Institutionalising monitoring of rural water services in Latin America; Lessons from El Salvador,...

Institutionalising monitoring of rural water services in Latin America; Lessons from El Salvador, Honduras and ParaguayStef Smits, Erma Uytewaal and Germán Sturzenegger

Background• Monitoring is considered key in addressing sustainability of rural water

supplies– Corrective action by service providers– Earlier and better targeted post-construction support– Informing policies and strategies for rural water

• Monitoring systems themselves also fraught with coverage and sustainability problems

– Regulators focus on urban areas, not rural– External funding for initial mapping, but not for regular updating– Limited accessibility of data

• IDB, AECID and IRC have been supporting the development of monitoring systems in various countries

• Approach to their institutionalisation, seeking to make sustainability risks explicit and mitigate them - applied in Honduras, El Salvador and Paraguay

Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

Developing monitoring systems• Set of procedures for carrying out monitoring:

– Objectives– Processes– Institutional arrangements– Information system

• Critically assess the capacity to use and maintain it:– Financing framework– Human resources to fulfil responsibilities– Institutional ownership and governance

• Multi-stakeholder process, with leadership by main government agency – even though not always clear who that is


Overview of the approach


Step 1: Analysis of current monitoring practices

• Even in absence of national monitoring system, much monitoring or information flows may be going on

• Analyse potential for building on these and avoiding pitfalls and limitations

• Tools: matrix with monitoring activities – broken down by steps – at different levels


Step

StakeholderData collection Processing Analysis Reporting

Identifying corrective actions

Service providersOn-going but unstructured

Without standard procedure or tool


Annual reports to users

Some decision making tools for water quality and administration

Municipal Association of Water Committees

On-going but unstructured

Sometimes, but without standard procedure or tool


Unknown Unknown

Operation and Maintenance Technician

Using standard tool. Demand-based and depending on resources

Using SIAR Using SIARTo the service provider and national utility

Based on standard set of typical corrective measures

Regulation and Control Technician

Using standard toolAs above, but using other information system

By national regulatorReports on website of national regulator

National regulator informs municipality to take action

Environmental Health Technicians

Using standard tool, but limited Resource

Data provided to Regional Health Secretariat

Unknown Unknown Unknown

NGOs and projectsDetailed assessments based on project needs

Based on own criteria Based on own criteria InternalFeasibility assessment of Project

Honduran Social Investment Fund (FHIS)

Detailed assessments for pre-feasibility

Based on own criteriaBased on own and funders’ criteria

To mayor and to fundersGo/no-go of the project

Step 2: Definition of the monitoring system

• Step 2a: set the purposes(s) of monitoring; post-construction support and investment planning

• Step 2b: identifying roles• Step 2c: defining the steps in the process• Step 2d: developing the information system, with specific

attention to:– Links to existing information system– Need for and ways of aggregating information– Information technology and corresponding resource requirements



Institution

Roles

System manager Data collector Validator

Information user

PAT

Technical assistance provider (SANAA)

Policy making body (CONASA)

Regulator (ERSAPS)

Implementing agency (FHIS)

Health Secretariat

Finance and Planning Secretariat

Association of Municipalities of Honduras

Municipalities

Associations of Water Committees

Water Committees

NGOs

Step 3: Defining the institutional arrangements • Dialogue to assign institutional responsibilities

– Broken down by steps in monitoring– Phases in the development of the monitoring system

• Tools: matrix with responsibilities


Data collection

Validation ProcessingPublishing of

resultsAnalysis

Identifying corrective measures

Self-reporting by service providers

In municipal Water Roundtables, bringing together municipal officials and water committees. ANDA (national utility) revises information to identity obvious errors and uploads to database

Automatized but under supervision of ANDA

ANDA makes national synthesis report. Municipalities make local reports based on the results from database, where needed supported by ANDA

Municipal Water Roundtables do this jointly

Municipal Water Roundtables do this jointly, supported by ANDA or other PATs

Step 3: Defining the institutional arrangements

Considerations from the 3 countries:•Data collection: by centralised agency initially, but eventually moving to self-reporting by service providers•Validation: spot checks to improve information system, and then by communities and municipalities•Processing and reporting: administrator through automated system•Interpretation and identifying corrective actions: facilitated analysis and tailor-made packaging


Step 4: Costing and responsibilities for financing• Detailed budgeting of all steps in monitoring

– Differentiated between baseline and regular monitoring– Quantifying all costs, including hidden costs, e.g. time of

communities and local government staff• Calibration through rounds of piloting• Based on this, agree on financial agreements• Check whether the costs can be met feasibly by different bodies• Iterations – to adjust budgets or ambitions• Continuous monitoring of the costs of monitoring in the roll-out


Step 4: Costing and responsibilities for financing

• Main costs are in data collection, but don’t underestimate costs of analysis


El Salvador Honduras Paraguay

Baseline 0.39 0.24-0.34(actual)

0.09

Regular updating

0.11 + 0.08 0.23

Conclusions• Monitoring considered important contribution to improve sustainability,

particularly through actions by service providers and post-construction support

• As many monitoring systems often suffer sustainability problems themselves, need to identify these risks and identify mitigation

• Structured approach for defining institutional arrangements through multi-stakeholder process

• Lessons from applications:– Build on existing monitoring practices even if they are incomplete or imperfect– Decentralise most of the steps in monitoring but ensure sufficient support to

local governments– Gradual approach to the comprehensiveness of the scope of the monitoring– Phased approach to reach country-wide scale, including pilots to adjust

information system and create ownership within sector– Costing is important tool in assigning responsibilities and assessing risks


Institutionalising monitoring of rural water services in Latin America; Lessons from El Salvador,...

Business

Transcript of Institutionalising monitoring of rural water services in Latin America; Lessons from El Salvador,...