Benchmarking for Pro-poor Water and Sanitation Services Provision:

an Emerging Assessment Framework

ObjectiveThe objective of the project is: • to propose improvements to the existing

benchmarking tools to allow utilities and others to develop a much stronger focus on service provision to the poor

Key Stakeholders subject to Pro Poor Benchmarking

• Government • Regulator / Supervisory Body• Utility• Communities/End Users

Focal areas for Pro-poor Benchmarking

Five focal areas:- Policies, arrangements and capacities- Collaboration of actors- Pro-poor Tools- Sustainability- Quality of WatSan Services Provision

Perspectives and Indicators

Perspective Indicator

Policies, arrangementsand capacities

1 Political initiative and support 2 Capacity of the regulating authority3 Capacity of the service provider

Collaboration 4 Inter agency collaboration5 End user or Community Participation

Tools

6 Mapping the poor7 Pro-poor financial instruments8 Pro-poor technology9 Pro-poor incentives

Sustainability 10 Innovation and learning11 Durability

Services provision 12 Quality of pro poor sanitation services13 Quality of pro poor water supply services

Assessment FrameworkP Indicator Items Criteria

11 Political initiative and support 3 122 Capacity of the regulating authority 3 123 Capacity of the service provider 3 12

2 4 Inter agency collaboration 2 85 End user or Community Participation 2 6

3

6 Mapping the poor 1 47 Pro-poor financial instruments 3 128 Pro-poor technology 1 49 Pro-poor incentives - -

4 10 Innovation and learning 2 811 Durability - -

5 12 Quality of pro poor sanitation services 5 813 Quality of pro poor water supply services 8 9

5 13 TOTALS 33 95

AssessmentPerspective 1: Policies, strategies and capacitiesIndicator 1: Political initiative and supportItem 1: Existence of pro-poor WSS policy

Data collection: secondary data and interviewsCriteria Score 1 elaborates priority to WSS services provision to the poor 0/12 has a component on water supply and sanitation services provision

to the poor 1/1

3 has community participation and gender components 1/14 Includes financing mechanism for pro-poor WSS services provision 1/1

Total Score 3/4

Perspective 5: Service ProvisionIndicator 12: Quality of Sanitation services

Data Collection: questionnaires

Criteria unit benchmark

Value Score

slum 1

slum 2

slum 1

slum 2

1 Distance from home m 50 21 75 1 0

2 Facility is an improved technologyFacility is only for single family use % 75 100

2800

10

10

3 Facility is cleanFacility does not smell offensive % 75 77

306432

10

00

4 Facility is accessible to disabled personsFacility is safe for nightly use (by women) % 75 0

770

5001

00

5 Affordability (not investigated) % - - - -

Total Score 4/7 1/7

Assessment

Overall AssessmentPerspective Indicator Score

SLUM 1 SLUM 2

Policiesand capacities

1 Political initiative and support 3.7/4 3.7/42 Capacity of regulating authority 2.7/4 2.7/43 Capacity of service provider 2.5/4 2.5/4

Collaboration 4 Inter agency collaboration 3.5/4 3.5/45 End user or Community participation 0/2 1/2

Tools

6 Mapping the poor 0/4 0/47 Pro-poor financial instruments 2/4 2/48 Pro-poor technology 2/4 1/49 Pro-poor incentives n.a. n.a.

Sustainability 10 Innovation and learning 2.5/4 2.5/411 Durability n.a. n.a.

Services provision

12 Quality of pro-poor sanitation services 4/7 1/713 Quality of pro-poor water services 6/8 6/8

Conclusions1. The assessment component of the pro-poor benchmarking

system is able to determine both the:o Capacity of the Key Stakeholders to enable services delivery

to the pooro Performance in pro-poor services delivery

2. Information and data collection is enabled by a mix of secondary data, interviews, focus group discussions, questionnaires and observation (allowing some triangulation)

3. The system appears to yield internally coherent results suggesting linkages between deficiencies in enabling processes on the one hand and service quality on the other

3. Concerning the 13 indicators, the findings from the field suggests that:o Additional, ‘in-slum’ indicators may be needed (e.g.

events and socio-political dynamics in the slums)o The items and criteria that the indicators are made up of

will need review and improvemento Sanitation needs to be distinguished from drinking water

throughout4. The benchmarking framework now covers a variety of actors

that jointly enable/disable services provision to the poor, however: o Disaggregation of the framework to cover individual

actors may be more effective

Conclusions

THANK YOU