies (8)

Institutional Arrangements (9)

Sector Financing (8)

Water Sec-tor M&E (9)

Sector Capacity (8)

Water Ac-cess (10)

Difference in Access (Urban - Rural) (11)

Presence of SWAp (12)

Water Poverty Index (13)

Scale 1 to 3 A to C A to C A to C A to C A to C Total Water - 0 to 100

Algeria 7,94%6%58

Angola 3 3,14%32%15

Benin 2 C B B C B 65% 21% W, H 39,3

Botswana 2 96% 10% H 56,6

Burkina Faso 1 B B B B B 72% 31% W, H, E 41,5

Burundi 3 71% 14% H, E* 40,2

Cameroon 2 70% 41% H** 53,6

Cape Verde 3 8,04%08

C. African Republic 3 2,44%93%66

Chad 3 48% 31% 38,5

Comoros 4,44%01%58

Congo-Brazzaville 3 71% 60% 57,3

Congo, D.R. 3 C C C C C 46% 53% 46,0

Cote d'Ivoire 7,54%23%18

Djibouti 3 92% 44% 38,4

Egypt 2 98% 1% H 58,0

Equatorial Guinea 43% 7,76%3

Eritrea 2 60% 17% 37,4

Ethiopia 2 B B B B B 42% 65% W, H 35,4

Gabon 5,16%84%78

Gambia 3,84%01%68

Ghana 2 A A B B B 80% 19% W, H 45,3

Guinea 7,15%23%07

Guinea-Bissau 1,84%53%75

Kenya 2 B C A C C 57% 36% W 47,3

Lesotho 3 C 78% 19% H 43,2

Liberia 64% 20%

Libya 3

Madagascar A C B A B 47% 5,74%04

Malawi 2 B B C B C 76% 24% W**, H 38,0

Mali 2 60% 38% H, E 40,6

Mauritania 2 B C B B A 60% 16% H 49,8

Table 1.2b Country Governance Matrix – Water Sector Governance Indicators


Country

pAWSecivreS fo ytiuqEsseccAsrotacidnI rotceS retaWMRWIState of Water Resources

IWRM Plan Progress (7)

National Strategies (8)

Institutional Arrangements (9)

Sector Financing (8)

Water Sec-tor M&E (9)

Sector Capacity8

Water Ac-cess (10)

Difference in Access (Urban - Rural) (11)

Presence of SWAp (12)

Water Poverty Index (13)

1 to 3 A to C A to C A to C A to C A to C Total Water - 0 to 100

Mauritius 2 8,95%0%001

Morocco 2 2,64%24%38

Mozambique 2 C B B B C 42% 45% W**, H 44,9

Namibia 1 0,06%9%39

Niger B B B B B 42% 59% H, E 35,2

Nigeria 2 47% 9,34%53

Rwanda 3 65% 21% E 39,4

Sao Tome & Prin-cipe

86% 5%

Senegal 2 B B A B A 77% 28% W, H 45,3

Seychelles 88%

Sierra Leone 53% 51% H 41,9

Somalia 29% 53%

South Africa 1 93% 18% W, H 52,2

Sudan 2 4,94%41%07

Swaziland 2 3,35%63%06

Tanzania 2 B B A B B 55% 35% W, H 48,3

Togo 0,64%64%95

Tunisia 9,05%51%49A2

Uganda 1 A A B B B 64% 30% W, H 44,0

Zambia 2 C B C C C 58% 49% H, E 50,4

Zimbabwe 1 4,35%62%18

Ranking Criteria and Governance Template Score:

Good (5) 9.55 >%01<%19>AAAAA

Satisfactory (4) 1 80-90% 11-24% W 50-54.9

Fair (3) 2 B B B B B 61-79% 25-39% H and/or E 46-49.9

Unsatisfactory (2) 3 51-60% 40-49% None 40.1-45.9

04<-%05>%05<CCCCC)1( rooP

NOTES7) GWP Survey (2006) Results for progress of country’s IWRM Plan (UN Water, May 2008) Scale: 1 - IWRM plan in place; 2 - IWRM plan in preparation; 3 - IWRM in initial planningsteps only 8) Estimated scores based on information in “Getting Africa on Track to Meet the MDGs” (WSP, 2006)9) Estimated scores based on information in “Getting Africa on Track to Meet the WSS MDGs” (WSP, 2006) and the evaluation undertaken of M&E Systems in the Draft Synthesis Reportfor the Pan-African Water Sector M&E Assessment. 10) Percentage of overall population with access to water (urban and rural) (JMP, 2008, www.wssinfo.org)11) Difference in water access rates between urban and rural inhabitants (JMP, 2008, www.wssinfo.org), where urban is always > rural. 12) Existence of SWAp in social services sectors (Various sources, 2008) W - Water Sector; H - Health Sector; E - Education Sector. ** SWAp planned in sector in 200813) Water Poverty Index (WPI): an International Comparison (Keele Economic Research Papers, 2002). WPI is a measure of available resources, access, capacity, use and environment.2002 data is the most recent available. 12


Operator at a water treatment plant in Rumphi, Malawi


need to be kept up-to-date and put intopractice. The latter can best be determinedthrough use of the detailed indicators (Table2.5) during project preparation, which wouldlikely involve field verification.

Legislation is crucial to policy implementation.In most African states, the water sector’s legalframework is a combination of related waterresources, utilities, health and environmentallaws and regulation dating back often tocolonial times. Typically, their updating is acomplex and on-going effort. Nevertheless,legislation forms the basis of institutionaljurisdictions, water rights, regulation andconflict resolution. As a result of often out-of-date and poorly harmonized legislation,institutions overlap and often have conflictinginterests and responsibilities, with the resultthat rights and regulations are difficult if notimpossible to enforce. The governanceassessment should include an assessment ofthe state of legislation and the degree to whichit supports policy and provides for clearseparation of stakeholder roles andresponsibilities.

B) Regulation

The vast majority of water sector regulators inAfrica are not independent and cannot regulatewithout referring to government. Althoughseveral countries use informal regulationmechanisms such as performance agreementsbetween service providers and authorities and

1.2.2 Legal Framework

A) Policy and Legislation

Sector policies provide for an enablingenvironment for sector development, formingthe foundation for good governance. As such,they should incorporate principles of goodgovernance throughout. Furthermore, theprocess of their creation is also important.Consensus building between stakeholdersduring the formulation of policies builds linkagesand networks and is often the first real attemptat a truly sector wide approach. In assessingsector governance, a review of the processtaken to develop policy and to gain acceptanceacross sector stakeholders is useful inunderstanding its context and determiningchances for its implementation in practice.

The content of sector policies can be reviewedfrom a governance perspective. The indicators(Table 2.2), at the level of rapid assessmentprovide a basis for this review. The assessormight use the indicators as a checklist to determ-ine the degree to which governance has beenaddressed in the policies themselves. Indicatorsrelated to decentralization, financial management,regulation, IWRM, civil society participation, rightsto water and equitable service delivery are all veryrelevant in this respect.

The assessment should investigate the historyof policy and strategy development. Policies

14


heard and no right to recourse or appeal. In asmuch as regulation is at the heart of goodgovernance, and particularly in monopolysituations, the suggested indicators (Table 2.5)should be applied to all situations, butdisaggregated between at least rural and urbanconsumers/users. A more in-depthassessment would investigate the history of in-country cases of tariff setting, arbitration,standards setting and monitoring of servicequality to determine the degree ofindependence from government, politicalinfluence used and the fairness and equity ofdecisions and outcomes.

maintenance of good customer relations theyusually fall short of requirements. In assessingthe regulatory framework, the effectiveness ofthe following regulatory functions should bereviewed:

• Setting of tariffs and fair prices; • Setting of standards for services and mo-

nitoring of providers; • Enforcement of regulatory decisions, stan-

dards and rules, assurance of compliancewith acceptable accounting practices;

• Arbitration of disputes between serviceproviders and consumers;

• Protection of customers from unfair prac-tices; and,

• Promotion of competition and the preven-tion of abuse of monopoly power.

In each, the degree of independence fromgovernment and political influence orinterference needs to be assessed, particularlyfrom the perspective of consumer protectionand fairness to all parties.

Urban and water resources regulation isusually, although not always, provided for byformal regulatory authorities. They seldomregulate in rural or peri-urban areas. There,services are commonly at the behest ofgovernment or service providers. Particularattention needs to be given to the abovefunctions but within the context of rural, poorand marginalized groups. These consumers orusers typically have to use whatever politicalinfluence they have, and often through userassociations with little assurance of their being

15

In Cross River State, Nigeria


providers to assume responsibility but also thedegree to which they have been provided thenecessary capacity building, resources andauthority to carry out their new responsibilities.Although local bodies are often givenresponsibility for services provision, the tools todo so are still in the hands of centralgovernment. Their staff, for example, are stillunder the control of the central governmentwhich pays them, and is responsible for theirpromotions and transfers. Although projectsmay be implemented locally, they are plannedand even designed by central or regionalengineers with little or no input by the serviceprovider or community. The assessment shouldreview the entire chain of budgeting, planning,design, implementation, project managementand O&M processes to determine the degreeof devolution of responsibility, resources andauthority to local levels. In addition, one needsto identify all sources of funds and which levelof government has influence over theirbudgeting, allocation, expenditure andprocurement functions.

Decentralization is normally driven byauthorities outside of the sector such as by theOffice of the President or Cabinet throughMinistries of Local Government and Finance.The degree to which sector agencies haveresponded and complied with decentralizationreforms and their commitment to the process isindicative of the extent to which the sector willeventually achieve devolution. Clarity of rolesand responsibilities is important to the success

1.2.3 Institutions

A) Decentralization

Decentralization has become a key mechanismin implementing the Dublin principle ofsubsidiarity. Most countries have decentralizedwater services provision to district and/ormunicipal governments and are in the processof decentralizing management of waterresources to basin level. The efficiency andeffectiveness of the decentralization processdirectly affects sector governance. Key issuesare the extent of decentralization and whetheror not the responsibilities allocated to lowertiers of government have been matched withthe necessary authority and resources(financial, human and logistical).

Indeed, there is danger in decentralizing tooquickly, for example before enabling policiesand legislation are in place and before localcapacity and competence can bestrengthened, particularly in the areas ofmanagement and procurement. On the otherhand, many country sectors have beenreluctant to truly decentralize and have beenslow in resources and assets transfer. Theresult is a form of de-concentration (notdevolution) whereby the centre retains powerover key staff and functions.

The assessment should look not only into thepreparedness of local government and services

16


are often an easier, quicker and less expensiveway of reaching the poor with improvedservices.

Sector practitioners have come to realize thatwith the exclusion of the smaller providers andvendors, privately operated utilities provide onlya small portion of the world’s water supply andeven less of sanitation, 5% to 10% at most.Over time, Africa has therefore developed itsown utility models and is finding that efficiencyand consumer responsiveness depends lesson whether the utility is private or public andmore on the local context, the quality ofregulation and the nature of their contracts6.The question is less about whetherinternational companies should gain access tolocal markets and more about how both publicand private operators can better provideservice to the un-served, and particularly thepoor and marginalized.

of decentralization and reform processes, androles and responsibilities should be clearlyspelled out in the applicable laws andregulations. In addition, the arrangements forsuch things as assets and personnel transfersneed to be clearly spelled out in agreementsbetween the cooperating parties.

B) Alternative Service Providers

Small scale private entrepreneurial providers ofwater and sanitation (including vendors),otherwise known as alternative serviceproviders (ASPs) are important actors to takeinto account in governance assessments,particularly due to their role in reaching thepoor and un-served. ASPs offer the advantageof working in low income areas that are difficultto reach with pipe networks and they operatewithout subsidy and dependence on the publicpurse. By being responsive and innovative they

17

6IIED (2006) “Governance and Getting the Private Sector to Provide Better Water and Sanitation Services to the Urban Poor”,

UK by Gordon McGranahan and David Satterthwaite

Rainwater Harvesting at aschool in Uganda


of such a working group greatly improvetransparency, coordination, harmonization andintrasector linkages.

There is a separation of institutional rolesbetween stakeholders under SWAps that isalso becoming common in countries that arenot employing SWAps or even undergoingdecentralization. The separation is betweenpolicy formation, standards setting and qualityassurance on the one hand and projectimplementation and service provision on theother. These roles need to be clearly definedand separated in policy, legislation andpractice. Making an assessment in this regardsrequires defining the degree to which this isaccomplished in practice. The impact of aninsufficient separation of roles on governancelies in the lack of transparency and accoun-tability resulting from unclear roles that allow foroverlapping jurisdictions and even conflictbetween sector agencies.

B) Sector Financial Management

The study of financial management practicesacross the sector reveals many of its governanceattributes. A starting point is the process ofbudget formation and whether or not (1) it ispolicy sensitive; (2) it responds to sector targetrequirements such as the MDGs; (3) allocationsto the water sector are balanced with those ofhealth and education; and (4) it reflects needsand allocations are distributed equitably.

1.2.4 Sector Management

A) Sector-wide Approaches (SWAps)

Eleven African countries are using the sector-wideapproaches (SWAps) in their water sectors andmany more in health or education sectors. SWApsbring many attributes that strongly benefitgovernance. These include annual sectorperformance assessments, joint sector reviewsand resultant undertakings, harmonization ofsector policies across sub-sectors, adherence tosector investment plans, improved monitoring anduse of its information in sector planning andmanagement, increased equity of servicesprovision, unit cost analysis, value for moneyaudits, and expenditure reviews. All can positivelyaffect sector performance, development effec-tiveness and operational efficiency. SWAps canalso provide for general and earmarked budgetsupport with implications for improved projectmanagement and lower transaction costs.

As discussed in Chapter 2, althoughassessment indicators are linked to SWAps,many of the above benefits can be obtainedoutside of formal SWAps and should beidentified whether or not a sector is operatingunder such an approach. One of the keyelements in this regard is the sectorstakeholder working group with representationof all stakeholders from government depar-tments through to NGOs, the private sectorand user groups. Regular and open meetings

18


financial information seldom goes beyondmonitoring project expenditures. The comb-ined analysis of financial and operationalinformation can reveal governance-relatedparameters such as comparative costs ofservice delivery between urban and rural orwealthy and poor user groups, disparities inunit costs of services delivery and theeffectiveness of subsidies and their distributionacross recipient groups.

These are relatively easily assessed7. Themanner in which allocations are transferred andthe various influences over their division to thevarious levels of government and sub-sectorsis also important. Some countries such asSouth Africa and Uganda have achievedformula-based allocation, which minimizesmanipulation once the central budget has beenformulated. The formulae should beperformance based and weighted to reflectsector policy, population, disparities in accessto services, and marginalization of targetgroups. Assessments should review allocativeprocesses beyond the service provisionauthority. For example, are the resourceallocations reaching the populations they wereoriginally targeted to, or are they being divertedto more influential constituencies or consumerswith higher capacity to pay for services?

Assessing financial management competenciesis particularly relevant in the lower tiers ofgovernment under decentralization. Low creditratings of municipalities, for instance, are theresult of poor financial management. Thesestrongly influence municipalities’ capacity to raiseloans from the private sector and developmentbanks and determine their ability to invest in newand rehabilitate old infrastructure.

Operational and financial management typicallyfunction in their separate spheres. Use of

19

7Though not broken down to the sector-level, a resource that could be drawn upon in this regard include the World Bank’s

growing library of PFM Performance Reports available through the PEFA Secretariat or www.pefa.org. Reports for most Sub-

Saharan African countries should be available by the end of 2008.

Slow Sand Filter, Mchinji, Malawi


to be effective. Some of the best examples ofmonitoring and the use of information comefrom countries using SWAps, where annualsector performance evaluation is part of jointsector reviews. In these cases, monitoringinformation is in demand, annually updated andcommon knowledge across the sector.

In assessing monitoring systems, some of thekey questions are (1) is monitoring consistent,sustained and using harmonized indicators; (2)is the information used in sector planning andmanagement both centrally and by serviceproviders; (3) can key questions be answeredsuch as equity of service provision and unitcosts of service delivery; and (4) are regularsector performance assessments using theinformation produced by monitoring andevaluation systems?

C) Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation information iscritically important to good governance. It is thebasis on which such things as access to andquality of services are assessed. It is also thebasis on which water resource allocations aremade and pollution controlled. As such itneeds to be holistic and inclusive of all sectors.Typically, monitoring has been project fundedand thereby limited to project use. Informationhas been ad hoc and fragmented. Seldom is itintegrated into sector operations and reliablyfunded and is thereby not sustained. In suchcases, the information it provides it is of littleuse to governance assessments.

Information from monitoring must be updated,reliable and used in planning and management

20


towards IWRM should be assessed not solelyon the existence of IWRM policy and plans, butalso on the progress towards implementationthrough programmes or pilot projects in place.With the above in mind, assessment ofgovernance in water resources managementneeds to incorporate the degree and type ofstakeholder participation involved in developingplans and decision-making. The major waterusers should be known and their water usemanaged through a fair and transparentsystem of licensing or permits. Likewise, theextent of pollution of surface and groundwatershould be known and major polluters alsomanaged.

B) Environmental Management

As an associated sub-sector, environmentalmanagement refers to the broader envir-onment, of which water resources form a part.As such the state of the environment has amajor impact on the water sector, and itsgovernance should be assessed.

The assessment should include environmentallaw, policies, regulations and procedures andthe degree to which they are effectivelyapplied and enforced. Related ministries andagencies such as those in forestry andagriculture should have clear mandates thatavoid overlap, duplication and conflict andpromote cooperation and teamwork with theenvir-onment ministry. There will be examplesof such cooperation that are relevant to water

1.2.5 Resources Management

A) Water Resources

Integrated Water Resources Managementpresents a model for managing waterresources based on sound principles of goodgovernance. IWRM is essentially a politicalprocess, providing a viable framework forsustainable use and management of waterresources at catchment or basin level. Theoverall goal is to have water resourceallocations in line with sustainable use,economic efficiency and social equity prin-cipals. Basin plans should be developedincorporating stakeholder views on mana-gement and development priorities for thebasin. As such the plans should synthesize thetechnical and social priorities for the basin andact as the basis for action and accountability tothe stakeholders. Stakeholder participation andconsensus building needs to form the basis ofdecision-making that takes into account thebest interests of society, the environment andthe development and use of water resources inthe basin through effective cooperationbetween government and basin stakeholders.

While many governments have adopted IWRMin policy and plans, few have put it into practicebeyond the pilot basin scale. This is recognizedin the governance assessment indicators,which address governance in both integratedand non-integrated forms of WRM. Progress

21


22

sector governance, such as watershedmanagement and conservation efforts, thatwill deserve investigation. Similarly, nearly allcountries have environmental protection actswhich incorporate use of EnvironmentalImpact Assessments (EIAs) that are

mandatory for all development projects. Ifcorrectly applied and enforced, EIAs andassociated environmental and socialsafeguards are appropriate means of ensuringgood governance that directly impact thewater sector.

Poorly managed solid waste dump in Nairobi, Kenya


23

1.2.6 Transparency, Accountability & Corruption

A) Transparency and Accountability

Typically, governments are reluctant to divulgeinformation. This is particularly true ofgovernments with a history of colonialism inwhich withholding information fromgovernment was used as tool in ensuringpublic order. Yet transparency is a keydemocratic principle and essential to goodgovernance. In the water sector, it is essentialfor participatory planning and communityinvolvement, which are the basis forsustainable water resources management andcommunity management of rural systems.

Although written into policies and evenregulations and procedures, transparency ingovernment is difficult to achieve. There arepoints in the planning and project cycles,however, where transparency can beintroduced with relatively few resources buthave a substantial impact. Means of sharinginformation with the public can include suchtools as public information boards atcommunity or local government levels, theinternet, radio, television and newspapers. Thesharing of sector information in local councilsor assemblies is also another effective meansof informing the public.

Governance assessments in this regards lookinto what information is shared, with whom,

how and when. Key points in the project cyclewhere transparency must be taken intoaccount include: budgeting, central planning,programme formulation, local needsassessment and development planning,procurement, project implementation andoperation. In short, the public should beinformed at all stages as information underpinsall aspects of public acceptance, ownershipand long term sustainability.

Accountability depends heavily ontransparency and is yet another principle ofgood governance and essential to qualityservices provision and sustainability. Bothupward and downward accountability areimportant. As reflected in legislation andprocedures forming the basis of the sector’sinstitutional framework and hierarchy, sectormanagement demands that lower tiers areaccountable to central levels. Yet effectivesector management also demands that serviceproviders are accountable and therebyresponsive to the consumer/user.

The indicators listed in the governanceassessment templates focus on mechanismsand their effectiveness that supportaccountability of the provider to the recipient.These include participatory planning andbudgeting, stakeholder participation in waterresource allocation decisions, the transparentsharing of information on projects, services andexpenditures, channels for complaint andrecourse, regulation, advocacy or “watchdog”organizations monitoring government


The World Bank has published a useful list ofwarning signs that may indicate corruption10.Ithighlights corruption risks occurring within theproject cycle. These are listed below withdetails of warning signs listed in ensuingsections.

• During project identification there are risksin project selection evident in preferencefor “high rent” projects that offer greaterchances for bribery and commissions.These include the large infrastructure pro-jects in water resources and piped watersupply and sewerage schemes. Projectsmay be preferred in which favoured com-panies are “hard-wired” by their havingcontrol over market segments such aswhere there are limited numbers of manu-facturers or suppliers of pipes meetingstringent technical specifications

• During project preparation there may bean over-estimation of equipment require-ments or capital expenditures. Likewise,studies can be manipulated in ways thatcan pave the way for fraud and corruptionduring implementation. Supervisory me-chanisms may be weak, under-designedor under-resourced thereby increasing therisk of corruption, particularly in remote orinaccessible locations. Projects that givediscretionary powers to individuals such

decisions and expenditures, consumerorganizations and open procurementprocedures8.

B) Corruption

Corruption is the most prevalent and insidiousproduct of poor governance and flourisheswhen there is lack of transparency, weakinstitutions, low accountability and excessivediscretionary power. As a result, the globalwater crisis is often described as “a crisis ofgovernance: man-made, with ignorance, greedand corruption at its core. But the worst ofthem all is corruption9.” In the water sector,corruption comes in many forms: pettycorruption (e.g. bribes or kick backs), fraud(misleading invoices for work not performed),collusion (e.g. between bidders of a tender),coercion (e.g. threats), obstruction (impedingand investigation) and undue influence(nepotism and favours). On the other hand, ithas been amply demonstrated that corruptioncan be mitigated and even eliminated wheresystems have been developed and civil societyhas been enlisted to combat it, and whereprosecution mechanisms are effective. Thesehave been incorporated in general terms in the“light” and “rapid” assessment templates andin more detail in the assessment template forthe project preparation and project conceptnote stage.

24

8World Bank Country Procurement Assessment Reports (CPAR) could be drawn upon as a resource to inform this section

of the governance assessment. See section 2.1.11 of the main report for more information9Transparency International (2008)”Global Corruption Report”, 2008, Cambridge Press, UK, Foreword by Prof. Wangari

Maathai10World Bank, Latin America and Caribbean Region (2007) “Good Practices: Corruption Warning Signs, Is your project at

risk?” Vol. 1, No.1


thods, technical specifications and bid eva-luation criteria are all subject to potentialmanipulation. Also to watch are the tenderadvertising process, prequalification of bid-ders, bid preparation time, access to infor-mation by the bidders, and flexibility of bidevaluation criteria. Risks also prevail duringcontract implementation especially in frontloading, change orders, product substitu-tion and deliberate use of weak supervi-sors or monitors.

It is worth noting that in its Global CorruptionReport, Transparency International estimatesthat in developing countries corruption raisesthe price of connecting a household to a waternetwork by as much as 30 per cent. Thisinflates the overall costs for achieving theMDGs for water and sanitation by more thanUSD 48 billion.

Corruption thus takes a special place in thegovernance assessment. Its indicators pointboth to positive measures against corruptionand to warning signs of corruption during theproject cycle.

as the granting of subsidies, issuing li-censes and authorizing payments run therisk of these powers being abused. Pur-poseful expansion of these powers couldbe made in attempts to maximize oppor-tunities for kickbacks and solicitations.

• During implementation there is reliance onworks supervisors and inspectors over-seeing and certifying the quality of worksand materials. Little or no verification opensthe doors to corruption risk. The nature andquality of financial management largely de-termines the ease with which corruptioncan take place. Poor financial managementis an enabling condition and substantiallyincreases risks. The formulation of projectbudgets provides opportunity for alloca-tion of resources and project activities thatincrease rent seeking opportunities. Risksare greatest during implementation espe-cially in faulty procurement practices, pooraccounting and reporting and weaknessesin internal controls and audit. Procurementis most susceptible and within it decisionsof contract packaging, procurement me-

25


26

1.2.7 Participation

A) Civil Society

Active involvement of civil society is acornerstone of good governance in the sector.It positively impacts virtually every aspect ofgovernance from project conceptualizationthrough to the eventual quality, distribution andsustainability of services provision. Despite itsincorporation into policy, strategies and evenlegislation, its implementation has beendisappointing. This has been the result ofpersistent practices of governments that arereluctant to pilot new methods, include newpartners as stakeholders, to be open andtransparent in their dealings with the public andto become accountable to the communitiesthey are mandated to serve.

In assessing the level and effectiveness of civilsociety involvement, focus is given in theassessment indicators (Table 2.5) toparticipatory planning. This should beundertaken both at the project and largercommunity level in both rural and urbansituations, but particularly in the rural sector.Sector planning, for example, should reflectneeds at local level in district-wide plans. Theseshould comprise individual projects that aredefined at the community level. Municipal andlocal government sector plans should integrateinto overall development planning and bereflected at central levels both in the broader

development context and in sectordevelopment plans.

In order for rural communities to assumeresponsibility for and ownership of theirschemes, they also have to be involved in theirdesign and be trained in constructionsupervision, operation, maintenance, repairand overall management (including financialmanagement). This calls for a developmentalapproach to project implementation thatrequires time and resources that are often notincorporated into project plans and designs.Accustomed to target-driven and engineeringapproaches, service providers are unfamiliarwith the facilitation, training and mentoringneeded. Experience is demonstrating,however, that with effective decentralization,particularly to the point of devolution, greatercredence is being given to a developmentorientation with higher success rates.

In assessing community participation, focusgroup discussions with user groups is useful ifnot essential in understanding fully andaccurately the degree to which the communityhas been involved, its influence over the designand governance related events during itsimplementation. For the same reason, fieldvisits are also recommended to localgovernment in rural areas and to the lowincome beneficiary groups in the urban andperi-urban areas.


27

B) Gender

It has been amply demonstrated that women’sinput in decision-making leads to moreequitable and sustainable coverage of waterand sanitation services; that involving womenin influential roles can hasten the achievementof sustainability in the management of scarcewater resources; and that managing water inan integrated and sustainable way cancontribute significantly to better gender equityby improving the access of women and men towater and water-related services to meet theiressential needs11. Yet in most African countries,explicit gender considerations are not integr-ated into water policies and ministries, mentypically have more influence than women overthe utilization of water resources, many poorwomen are not able to afford water tariffs, andwomen remain disproportionately affected bywater crises such as floods.

Gender is closely related to water governanceat all levels, yet efforts to mainstream genderand enhance women’s roles have beensuperficial and difficult to sustain. For example,typical gender training may inform policy-makers, but seldom changes attitudes.Furthermore, while gender equality andmainstreaming in the sector has been given

extensive attention, these efforts are typicallysmall scale. Despite women’s increasinglyinfluential role on local water and sanitationuser committees, few African examples existwhere women participate meaningfully inplanning and decision-making roles in design,implementation and O&M of water services.Gender mainstreaming requires real changes inattitudes and practices, which has provenextremely difficult in the usual male engineer-dominated sector institutions.

National gender policies tend to have littleimpact in the typical water sector. Sectorpolicies go further and are likely to impact thesector more directly. Just the same, it cannotbe assumed that policies and even gendertraining will have significant impact on women’sroles in practice. The indicators selected forgender assessment are designed to highlightkey areas of gender related governance andenable identification of issues that call forfurther investigation. The contribution ofwomen in decision-making roles from planningto project implementation are highlighted in theindicators but just as important to assess arethe challenges facing women working in thesector and the recognition they are given aslegitimate contributors by their malecounterparts.

11 Ibid; Gender and Water Alliance, “The Gender and Water Development Report 2003: Gender Perspectives on Policies in

the Water Sector,” 2003.


28

Rural water supply near Louga, Northwestern Senegal


29

C) Rights and Voice

Rights to Water

The right to water and sanitation is implied bythe International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) signed by158 parties including nearly all Africancountries. The Covenant requires signatories toensure that everyone within their jurisdictionhas access to the underlying determinants ofhealth, such as clean water and san-itation12.These rights do not entitle people tofree or unlimited water but they do imply rightsto sufficient, clean, accessible, and affordablewater and sanitation. They also include non-discrimination and inclusion of vulnerable andmarginalized groups13.

The governance assessment should firstdetermine what rights have been agreed to,their inclusion in policy and law, and the degreeto which rights are being recognized inpractice. This includes the priority given towater resources management and water andsanitation in budgetary and political processes,measures taken to improve affordability ofservices, and the purposeful inclusion ofmarginal groups through implementation ofpro-poor policies and PRSPs.

Moreover, the degree to which rights toaccess, quality and quantity of water are being

recognized can be assessed by policies andimplementation of set standards of waterquality, distance/time for collection, andservices reliability and sustainability.

Voice

Citizens have the right to demand qualityservices and to hold service providersaccountable for failing to carry out theirresponsibilities. Experience has demonstratedthat the quality of services is enhanced wherethe provider is held accountable to its clients,the consumer. In monopoly situations (typicalof water supply) this is only possible where theconsumer is specifically provided channels forvoicing informed complaint and suggestions,and where the provider is responsive andmotivated to resolve issues and improveservice. Unfortunately, in the absence ofcompetition and choice, the consumer is facedwith accepting the status quo. Lack ofinformation leaves the consumer at adisadvantage and unable to articulate theirdemands for better services.

Bitter experience teaches the public thatgetting government to respond is bestachieved through influence and bribery. Inmany countries this is reinforced by the lack ofavenues for voice and recourse againstdelinquent service providers. Even if suchmechanisms exist, many users believe that, at

12International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), Articles 11 and 12, and the Cairo Conference on

Population and Development (1994).13 SDC, AAAS, UN-HABITAT, COHRE (2007) “Manual on the right to Water and Sanitation”

http://www.cohre.org/store/attachments/RWP%20-%20summary-A4-lowres.pdf


30

best, complaint is futile and, at worst, evendangerous, as retribution is easily taken againstthose without influence. This has a significantimpact on good governance, which demandsaccountability. This cannot be driven fromabove but has to begin with those mostinformed and interested in quality services. Thepublic must have voice and effective avenuesfor expression. Regretfully, few governmentsrecognize the real value of providing open andresponsive avenues for consumer complaints,and therefore few have experienced thebenefits that can be achieved when thecombined interests of the service provider,politician and consumer are aligned.

There are several alternative approaches toproviding channels for consumer voice,including regulatory authorities, town anddistrict councils, water user associations, basincommittees, advocacy NGOs, consumerassociations, complaint centres, omb-udspersons and the judiciary. Most of theseoperate at higher levels than are accessible tothe majority of the target population. Allavailable channels for expressing one’s voiceneed to be assessed in light of their acc-essibility, use, effectiveness andresponsiveness.

1.2.8 Equitable Services Provision

The MDGs call for inclusion and non-discrimination against marginalized groups.Those most vulnerable to marginalizationinclude women, children, inhabitants ofdeprived areas such as slums, refugees and

asylum seekers, the aged and disabled, victimsof natural disasters, people living in arid areasand nomads. Although many countries areimplementing poverty reduction programmesintended to address this issue, few if any areresolving it.

Budgets may well be responsive to pro-poorpolicy but by the time expenditures are actuallymade, allocations are frequently diverted to themore influential and affluent who are able topay for the services. Public spending thereforetypically benefits the rich rather than the poor.Similarly, politicization of the water sector alsohas its impact on the poor. Politicians, with aneye on their electoral performance, intervene inproject design and distort services distributionin favour of their voting constituencies.

As a result, of particular concern are the vastand increasing populations of slums and peri-urban areas, women and girls who, althoughresponsible for water, sanitation and health oftheir families, are disempowered and leftoutside decision-making circles.

The above discriminatory practices need to beunderstood and policies and practices thatfavour equity distribution need to be identifiedand assessed. These include PRSPs and theirimplementation, participatory planning andbudgeting where it exists, the monitoring ofservices provision by user groups andconsumer associations, gender and pro-poorresponsive budgeting, and the assessment ofequity distribution services by monitoringtechniques, such as Water Point Mapping.


31

In rural Malawi


32

2. Application

of Assessment

Templates

2.1 Light Assessment of Water Sector Governance

The Light Assessment, Table 2.1, is intendedto broadly characterize sector governance

and identify its main areas of risk. It may alsobe used for inter-country comparisonprovided that allowance is made for thesubjective nature of its indicators that arenecessarily perception-based. It should beused by the task manager, task team andother water sector practitioners, who are wellfamiliar and experienced in the country’swater sector, and can be undertaken prior toproject identification. Reference is made toSection 1.1.1 on scoring the indicators and toSection 2 for background on governance andthe application of the template.

Water pipelinemaintenance,Rwanda


33

Category Indicator **

Governance at National Level

1. Published Governance Indicators (Refer to Table 3.2a)a) World Governance Index – Voice and Accountabilityb) World Governance Index – Government Effectivenessc) World Governance Index – Political Stabilityd) AfDB Country Policy and Institutional Assessmente) Transparency International Corruption Perception Indexf) Gender Related Development Index (UNDP-GDI)

Legal Framework2. Sector policies are in place and legislated that support good governance and are

up-to-date and being implemented.R,U,WR

Institutions

3. The regulatory framework provides for:a) Complaint and recourseb) The setting of fair tariffsc) The assurance of service standards andd) Enhances market competition

R,U,WR

4. Approaches used by sector institutions reflect principles of good governance in that theyare transparent, inclusive, and equitable.

R,U,WR

ResourcesManagement

5. Water resources and services provision management is undertaken at the lowest appropriate level (decentralization / subsidiarity).

R,U,WR

Sector Management6. Sector management incorporates a sector-wide approach, a stakeholder working

group, regular performance assessments and joint sector reviews.R,U,WR

Transparency, Accountability andCorruption

7. Procurement of goods and services is fair and transparent.8. There is explicit commitment to anti-corruption and its advocacy within sector

institutions.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

Civil Society

9. Users participate in planning ensuring that their needs are addressed in local sector plans that are then reflected in national sector plans.

10. Service providers are responsive and consumers/users can complain through recognized channels with reasonable confidence that they will be heard.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

Equitable ServicesProvision

11. Citizen’s rights to water as agreed under international conventions (e.g. the MDGs) are incorporated into policies and programmes.

12. Water and sanitation services are provided equitably between rich and poor, urban andrural populations.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

Monitoring andEvaluation

13. Functioning WSS & water resources M&E systems are in place and support sector planning and management.

R,U,WR

Table 2.1 "LIGHT” ASSESSMENT OF WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE

** R: Rural, U: Urban, WR: Water Resources


34

2.2 Rapid Assessment of Water Sector Governance

The rapid assessment of water sectorgovernance is undertaken as a quick andinexpensive overview of sector governancebefore or during project identification. It can beused to:

1. Provide an overall understanding of thestate of governance at country and sec-tor levels;

2. Identify areas of governance concern; 3. Point to governance risks that may affect

project implementation and sustainability;4. Help suggest mitigation measures, project

initiatives or components that might ad-dress risks and areas of governanceconcern; and,

5. Highlight needs for further information andinvestigation.

The rapid assessment template, Table 2.2 isdesigned for use by the individual TaskManager who is familiar with the country’swater sector, and/or the Task or Country Team.It is based on scoring 33 indicators and so canbe completed within hours or used in facilitatinga half day workshop.

The scope of the assessment and its indicatorsis broad and intended to encourageconsideration of a wide range of governanceareas and issues. The way each indicator isphrased is intended to encourage further

thought, to help identify more specificgovernance issues and to trigger “secondlooks”. Indicators are stated in the positive toensure consistency in scoring. Reference ismade to Section 1.1.1.

Each indicator can be scored along a spectrumfrom 1-5:

1 Poor2 Unsatisfactory3 Fair4 Satisfactory5 Good

The indicators used in these water sectorgovernment assessments include aggregateindicators that are selectively drawn from themany aggregate country level indicators thatare relevant to the sector but at country level. Insome instances, as presented in Table 1.2athese are somewhat disaggregated to providegreater specificity to the sector as in the case ofthe World Governance Indicators.

Aggregation provides a useful summary (oftenaveraging) of a myriad of indicators while at thesame time offers a degree of credibility such asbeing published by the World Bank or the MoIbrahim Foundation.

Subjective or perception-based indicators andobjective fact-based indicators are seen ascomplementary rather than alternativeapproaches. This is evident in the case of


35

assessing corruption and gender equity whereinformation is difficult to obtain and aperception based approach must be used, ascompared to estimating access to serviceswhere a fact-base approach may be moreappropriate.

The indicators used in these sector governancetemplates tend to be subjective in light of:

1. The need for ease in assessment; 2. Unavailability of quantifiable data;3. The nature of key indicators being “per-

ception based”; and, 4. The impartiality, knowledge base of the

specific sector and in-country experience

of the assessor that enables him or her tobe reasonably accurate in scoring.

The indicators have been chosen to representpotential areas of risk to governance. As suchthey are “actionable”. The point is made thatbeing actionable does not necessarily makethem valuable as indicators if the actions takendo not result in significant improvements ingovernance. For this reason the indicatorsselected have purposely been selected at being“action-worthy”. Also of relevance is that these“action-worthy” indicators are not biasedtowards those that are easy to improve (“low-hanging fruits”) but are comprehensive incovering the full range of risk areas.

Fetching water,rural Ethiopia


36

Table 2.2 RAPID ASSESSMENT OF WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE


1. Governance atNational Level

a) Published Governance Indicators (Refer to Table 1.2a)• World Governance Index – Voice and Accountability• World Governance Index – Government Effectiveness• World Governance Index – Political Stability• AfDB Country Policy and Institutional Assessment• Transparency International Corruption Perception Index • Gender Related Development Index (UNDP-GDI)

2. LegalFramework

a) Sector policies and strategies are up-to-date and include principles of good governance.

b) The regulatory framework provides for efficient pricing and consumer protection.c) Mechanisms exist for recourse, dispute resolution and appeal.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

3. Institutions

a) Institutional rules and responsibilities are clear and separated with minimum overlap, gaps, duplication and/or conflict.

b) Approaches used by sector institutions reflect principles of good governance in thatthey are transparent, inclusive, and equitable.

c) The regulatory framework provides for:• Complaint and recourse mechanisms• Setting of fair tariffs• Assurance of service standards, and• Market competition

d) Water authorities and utilities work with the smaller private service providers, includingvendors, to find ways to make the market function effectively in the interests ofconsumer/users, particularly those in the un-served and low income areas.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR



37


4. SectorManagement

a) Regular sector assessments and joint sector reviews are used in planning and managing the sector.

b) The sector is managed using a sector-wide approach and incorporates a functional sector-wide stakeholder working group.

c) Functioning WSS & water resources M&E systems are in place and support sector planning and management.

d) Water resources and services provision management is undertaken at the lowest appropriate level (decentralization/ subsidiarity).

e) Rolling plans and budgets ensure that reliable estimates of future allocations are available for planning at local levels over the mid-term.

f) Financial information is used to analyze the equity, effectiveness and efficiency of spending distribution relative to social needs.

g) Environmental law, policies, regulations and procedures (including environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and social safeguards) are effectively applied and enforced.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

5. ResourcesManagement

a) Progress is being made towards integrated water resources management throughpilots or on-going programmes.

b) Basin-level plans are regularly updated through participatory involvement of basinstakeholders and incorporate their views and priorities.

c) Climate change and its potential impacts have been incorporated into the planning,management and use of water resources.

WR

WR

WR

6. Transparency,Accountability andCorruption

a) Procurement of goods and services is open, transparent and equitable.b) Information on plans, projects, services and expenditures is available to and readily

understood by the pubic at project level.c) Service providers are accountable to their consumers/users for the level of access

and quality of services they provide.d) There is explicit commitment to anti-corruption and its advocacy within sector

institutions.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR



38


7. Civil Society

a) Users participate in planning ensuring that their needs and demands are addressed in

local sector plans.

b) Local plans are rolled up and impact central sector planning ensuring that local needs

are reflected in sector plans.

c) The user community is involved in rural services management to assure quality and

sustainability of services provision.

d) National and sector gender policies exist and are being implemented effectively.

e) Women are being empowered and contributing significantly to the sector in decision-

making roles.

f) Gender responsiveness, mainstreaming and equal opportunity policies are practiced

in sector institutions, their staffing patterns and programmes.

g) The consumer/user has voice that uses recognized channels, and is not based on

political influence or constrained by bureaucratic procedures.

h) Service providers are responsive and consumers/users can complain with reasonable

confidence that they will be heard and that problems will be rectified.

i) Mechanisms for recourse and appeal exist and are functional.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

8. EquitableService Provision

a) Agreed international conventions on citizens’ rights to water (e.g. the MDGs) are adhered to.

b) Water and sanitation services are provided equitably between rich and poor, urban and rural populations.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR



39

2.3 Governance Assessment for Project Preparation and Concept Note

The assessment of governance during ProjectPreparation and for the Project Concept Note(herein termed the PPA) calls for greater detailthan the above Rapid Assessment. ThePP&PCN indicators are grouped under 17headings as listed in Table 2.3, below.

The objective of the PPA is to inform the projectpreparation and the Concept Note. The ProjectAppraisal Report (PAR) that follows the PCN

requires similar information. Although the PCNitself is only 5-7 pages, the project is welldefined and budget estimated prior to its beingpresented to the Operations Committee(OpsCom). Thus all governance related inf-ormation, mitigation measures and componentshave to be defined prior to PCN preparation. Itis for this reason that the PP&PCN GovernanceAssessment is the most detailed. Its indicatorsare designed to cover all aspects of watersector governance. Their level of detail requiresthe assessor to look in some depth atgovernance aspects that surface as issues. Insome respects they are a checklist so that the

Light and Rapid Assessment PP & PCN Assessment

Governance at National Level Governance at National Level

Legal FrameworkPolicy and LegislationRegulation

InstitutionsDecentralizationAlternative Service Providers

Sector ManagementSector Wide Approach & PRSPSector Financial ManagementMonitoring and Evaluation

Resources ManagementWater Resources ManagementEnvironmental Management

Transparency, Accountability & CorruptionTransparency and AccountabilityCorruption

Civil SocietyCivil Society ParticipationGenderVoice and Choice

Equitable Services ProvisionRights to WaterEquitable Services Provision

Table 2.3 Grouping of Assessment Headings


40

assessor covers the full range. In addition,s/he is asked to score each indicator so thatsome thought has to be given andassessment made of each governanceaspect.

The assessment is to be made by the taskmanager and task team with the support ofthe field office. In practice this means that thetask manager takes the lead and calls on thealternative task manager and sector specialistin the field office for support. Likely, the rapidassessment would have identified areas ofgovernance risk that need more information atgreater depth than is available. For this,consultants may be needed. In any event, thePP&PCN assessment should be completedwithin two weeks it being understood that itwill likely identify areas which call for yet moreinformation to be sought from the field.

There are several governance relatedrequirements set out by the PCN. Theseinclude:

• Supervision requirements including procu-rement oversight;

• Development issues such as regulation,decentralization, subsidies and

• Project activities, outputs, outcomes andindicators in the Results Based Logical-Framework;

• Cross-cutting foci such as gender, trans-parency and accountability;

• Baseline data including those related toequity distribution of services;

• Participatory processes used to preparethe project and/or are planned as part ofthe project; and,

• Potential risks and mitigation measures,many of them governance related.

The PP & PCN Governance Assessment willlikely reveal several governance risks that callfor mitigation measures. Mitigation can beincorporated into project design aspreventative measures or during projectimplementation such as by strengtheningprocurement procedures. Others will berevealed that are of greater risk to projectsustainability call for significant intervention inthe form of project components.

Table 2.4 Examples of Project Components to Strengthen Governance

• Increased civil society participation in sector planning and community based management ofwater supply schemes;

• Strengthening of the regulatory framework through performance based service managementcontracts;

• Introduction of a gender policy specifically for the sector and improving gender sensitivity ofsector institutions by introducing of gender resource centres and training in the apex ministryand district governments

• Preparation of procurement guidelines and training of district staff in procurement procedures


41

Dam near Shinyanga, Northern Tanzania


42

Table 2.5 lists 94 assessment indicators to bescored using a scale of 1 to 5, as in the caseof the Light and Rapid Assessments above.Each group of indicators can be averaged,

although it is emphasized that theseindicators are necessarily subjective and havenot be weighted in accordance with theirimportance.


1. Governanceat National Level

a) Published Governance Indicators• World Governance Index – Voice and Accountability• World Governance Index – Government Effectiveness• World Governance Index – Political Stability• AfDB Country Policy and Institutional Assessment• Transparency International Corruption Perception Index

2. Policy andLegislation

a) Sector policies and strategies are up-to-date and being implemented.b) Legislation supports policies and strategy implementation and avoids duplication,

gaps and conflicts in institutional mandates and roles.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

3. Regulation

a) Regulatory mechanisms are in place (either formal or informal) and provide for:• Consumer protection• Equitable service provision• Complaint and Recourse• Assurance of services standards• Setting of fair tariffs • Market competition

b) Regulatory mechanisms / authorities are independent and independently resourced,or are in the process of transitioning to independence.

c) Mechanisms exist for recourse and appeal that do not depend on political influence.d) Relationships between consumers/users, private service providers and government

are regularly adjusted through negotiation within a competitive environment.e) The price of services to the consumer is commensurate with the level and quality of

service provided.f) Contracts and agreements between parties (private/public) are enforceable, contract

law is adhered to.g) Regulation achieves equity, efficiency and sustainability in allocation and management

of water resources.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WRU

R,U,WR

R,U,WRWR

TABLE 2.5 GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECT PREPARATION AND PROJECTCONCEPT NOTE



43


4.Institutionalization& Decentralization

a) Decentralization has been implemented so that management of service provision is atthe lowest appropriate level (subsidiarity).

b) Approaches used by sector institutions reflect principles of good governance in thatthey are transparent, inclusive, and equitable.

c) Government and the private sector has the required absorptive capacity to effectivelyand efficiently implement governance strengthening initiatives.

d) There is clarity and separation of functional roles and responsibilities with minimumoverlap, gaps, duplication and/or conflict.

e) Relationships between stakeholders are clear, legitimized and governed by writtenprocedures, agreements or contracts.

f) There is alignment of interests, incentives, mandates and responsibilities amongst allstakeholders.

g) Skills, capabilities, assets, resources (human and financial) and mandates aredecentralized in ways that efficiently and effectively support responsibilities at regionaland local levels.

h) Capacity building has ensured adequate competencies and at all levels.i) Devolution of procurement functions is accompanied with capacity building,

monitoring, and regular audit.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

5. AlternativeService Providers

a) Water authorities and utilities work with the smaller private service providers, includingvendors, to find ways to make the market function effectively in the interests ofconsumer/users.

b) Long term lease and concessionary contracts provide for regulation and qualityassurance and include considerations for and interests of those deprived of water andsanitation services.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

6. Sector-wideApproach

a) Sector management is performance driven and includes regular sector assessmentsand joint sector reviews.

b) A sector-wide approach is used and a sector-wide stakeholder working group isfunctional.

c) There is clear and effective separation of institutional roles betweenfacilitator/standards setting and implementation.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR



44


7. Sector FinancialManagement

a) Rolling plans and budgets ensure that reliable estimates of future allocations areavailable for planning at local levels.

b) Budgets include all sources of funds (national, donor, banks, taxes, tariffs and NGOs).c) Financial information is used to analyze the equity, effectiveness and efficiency of

spending distribution relative to social needs.d) Allocations to lower tiers of government are formulae-based and weighted to reflect

needs, population, poverty and implementation capacities.e) Budgets are responsive to policies that also reflect harmonization of sector targets,

visions and goals.f) Financial management complies with recognized accounting standards.g) Sector audits are less than one year old.

R,U,WR

R,U,WRR,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WRR,U,WR

8. Monitoring andEvaluation

a) Sector monitoring systems are sector-wide, up-dated, and sustained.b) Monitoring data and information are accessible, in demand and effectively used in

sector planning and management.c) Data collection, analysis and reporting are transparent and accessible to the public.d) Civil society is actively participating in data collection and monitoring.e) Monitoring and evaluation data is sex and pro-poor disaggregated.f) The sector monitoring system is able to provide for reliable estimations of access and

use of services.g) Monitoring captures the equity of distribution of services both geographically and by

income group.

R,U,WRR,U,WR

R,U,WRR,U,WRR,U,WRR,U,WR

R,U,WR

9. WaterResourcesManagement

a) Progress is being made towards integrated water resources management through pilots

or on-going programmes.

b) Basin-level plans are regularly updated through participatory involvement of basin

stakeholders and incorporate their views and priorities.

c) Major users are known and managed through a permit or licensing system.

d) Water allocations are in line with sustainable use, social equity & economic efficiency.

e) Climate change and its potential impacts are being monitored have been incorporated

into the planning, management and use of water resources.

f) Functional transboundary watershed management mechanisms are in place.

WR

WR

WRWRWR

WR



45


10. EnvironmentalManagement

a) Environmental laws and regulations are effectively enforced.b) Environmental impact assessments (EIAs), social safeguards and related procedures

are adhered to.c) Monitoring provides reliable and adequate information for basin and ground water

resources management.d) Institutions responsible for environmental conservation and protection have clear and

consistent mandates that avoid overlap, duplication and conflict. e) Watershed conservation and management are effective and sustained.f) Surface and groundwater pollution is monitored and controlled.

WR

WR

WR

WR

11. Transparencyand Accountability

a) Planning and budgeting are open and transparent.b) Information on plans, projects, services and expenditures is available and readily

understood by the public at project level.c) Civil society advocacy organizations (such as watchdog NGOs) monitor budget

decisions, allocations and expenditures and use the media in publicly shamingcorrupt officials and politicians.

d) Transparency tools such as citizens’ charters and report cards are being used by civilsociety and government to measure performance and publicize the efficiency andeffectiveness of government expenditures.

e) Procurement of goods and services is open, transparent and equitable.f) Competition, effective contract management and transparency ensure fair market-

based unit costs of services provision by the private sector.g) Service providers are accountable to their consumers/users

R,U,WRR,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WRR,U,WRR,U,WR

12. Corruption

a) There is commitment to anticorruption and its advocacy within sector institutions.b) Regulators and procurement officials are technically competent.c) Stiff judicial, economic and social sanctions are being imposed on offenders and

publicly announced in the media.d) The quality of services provision, water resources management and environmental

protection is being monitored by civil society.e) Channels are available and protection is given to the public and officials in reporting

corruption.f) Decentralization is reinforced by measures against corruption at the local level, such

as capacity building, participatory planning and public display of budgets, projectexpenditures and procurement.

g) There is regular independent audit, including value-for-money or comprehensiveaudit.

R,U,WRR,U,WRR,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR



46


13. Civil SocietyParticipation

a) Users participate in planning ensuring that their needs and demands are addressed inlocal sector plans.

b) Local plans are rolled up and impact central sector planning ensuring that local needsare reflected in sector plans.

c) The user community is involved in rural services management to assure quality andsustainability of services provision.

d) Local capacities are strengthened for management, operation, maintenance andrepair of services and systems and spare parts made available locally.

e) The development approach is used and adequate time and resources are allocatedto facilitate community involvement, build local capacities and create ownership forsustainability.

f) Government provides ongoing monitoring and support including for major repairs.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R

R

R

R

14. Gender

a) National and sector gender policies exist and are being implemented effectively.b) Both men and women are regarded as central to the provision, management and

safeguarding of water.c) Women are being empowered and contributing significantly in decision-making roles

in:• Planning• Budgeting• Implementation• Monitoring and• Project design

d) Gender responsiveness, mainstreaming and equal opportunity policies are practicedin sector institutions, their staffing patterns and programmes.

e) Sector managers and community leaders are gender aware and understand genderissues and their implications to the sector.

f) Challenges to women’s participation – such as their workload, time availability, levelsof literacy, ability to meet in public, power differentials and intra-family relationships –are acknowledged and respected.

g) Safe and practical work environments for women and men exist in sector institutions andorganizational cultures (e.g. flexible hours of work and protection against sexualharassment).

R,U,WRR,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR



47


15. Voice andChoice

a) The consumer/user has voice that uses recognized channels, is not constrained bybureaucratic procedures or frustrated by past failures.

b) Service providers are responsive and consumers/users can complain with reasonableconfidence that they will be heard and that problems will be rectified.

c) Mechanisms for recourse and appeal exist and are functional and not based onpolitical influence.

d) The consumer/user is informed, aware of his/her rights and obligations and able toformulate complaint and dialogue with the provider.

e) Users make choices in level and quality of service.

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WRR,U,WR

16. Rights toWater

a) Agreed international conventions on citizens’ rights to water (e.g. the MDGs) areadhered to.

b) Priority is given to water and sanitation in policies, plans, budgets and expenditures.c) Progress is being made towards meeting national goals in water resources

management, and water supply and sanitation services.

R,U,WR

R,U,WRR,U,WR

17. EquitableServices Provision

a) Water and sanitation services are provided equitably across wealthy and low incomegroups.

b) Disparities between urban and rural access to services are minimized.c) Pro-poor policies, programmes and methods are implemented that enable low

income, marginalized and vulnerable groups gain equitable access to sector services.d) Fiscal policy and financial management (including cost recovery, tariffs, donor support,

market financing, subsidies, and budgets) support financial viability in such a way thatequity of service provision achieved.

e) Levels of subsidies per household are commensurate with available resources,affordability of services are in line with pro-poor policies.

f) Price and quality of services provided are equitable across consumer/user groups.g) Subsidies are appropriately targeted and reach their targets in full and in transparent

fashion.h) Projects are designed so as to achieve an appropriate balance between water supply,

sanitation and hygiene education provision.i) Adequate planning and preparations have been made for emergencies which

incorporate water and sanitation services for displaced persons and refugees.

R,U,WR

R,U,WRR,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WRR,U,WR

R,U,WR

R,U,WR



48

2.4 Governance Assessment for Project Appraisal

The Project Appraisal Report (PAR) calls for aone paragraph description of issues, risks andmitigation measures linked to governance. Inparticular, it calls for descriptions of safeguardsto offset possibilities of fraud and corruptionduring implementation. Issues of sustainabilityare also to be covered in the PAR. Being part ofgovernance these are included in the aboveindicators.

Technical annexes to the PAR includeprocurement (the procurement plan andarrangements), audit (arrangements andprocedures for audit), and environmental andsocial analyses (including EIAs and mitigationmeasures) and gender analysis (gendersurveys, analysis, strategies, project impacts,risks related to gender, and indicators duringproject implementation). All such annexes havestrong links to governance. In addition, therewill likely be need for a technical annex ongovernance itself that is informed by thegovernance assessment.

The PP Governance Assessment (Section 2.3)will provide the necessary basis for preparationof governance related sections of the AppraisalReport. It will inevitably identify specific issuesthat require further information andinvestigation. These can be provided by thetask team and/or country office or consultantsin the field. Examples that can be undertakenprior to project appraisal to assist in projectdesign are given below.

• The existence and effectiveness of chan-nels of complaint and resolution of issuesbetween provider and consumer, leadingto improved design of mitigation measuresincluding creation of consumer associa-tions, enactment of consumer protectionlegislation. This information could besought from consumers associations, wa-ter user groups and advocacyNGOs/CSOs.

• Studies of pre-colonial tribal, traditional andcustomary practices for water resourcesmanagement and their integration into mo-dern water legislative frameworks This in-formation could be sought through localuniversities, research institutions and tri-bal elders in the field.

• Further analysis through field surveys ofthe functional status of water points, ac-cess to water supply and quality of ser-vices to low income target populations toprovide more information on marginalizedgroups and greater detail for detailed pro-ject design.

• Further analysis combining financial andoperational information to reveal the equity,effectiveness and efficiency of spendingdistribution relative to social needs for pur-poses of refining project design. This in-formation could be sought from sector sta-keholders and institutions such asministries of water and finance, donors,advocacy NGOs/CSOs and water usergroups.


49

The project’s Results Based LogicalFramework includes performance indicatorsthat are inevitably linked to governance. Thesecan be designed using the assessmentindicators but need to be project specific andrelate to the mitigation measures and/orgovernance components being designed intothe project.

2.5 Governance Assessment for Supervision during Implementation

Supervisory missions are normally under tightschedules, preventing opportunities toundertake detailed assessments. Supervisionduring implementation calls for a checklistapproach to monitoring. The indicators usedrelate directly to the project and can beadapted from the indicators listed in Table 2.3to make them project specific. Drawn fromTable 2.3 they need to be tailored togovernance initiatives that have been designedinto the project for purposes of mitigating risksand building better governance into the project.Examples of indicators are presented in thecase study in Annex A.

A somewhat different case is made formonitoring and mitigating against corruption. Inthis light a list of corruption warning signs isprovided in Table 2.6 below14.These indicatorscannot confirm that corruption is taking place,but they can indicate that a second look iswarranted to get better clarity as to whether thesituation is a result of capacity constraints oractual corruption.

14Selected and adapted from World Bank, Latin America and Caribbean Region (2007) “Good Practices – Corruption Warning

Signs”, Vol 1, No. 1

Rural water supply, Madagascar


50

Monitoring and oversight

• Work supervisors and inspectors retainedappear to lack capacity

• Creation of seemingly unnecessary workorders or changes to work orders that re-sult in unnecessary contract extensions

• Indication that government staff have beensubcontracted

• Unnecessary renegotiation to obtain morefavourable contract terms concerning thecontract’s deadline, investments requiredfrom concessionaries, rates charged toend-users, exclusivity granting, tariff set-ting, etc.

• Delegation of large discretion to public of-ficials

• Procurement particularly prone to collu-sive agreements, the manufacturing indus-try tends to be almost monopolistic

• Manipulation of shortlists or invitations toparticipate in shopping procedures

Financial management

• Excessive and concentrated discretionarypowers over resource allocations

• Non-transparent systems of decision-ma-king over resource allocations for publicinvestments

• Unlimited executive decisions to approvespending through in-year adjustments

• Weak budget estimates or underspecifiedplans for using the funds

• Significant deviations from planned expen-diture targets

• Payments in cash leaving no audit trail• Excessive delays in procurement pro-

cesses or unusually short processing timefor procurement processes

• Large deposits and transfers of funds• Multiple invoices for the same work• Delays in payments to contractors / consul-

tants • Disbursements not matching physical pro-

gress• Transactions that are odd as to: timing, fre-

quency, amount, parties, etc.• Discrepancies in accounting records:

o Transactions not recorded in a complete or timely manner

o Unsupported or unauthorized records

• Conflicting or missing evidential matter:missing documents; missing inventory orphysical assets; excessive voids or cre-dits; alterations of invoices.

• Irregularities in reconciliation processes• Lack of accountability• Incomplete audit trails and reports• Delays in the submission of audited finan-

cial statements to the Bank• Absence or deficiency in the management

/ internal controls

Table 2.6 Corruption Warning Signs


51

Procurement

• Upward re-evaluation of needs• Cost estimates above market rate values• Lack of consideration of “least-cost” solutions• Technical specifications tailored to fit a

particular bidder• Inadequate technical specifications• Advance knowledge of confidential

information• Unnecessarily split contracts• Biased evaluation criteria• Contracts with unusual payment patterns • Inadequate / restricted and ill-timed

advetising of procurement processes• Incomplete or misleading advertising• Restriction of competition through

excessive charges • Failure to notify all bidders of changes to

bidding documents• Unclear or ambiguous clarifications

Pre-Qualification

• Unexpectedly narrow subset of pre-selec-ted companies

• Unduly strict pre-qualification criteria• Rotation of pre-qualified bidders; collusion

between pre-qualified companies to sub-mit bids in turn

Bid-Opening

• Irregular bid opening

Bid Evaluation

• Deviation from published evaluation criteria or weights

• Biased application of evaluation criteria• Special treatment for favoured companies• Inconsistency between the information sta-

ted in the bid evaluation report and actualsupporting documents

• Unreasonably long periods of time to evaluate bid submissions

• Inconclusive tender followed by impropernegotiations with companies

Contract Implementation

• Front-loading• Repetitive change orders• Deliberate use of unqualified supervisors /

monitors• Product substitution• Special payments not contemplated un-

der the contract• Failure to execute performance securities• Substitution of a consultant for less quali-

fied and inexperienced personnel• Wholesale subcontracting


15See “Synthesis Report on the Review of 2003-2005 Project Completion Reports (PCRs),” African Development Bank,

ABD/BD/WP/2007/38.

proved governance and mitigation mea-sures; and,

• Identification of lessons learned and de-velopment of recommendations for futureoperations regarding governance streng-thening and mitigation measures applied.

While much of the above is project specific andthe assessment would have to be tailored assuch, a direct comparison with governanceconditions before the project would be useful.Comparison with baseline information duringproject preparation can be made using theindicators of the PP & PCN Assessment ofTable 2.3 Again, the data and indicators wouldhave to be selective in that the project wouldnot be expected to impact governance outsideof its direct sphere of influence.

2.6 Governance Assessment at Project Completion

The objective of an assessment at projectcompletion is to inform the Project CompletionReport (PCR). As per the AfDB’s PCRrequirements15, such reports (1) provide acomprehensive account on all aspects of theproject at completion; (2), assess the results ofthe project and the efficiency and effectivenessof the means employed to achieve them; (3),estimate the project’s expected contribution todevelopment and sustainability; (4), identifyoperational lessons learned relevant for on-going or future operations; and (5), lay thegroundwork for in-depth evaluation reports andimpact studies. As such, the governancerelated requirements of the report include:

• Analysis of project execution, including pro-curement issues, governance strengthe-ning and mitigation measures applied;

• Assessment of results achieved in termsof improved governance, based on the re-sults as outlined in the logical frameworkusing the agreed upon project monitoringindicators and the final governance as-sessment conducted to compare the stateof governance at project completion withthe baseline;

• Analysis of the social and environmentalimpact and sustainability resulting from im-

52

Settlement Tank, Cross River State, Nigeria


access to services. The reasons for failure aremostly governance related. While a projectmight succeed, at least during its first fewyears, its long term sustainability and return oninvestment are by no means certain. Theliterature review and country missionsundertaken as part of this assignment haveclearly pointed to poor governance in all of itsfacets as being the prime reason behind suchoutcomes.

In this light, two recommendations forincorporating governance assessment into theproject cycle in a way that will minimizeincreases in a task manager’s work load are thefollowing:

1. Have field office staff participate fully in theprocess of governance assessment andmitigation measure design, thereby assis-ting the task managers.

2. Strengthen demand from those ultimatelyresponsible for quality assurance of pro-jects, namely members of the Board andOpsCom, the Director and sector mana-gers.

In addition, governance is increasingly beingrecognized as an essential determinant ofproject sustainability (the failure of a proposedproject in Cameroon to receive OpsComapproval in 2008 is but one example). Goodgovernance (incorporating the full range andnot only the absence of corruption) thereforeneeds to become a criterion for approval byOpsCom and the Board.

3. Follow-up Action Plan

The objective of this assignment was to assessthe state of water sector governance, developindicators and targets for its improvement, andprovide guidelines for AfDB sector staff to usewhen developing programmes and projects. Thisbeing accomplished, the next step is to ensurethat the guidelines and templates are used. Theobjective is to ensure the inclusion of goodgovernance concerns in project identification,preparation and design processes so thatincreased and equitable access to improvedservices, improved water resources management,and higher returns on investments can beachieved. It is with this in mind that a follow-upaction plan has been developed and isrecommended as the way forward.

Thus far, the concepts of governance and theproposal for their inclusion in OWAS projectshave been well received. Task managers,however, frequently comment that governanceassessment and inclusion of governanceinitiatives in their projects should not furtherencumber their already heavy work load. This isvalid, particularly in light of task managers’already tight schedules and the numeroustasks associated with getting their projectsapproved and implemented. On the otherhand, it is really a question of balance andpriorities.

Water projects frequently fail, particularly inareas of sustainability, communitymanagement, financial viability and equitable

53


54

Furthermore, though the importance ofgovernance to project success is beingincreasingly recognized, more attention mustbe given to articulating what it looks like inpractice and making it visible (ie. with factualevidence). Awareness raising is thereforeneeded to bring governance into the OpsComand Board agenda as a criterion for projectapproval. Awareness raising is also needed atthe Director and Sector manager level.

Awareness raising will have to be carefullydesigned and the concept properly marketed.The tools used will have to be well targeted,professional and technically correct. Thefollowing awareness raising tools and activitiesare suggested:

• For senior management: Senior manage-ment has no time or inclination to attendmeetings on water sector governance perse. However, they would likely find a wellpackaged five minute DVD video on thesubject attractive enough to watch it ontheir computer. The video would clearlyspell out the advantages of good gover-nance (transparency, accountability, anti-corruption, community management, re-gulation, equity access, and etc). It wouldbriefly mention this assignment, its assess-ment tools and encourage incorporationof good governance into sector projects.

• For task managers, task teams and fieldoffices: Using some of the promotional ma-terial from the first DVD video, a ten mi-nute exposé would go deeper into gover-

nance assessment and mitigation mea-sures. It would cover each governance riskarea using a brief but good example ofsuccessful governance in the Africancontext.

• In addition, a morning water sector works-hop would be held at which well preparedpresentations would be made by theconsultant and a recognized representa-tive from TI or SIWI (to include an addedfocus on corruption in the water sector).The workshop would also focus on the useof the assessment templates and designof mitigation initiatives within projects.

• For country offices: The country officeshave yet to be introduced to the templatesand the purposeful inclusion of governanceinitiatives in projects. Looking ahead andpreparing for AfDB’s decentralization, thefield offices need to be made aware of theirpotential roles in assuring good governancein water projects and the tools available toassist them. Half day workshops are re-commended for each country office cur-rently or potentially monitoring OWAS pro-jects. These would be undertaken intwo-day missions to each country. Only inthis way would country offices give suffi-cient importance and time to the subject.

Task managers and the task team would bepositively motivated if recognition was given totheir having undertaken governanceassessments and included risk mitigation


55

measures in project development andimplementation. The strongest incentive wouldcome from recognition and reward (orconversely chastisement where deserved)within the staff member’s personalperformance evaluation. This could be done byincluding a criterion such as “performed orassisted governance assessment of sectorand/or relevant projects during projectdevelopment and/or implementation andensured inclusion of mitigation measures asappropriate” in the personal evaluation form.

Awareness being raised, there will undoubtedlybe some individuals more interested thanothers to whom special attention could begiven. Some could be identified as ‘champions’within senior management (e.g. SeniorManagers, the Director and possibly theSecretary General) who would provide adviceand support the introduction of governance asa criterion for project approval in OpsCom andthe Board.

Water for Livestock, Monduli, Tanzania


Volume 1 of the Water Sector GovernanceReport that provides background on watergovernance, detailed templates and completeguidelines.

1. Governance Assessment and the Project Cycle

As illustrated in Figure 1.1, three assessmenttemplates are available – the ‘light’, ‘rapid’ and‘project preparation’ templates. The ‘light’assessment at sector level can be undertakeneven before project identification:

56

Annex A: Abridged Guide:

Governance Assessment in

the Project Cycle

This is an abridged guide to the use ofgovernance assessment templates for (1)identifying sector governance risk areas, (2)designing project interventions that mitigateagainst the risks and (3) selecting indicatorsand targets for use during project supervisionand completion reporting. Please also refer to

Bujagali Hydropowerproject, Uganda


57

Using only 13 indicators, the light assessmentis useful as a first approximation. The moredetailed ‘rapid’ assessment (33 indicators) isused during project identification. It moreclearly identifies risk areas that need to bemitigated by the project. Finally, during projectdesign, a more focused assessment is made ofthe identified risk areas. It uses only some ofthe more detailed ‘project preparationtemplate’ indicators in designing the project’srisk mitigation activities.

These assessments are used to define theactivities, indicators and targets of the PAR’s LogFrame. They are also the starting point for (1) atechnical annex on governance, (2) indicators forproject supervision and (3) outcome indicatorsfor the project completion report.

The Malawi National Water DevelopmentProgramme (approved in June 2008) providesa useful example governance assessmentwithin the project cycle. It has threecomponents16:

1. Town, market centre and rural piped andpoint water supply and sanitation,

2. Water resources management, and, 3. Program management and capacity buil-

ding.

Bank resources address the very low waterand sanitation coverage and functionality in therural areas and the lack of knowledge ofavailable water resources.

2. The Light Assessment

The Light Assessment Template includesthirteen indicators. It can be carried out by atask manager or equivalent with extensiveexperience in the sector and good knowledgeof the local context. The indicators are scoredalong a spectrum from 1-5:

1 Poor 2 Unsatisfactory3 Fair4 Satisfactory5 Good

A pilot Light Assessment of Malawi’s watersector undertaken while the authors piloted theassessment tools included herein identifiedseveral broad areas of governance risk, theprincipal ones being:

1. Low levels of participatory planning by ci-vil society;

2. Poor responsiveness of service providersto consumers/users exacerbated by lackof recognized channels of complaint andrecourse; and,

3. Inequitable distribution of services betweenurban and rural populations and betweenrich and poor.

Although the light assessment lacks detail, itdid enable identification of these broad areas ofconcern and was useful in prefacing the rapidassessment.

16OWAS-2 AfDB (2008) “Malawi: proposal for an ADF Loan of UA 15.2 million and a Grant of UA 10.7 million to Finance the

National Water Development Program”, Appraisal report ADF/BD/WP/2008/43. Tunis, June 2008


4. Governance Assessment for Project Preparation

The governance assessment template used inproject preparation provides far more detail. Byusing its 94 indicators as a checklist, one can bereasonably assured that all areas ofquestionable governance are identified. Just asimportantly, the template can be used to focusin on the critical risk areas and assist in thedesign of activities intended to mitigate risk andassure good governance. The ProjectPreparation Assessment is led by the taskmanager and supported by the task teammembers and country office. It is undertaken inthe field and uses information provided bystakeholders and, if necessary, consultants.

In Malawi’s case, ten areas of substantial riskwere identified at this stage. But for thepurposes of this exercise, two have beenselected to illustrate the development of projectindicators in the subsequent stages of projectappraisal, implementation/supervision, andproject completion assessment. These are: (1)community involvement in project planning;and (2) gender mainstreaming.

3. The Rapid Assessment

The Rapid Assessment can also be preparedby a task manager or equivalent with goodknowledge of the sector and local context. Inthe pilot Rapid Assessment conducted for thisreport, 11 areas of governance risk wereidentified in the following categories:

• Community involvement in planning;• Gender mainstreaming;• Provision of information to the

consumer/user;• Service provider accountability;• Avenues for complaint and recourse; and,• Equitable provision of services.

The Rapid Assessment can also be used toidentify areas where more information isneeded. For example, reliable information onequity distribution of services between rich andpoor is normally difficult to obtain. The otherareas needing more information are genderand the provider-user relationship. Suchinformation may be available through thecountry office and would be useful in designingmitigation measures.

58


The chart has been sub-divided into projectcycle stages (identification, preparation,implementation and completion) and furtherunder log frame-relevant sub-headings ofgovernance risk areas, goals and objectives,activities and targets, supervision monitoringmethods and timing, target achievementprogress and results success criteria.

The four example governance risk areas areidentified by the light, rapid and, for moredetail, the project preparation assessmenttemplates. They are matched with existinggoals and objectives of the log frame or newones created for the purpose. Likewise, thelog frame’s governance related activities areincluded as existing activities or new onesprepared along with a listing of stakeholdersresponsible for undertaking them. Indicatorsused in measuring progress in the activitiesare defined being careful to select those thatare objective, verifiable and directly indicativeof the results being achieved.

Actual targets and timeframes are alsodefined. These need to be chosen so thatthey are realistic, achievable, and will provideoutputs leading to the desired outcomes andimpacts. As an example the indicator“community participation needs identificationand project planning of 90% of water andsanitation systems prior to construction”satisfies all of these criteria and does notrequire continuous on-the-ground monitoring.

5. The Project Appraisal Report

The Project Appraisal Report calls for:

• Good governance being incorporated intothe log frame’s, goals, objectives, outputs,outcomes, performance indicators and tar-gets;

• A description of project governance in itssection 4.3;

• Inclusion of governance measures in all re-levant sections such as 4.4 Sustainability,4.5 Risk Management and 3.2 Environ-mental and Social Impacts under Genderand Social; and

• A Technical Annex on Governance is re-commended.

The following chart (Table A-1) is presentedas a bridge between governance assessmentand project appraisal. In addition to theMalawi Rural NWDP example, the ZambiaKitwe urban water and sanitation project isused for illustrative purposes. Twogovernance risk areas are considered foreach. These are:

1. Malawi: participatory planning by users;2. Malawi: gender policies and practices;3. Zambia: extension of services to low in-

come areas through alternative service pro-viders; and,

4. Zambia: equity of services provision bet-ween low and high income groups.

59


60

It can be monitored twice during the project’sfirst year following the planning cycle in eachproject location through focal groupdiscussion in representative communities,local government records, scheme designand through meetings with NGOs providingfacilitation and capacity building tocommunity based organizations. The chartprovides columns for details of surveymethods and timing that are useful forsupervision missions and the field surveysthat precede them.

Also listed are examples of measurements interms of percentages of target achievementthrough the project. These data are collectedevery six months, prior to the bank’ssupervisory missions. Finally, the chart provides‘results success criteria’ presented as degrees

of success (minimum, desirable and excellent)as agreed between the task manager,implementing agencies and stakeholdersincluding beneficiaries.

The sections on governance in existing PARstend to focus on transparency and corruption.They could usefully be expanded to coverother aspects of governance described in thelog frame. Being only a paragraph, thissection can only be an outline but should atleast list the several areas of governance risksand activities designed to mitigate them. Toprovide further information, Table A-1 can beincluded in a technical annex on governanceand used as a centre-point to describe riskmitigation measures, their objectives andtargets, those responsible for carrying themout.


Table A-1: Operationalizing Improvements to Water Sector Governance throughout the Project Cycle

Examples of Malawi Rural and Zambia Urban Water Projects Using Governance Assessments

Note (1) Either the rapid or preparation assessment templates can be used, depending on the required level of detail

61


62

6. Project Implementation and Supervision

The task manager and team, supported by thefield office are responsible for supervising projectimplementation. In the Malawi NWFP example,there are two levels of monitoring (1) fieldmonitoring by the district project teamssupported by project beneficiaries, their waterpoint committees and systems managementcommittees in collaboration with the countryoffice and (2) the AfDB project team supervisorymission. The supervision mission is timeconstrained and needs to be reliably informed ofprogress well ahead of its arrival. Field surveys arerequired so that the mission needs only to verifythem through random checks using a checklist ofindicators. With respect to the risk areas identifiedin the preceding sub-sections, example indicatorsfor field monitoring are listed in the Table A-1 andwould be transferred to the log frame. Therewould, of course be many more measuringprogress in the several other governance relatedactivities designed into the project.

7. The Project Completion Report

The PCR is prepared between six and twelvemonths after project completion by the taskteam led by the task manager. Theimplementing agency provides supportalthough a consultant is often responsible for alarge part of the survey work. Most informationis gathered through focus group discussions inthe beneficiary communities. The indicatorsrelate to project outcomes/results. While TableA-1 lists some of these, it should be noted thatthere also components of the short-termoutput indicators that are outcome in nature.

Investigation should also be made of thedemonstration effect that the project has hadon other parts of program and sector as awhole. Lessons learned will likely be utilized inother water sector project designs, particularlyif there is a Stakeholder Working Group andproject monitoring reports are presented at theits meetings.


63


www.afdb.org

Agencecanadienne dedéveloppementinternational

CanadianInternationalDevelopment Agency


65


66


ISBN 978-9973-071-49-1

www.afdb.org

The Water Partnership Program and its mission

The Water Partnership Program (WPP) promotes effective water management policies and practices at regional and countrylevels. It operationalizes the African Development Bank’s Integrated Water Resources Management policy in the Bank’sregional member countries.

WPP pursues its goal through the generation and dissemination of a range of knowledge products, fostering dialogue onkey sector issues and promoting partnerships that enhance knowledge sharing.

Water Partnership Program WPP

The African Development Bank,

Temporary Relocation Agency (TRA),

13 Avenue du Ghana, BP 323,

1002 Tunis Belvédère, Tunisia

Tel. (216) 71 333 511 / 7110 3450

www.afdb.org

Agencecanadienne dedéveloppementinternational

CanadianInternationalDevelopment Agency

WATER SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA Vol.2.Couv.qxd:wpp charte en cours COVER 23/10/10 11:23 Page1

water sector governance in africa vol 2-

Environment

governance assessments

senior water

mozambique national

sector management

water partnership program

africa volume

logo african development

african development