Rural water supply policies: Evidence through qualitative document analysis

RURAL WATER SUPPLY POLICIES: EVIDENCE THROUGH QUALITATIVE

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

SUSTAINABLE SERVICES AT SCALE OR ‘TRIPLE-S’

• A six year research project 2009 – 2014, led by IRC and funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

• Seeks to contribute to a shift from an “infrastructure perspective” to a service delivery approach for the rural water sector through:

− Action research in Ghana, Uganda, Burkina Faso (USAID)

− Working with government and sector stakeholders

− Research, documentation and dissemination

− International partnerships and advocacy

2WATER SERVICES THAT LAST

WHAT IS QDA AND WHY ARE TRIPLE-S USING IT?

• Qualitative Document Analysis (QDA) is a method of assessing documents in a rigorous and reliable manner through identifying the presence or absence of particular themes or issues.

• The International Workstream of Triple-S is carrying out QDA on a selected group of development partners’ policy, strategy and guideline documents to:

− establish a baseline of sector policy for comparison with future policy changes;

− analyse the congruence between policy documents and practice-related documents (e.g. calls for proposals, project reports);

− serve as an engagement tool, alongside interviews with the development partners concerned.


ORGANISATIONS INCLUDED IN THE QDA


POLICY-QDA METHODOLOGY

1. Obtain Documents – Rural water policy, strategy, guidelines or similar were found. For the baseline assessment documents were generally used from before 2009 (aligning with before the start of the Triple-S initiative).

2. Identify Themes – 21 themes were identified which relate to service delivery concepts, as articulated by Triple-S.

3. Analysis – Each document was analysed to determine the extent of alignment with each theme. Summary tables were produced using quotes where appropriate to support conclusions.

4. Validation – A check of the analysis was carried out by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Impact and Learning Team (ILT).

5. Finalisation – The analyser and validator agreed on the final results and an overall summary was produced for sector overview and organisational comparisons.


ENSURING RELIABILITY


DOCUMENTS INCLUDED


The 21 themes assessed can be grouped into four main categories as shown. Full definitions of each theme are included in the appendix

• Financial planning for life cycle costs

• Planning for asset management

• Post-construction support

• Equality and inclusion

• Roles and responsibilities

• Professionalisation of community management

• Alternative service provider options

• Accountability and transparency

ASSESSED THEMES

• Capacity support for local government

• Supporting institutions & policy

• Country-specific approach

• Decentralisation

• Regulation

• Monitoring

• Coordination & collaboration

• Harmonisation & alignment

• Increase coverage/ plan for full coverage

• Learning, KM & innovation

Institutional Management Financial

• Service levels

• Appropriate technology

• Multiple Use Systems (MUS)

Technical


RESULTS

These results are summarised in the table that follows


Theme DFID UNICEF AfDB IADB Danida*Water

AidEU

Water for

PeopleAusAID

EWB Canada

LWI Sum

Learning, knowledge management & innovation

3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 31

Coordination & collaboration 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 30

Capacity support for local government 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 27

Equality and inclusion 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 0 27

Increasing coverage or planning for full coverage

3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 1 2 2 26

Supporting institutions and policy 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 0 3 3 0 25

Country-specific approach 3 3 3 3 3 0 2 0 3 0 3 23

Harmonisation and alignment 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 1 22

Service levels 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 0 2 1 2 20

Post-construction support 3 3 2 2 1 3 0 3 2 0 1 20

Decentralisation 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 19

Financial planning for life cycle costs 3 0 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 0 2 18

Roles and responsibilities 3 3 3 1 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 17

Technology 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 3 17

Accountability and transparency 3 0 0 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 16

Professionalisation of community management

2 3 2 1 3 0 1 2 1 0 1 16

Regulation 3 0 2 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 12

Monitoring 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 11

Planning for asset management 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 8

Multiple Use Systems (MUS) 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5

Increased recognition and promotion of alternative service provider options (self supply & delegated management)

1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Sum 53 44 43 41 40 37 34 31 28 22 21

* - Only a finance-related document was available for Danida See appendix for original summary 10

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES BY THEME & ORGANISATION


Institutional Management Financial Technical

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES BY THEME


STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES BY ASSESSED ORGANISATION


DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

• The most commonly supported issues in the documents were learning, knowledge management & innovation; coordination and collaboration; capacity support for local government and equality and inclusion, where all organisations scored either ‘good’ or ‘okay’, (except for Danida and LWI for capacity support and LWI for equality and inclusion).

• The least recognised issues were planning for asset management where only DFID, Water For People and AusAID were ‘good’ or ‘okay’; MUS where only UNICEF and WaterAid were ‘good’ or ‘okay’; and increased recognition/promotion of alternative service providers to community management where only Danida was ‘good’.

• Interestingly, even some organisations which score very well overall in this assessment are lacking in particular key areas. For example UNICEF had the second-highest score, but still did not include any financial issues in their policy document (financial planning for life cycle costs and asset management) which are recognised as critical to achieving long-term sustainability (see www.WASHCost.info).


http://www.washcost.info/

NEXT STEPS – BASELINE AND THE POLICY-PRACTICE GAP


NEXT STEPS – TIMELINE FOR THE NEXT ROUNDS OF QDA


APPENDIX – DEFINITIONS OF THEMES

Accountability and transparency

Recognition of the importance of accountability and transparency; support to establishment or strengthening of accountability systems (including accountability to whom), and efforts to ensure transparency in service delivery

Capacity support for local government

Under decentralisation it is normally local government that is mandated to guarantee basic services including water and sanitation. Under this arrangement local government is involved in planning, coordination, monitoring, and support activities. In many cases some form of capacity support is required to strengthen and guide local government itself, which can be weak, inexperienced or simply lack certain specialist capacities. Support can be provided across key functions in the life-cycle of rural water supply services, including planning, management, procurement, letting of service contracts and monitoring of local operators (whether community management entities or private sector providers). Such capacity support is frequently, but not always, provided by deconcentrated offices of central ministries. Lack of capacity at local level is broader than in only the water or sanitation sector and is linked to mainstream public administration delivery. Ideally such support should be continuous, well structured and adequately financed to ensure long-term development of local capacity for WASH oversight.

Coordination & collaboration

Collaboration and coordination both within and outside the sector can lead to better use of resources and more effective service delivery. Sharing information between service providers and service authorities can help to plan activities for economies of scale. Development partner and in particular NGO coordination at the local level, both between themselves and with service authorities, can ensure better overall planning and more effective use of resources. National level government ministries should also work together well to ensure that resources are available as required. This is particularly important between the Ministry of Finance and the ministry (or ministries) in charge of water and sanitation, health and local government.

Country-specific approach

Triple-S is not promoting a ‘silver bullet’ solution to sustainability of rural water supply, but rather context specific approaches. This is supported through a learning sector which may take lessons from other places, but adapts them to fit local contexts.


Decentralisation

Decentralisation of public services, including responsibility for water and sanitation, is being done in many countries. This requires decentralisation of resources, financial and human, as well as decision making authority. It has often gone hand in hand with the separation of functions within the water sector between authority and service provision, with the former responsible for planning, oversight and coordination. At the local (commonly district or municipality) level, and also national level, institutions need to be strong and competent and adequately resourced. Good governance practices should be carried out which are transparent, inclusive, equitable and gender sensitive. Progress should be made towards meeting national goals in water supply, sanitation and water resources management.

Equality and inclusion

Involving consumers in the decision making process of water service delivery can help to ensure that the needs of all sections of society are addressed. This can help to ensure equity of access. National planning processes and procedures should ensure participation at all levels and by all groups, regardless of their vulnerability or access to decision-makers. Consumers should participate in all stages of the life-cycle of a service, including planning, design, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and long-term service delivery phases, including technology choice to ensure their needs are taken into account. This should be an inclusive process, taking account of specific needs of all groups - women, men, children, elderly, disabled, minority and marginalised groups. Services should be equally distributed, geographically and by income group and lead to full coverage.

Financial planning for life cycle costs

Life-cycle unit costs refer to the costs of ensuring an adequate service level to a specific population in a determined geographical area forever. It refers not only to the costs of constructing new systems but also the costs for maintaining them within the short and long-terms, and at higher institutional levels. The costs both for a district and national level administration and planning are taken into account, as well as the costs of replacement and the extension of infrastructure. If funding streams are not sustainable, or if responsibilities for financing are not clearly defined, it is unlikely that all costs will be covered and that services will be maintained at the design level. Financial planning should include: initial capital expenditure, which includes one-off software costs of training etc (CapEx); large-scale capital maintenance and replacement expenditures (CapManEx); expenditure on direct and indirect costs (ExpDS and ExpIDS), including the vital function of post-construction support and monitoring, operation and maintenance. These funds may be obtained from a mixture of: tariffs from consumers; taxes or transfers from government; or transfers from donors and international financing banks, as well as NGOs.


Harmonisation and alignment

Harmonisation between development partners and alignment of development partner efforts with government led strategies have been adopted as core elements, or principles, of improving aid effectiveness. More harmonised approaches can lead to more efficient and effective use of funds. Duplication of effort, parallel investments and contradictory policies can all be avoided if development partners are encouraged to align with national guidelines and ensure that national priorities are supported. The establishment of a Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) is one important mechanism that can help to achieve this, but there are other mechanisms apart from SWAps. Investments can then be designed to fit within and respect common policy frameworks (for example on tariff setting and cost recovery or technology type) and financing can be channelled through common funding mechanism or basket funding arrangements.

Increased recognition and promotion of alternative service provider options (self supply and delegated management)

Although all countries will differ, there are four main categories for service delivery: community-based management, direct public sector provision, private operators, and self-supply, plus numerous variants within these categories. Different models are likely to be appropriate in different contexts, for example in highly dispersed rural communities community-based management or self-supply (whereby households provide their own water supplies with their own resources) may be most suitable whereas in high-density rural growth centres, more options may be available, such as private sector operators. Different types of technology may also suit different service delivery models. Therefore alternative management models to community management, particularly self supply and delegated management to the private sector, should be supported when appropriate, in line with government policy.


There are numerous examples of small-scale, successful rural water supply, but most remain models that are not scaled up. Service authorities (generally local government) should plan for full coverage in their jurisdiction, with equitable access and monitoring data used to support sector planning, rather than rely on a demand-responsive-approach which can lead to unequal service coverage. This should lead to progress towards meeting national goals in water supply, sanitation and water resources management.


Building a learning sector is a must for delivering sustainable services and requires the capacity and willingness to do things together, better and differently. It should not rely on ad-hoc support, but become an integral part of sector capacity and be properly funded both at national and decentralised levels. To create a learning sector able to adapt to changing circumstances and demands, mechanisms are needed to: encourage information sharing; facilitate continuous reflection and analysis; support stakeholder consultation; manage information and research-based knowledge. Resource centres and learning alliances are two ways to support learning by individuals and organisations.


Monitoring A crucial building block in delivering sustainable services is a monitoring system able to track the level of service provided over time, especially the performance of key technical, financial, and management functions so that problems can be anticipated and addressed. Whilst functionality is commonly measured, it is limited as its only focus is on output (i.e., asking whether water flows from the tap or hand pump), and not on the underlying factors that make a service sustainable, such as adequate management capacity, tariff recovery, and technical backstopping etc. Adapting indicators to focus on the service provided and defining sector targets is an important step in creating more sustainable rural water services at scale. At sector level, the aim is to create a single, comprehensive system that provides government, service providers and users with the information necessary to set targets, monitor progress, take corrective action and ensure accountability. Donor-funded projects and NGOs should be encouraged to support a government-led system, rather than create parallel systems that are incompatible with the available resources to manage and maintain such systems.

Multiple Use Systems (MUS)

Single-use approaches to water development and management do not reflect the realities of how poor people use water. People use domestic water supplies for a range of activities such as irrigating backyard gardens, keeping livestock, fishing, processing crops and running small-scale enterprises. In areas without adequate domestic water supply, they use irrigation water to meet household needs, such as drinking and bathing, as well as to support a range of income generating activities in addition to crop production. A more integrated, multiple-use approach can maximize the health benefits and productive potential of available water supplies–leading to increased incomes, improved health and reduced workloads for women and children. Systems that cater to multiple uses are also more likely to be sustainable, because users benefit more from them, have a greater stake in them, and are more willing and better able to pay for them as the result of alternative income sources.

Planning for asset management

This is less about ensuring there is support, and more about ensuring that major replacement is planned and financed, usually by the service authority such as local government, or another external body, therefore the service provider may be taken out of the picture somewhat (they may only be responsible for everyday O&M and minor repairs). Service providers should plan and implement operation and maintenance activities based on life-cycle planning and consumer feedback. Facilities should be monitored and maintained to provide the agreed service levels to consumers and funds should be available for replacement of equipment at the end of their expected lives. As well as eventual replacement, capital maintenance is required at periodic intervals to repair or replace specific components, such as handpumps, storage tanks etc. Without such planning services will deteriorate and eventually fail.


Post-construction support

Support (day-to-day) is to whoever is managing the water service (financial, technical, managerial support such as from local government to the service provider e.g. community water associations or private operators) Post-construction or recurrent support is often required to ensure that water services continue to operate in the long-term. Evidence has shown that this is particularly important for community-based management where often voluntary committees cannot manage all aspects of the operation, maintenance and administration of their water facilities on their own. However, other types of service providers, such as private sector operators, will also require support. Post-construction support may be provided by local government, associations of local government (to achieve economies of scale), NGOs, associations of water committees or water user associations, or central government agencies. It should include: technical backstopping and advice; administrative and financial support; auditing of accounts; organisational and conflict resolution; creating linkages with other state and private sector suppliers; water quality monitoring; hygiene promotion; training and refresher courses; information collection and collation. Support may be provided on a supply basis by the external agency or it may be sought out by communities on a demand-basis.


Community management is the most common service delivery model for rural water supply and it has been established as formal policy in many countries. But for communities to be able to manage their water supplies effectively and over many years a number of elements need to be in place for community-based service providers to function more professionally, thereby raising the quality of service experienced by users. Some of the more important elements include: legal status of committees established to enable them to obtain financing and for representation; options for delegated management to private sector suppliers and operators (i.e. paying plumbers or bill collectors and sometimes contracting a private company to carry out financial audits etc.); strengthened management capacity and a shift in philosophy from volunteerism to running a water service professionally, remunerating staff and viewing community members as clients of a service.


Roles and responsibilities

Stakeholders need to be clear on their roles and responsibilities, as well as those of other stakeholders to ensure that defined service levels are achieved. For consumers this requires them to understand their rights regarding the level of service they should receive and their responsibilities to support the water service, such as paying tariffs. Sector policies should account for the needs and rights of the poor and marginalised, whilst gender issues and equal opportunity policies and practices should also be mainstreamed. At sector level institutional roles also need to be clear, including responsibilities for constructing new or rehabilitating infrastructure and for long-term management of systems. The distinction between different levels of government should also be clear with mandates for monitoring, oversight and planning, which are ideally separated from those institutions with responsibility for direct operational activities.

Service levels Service criteria should be defined for water quality, quantity, accessibility and reliability. Service levels may vary depending on the context, such as the technology used or the density of the population, however, minimum levels of service provided should always agree with national standards. Service levels enable a comparison to be made as users climb up the ‘service ladder’ from sub-standard or basic levels to improved services. The use of service level concept moves us from the basic binary assumption of unimproved/improved.

Supporting institutions and policy

At the local (commonly district or municipality) level, and also national level, institutions need to be strong and competent and adequately resourced. Good governance practices should be carried out which are transparent, inclusive, equitable and gender sensitive. Progress should be made towards meeting national goals in water supply, sanitation and water resources management.

Technology Different types of technology will be suitable for different levels of service and different management models. The choice of technology type will affect the price of water, the extent of operation and maintenance requirements and whether a system can be for multiple uses. Consumers should be involved in planning the type of technology to be adopted to ensure that it is acceptable and affordable and that gender issues are considered. Technology selection may also be determined by the nature of available water sources, soil types and other factors. It is generally recognised that a degree of standardisation in technology (specifically in handpumps) is a positive approach. However, space for trialling of new technology and improving existing equipment and design should be encouraged.


Theme AfDB AusAID Danida DFID EU EWB Canada IADB LWI UNICEF Water for People

WaterAid

Accountability and transparency

None None Good Good - accountability through community complaint mechanisms.

OK – focussed at national level and EUWI itself

Unclear Good None None Okay – about NGO and donor accountability not service providers

Good

Capacity support for local government

Good - Capacity building for local government

Good - Governance and policy support strong with support at all levels

None - need for this is mentioned, but no detail of doing it.

Good - capacity support at all levels

Good – capacity building at all levels

Good- supporting district governments

Good None Good - Supporting local government

Good Good – supporting local government

Coordination & collaboration

Good. Encouraged and supported

Good - collaboration supported and encouraged at different levels.

Okay Good - seeks to play an active role in increasing coordination

Good Good – with NGOS and government

Good – engaging with stakeholders

Okay - Collaboration with other NGOs and government

Good – supporting coordination

Okay Good – working with local partners and internationally

Country-specific approach

Good – supports country’s own approach

Good - tailor to local circumstances

Good Good Okay N/A - one country focus

Good Good Good Unclear None

Decentralisation Good Unclear OK, but focus on finance only

Good Good None Good None Good. Decentralisation and multiple levels mentioned throughout

Unclear Okay

Equality and inclusion

Good - Participation by all in community encouraged

Good – equitable access for poor

Good – including vulnerable groups

Good Good OK – equitable coverage

Okay – ‘universal’ can be taken to mean ‘equality and inclusion’; targeting underserved

None Good – gender and reaching the poor

Okay Good – meeting needs of poorest and most vulnerable

APPENDIX – SUMMARY OF RESULTS



WaterAid

Financial planning for life cycle costs

Okay - Focus on cost recovery for O&M. Government to cover capital replacements

Limited and no mention of full life cycle costs

Good – covering O&M and replacement costs, plus contribution from national budget could involve covering support costs

Good - Includes need for financing replacements, on-going support and different funding mechanisms

Limited None Okay Okay - Encouraging finance from community to eventually replace systems

None Good Limited – only operation

Harmonisation and alignment

Good. Support for government-led strategies and SWAp, but not clear if contradictions occur between Bank and country policies

Unclear Good Good, at all levels

Good Good – consult with national government and supporting SWAp

Good – support consistent with countries’ wishes

Limited - Some alignment with government strategy.

Good – supportive of PRSPs and SWAps and all stakeholders

Unclear Unclear – aiming to influence others, but not clear the effect of this or the relation to government policy

Increased recognition and promotion of alternative service provider options (self supply and delegated management)

None None Good – self supply and lease contracts

Limited. Emphasis on community management. Not clear if private sector is also relevant for rural

Unclear None None None None None None


Good - looking to increase coverage, but target is 80%, not full coverage

Limited. No mention of aiming for full coverage

Good Good. Encourages fair coverage

Unclear OK – focus on equitable coverage

Good Okay Good - Rights-based implies full coverage;Scaling up is main focus

Good Good – developing government to reach more.



WaterAid


Limited - Some learning carried out, but limited and lacks detail

Good - Resources available for learning

Good – sharing knowledge and learning from others

Good Good Good – supporting district level learning and testing & developing own approaches

Good Okay - external learning is limited – seems to focus on internal learning

Good - Strong learning organisation

Good Good – efforts for learning and sharing

Monitoring Limited - Lacks detail of local government monitoring requirements

Limited monitoring criteria – water quality and hydro-meteorological

None. Only included in annex about OBA

Limited – monitoring mentioned but unclear if just related to access or service delivery

Limited – access and quality mentioned, but detail lacking

OK – strengthening national monitoring. Focus on functionality but unclear if other aspects of service are monitored

Unclear how monitoring is done

Limited(Not clear that this is something that is always undertaken, limited to short-term, and done by LWI, not by others)

Limited - Monitoring focuses on access, plus water quality.

Okay – focus on long-term functionality, but not on linking to national monitoring systems

Limited – lacks detail of how monitoring will be done, by whom, and what would be monitored

Multiple Use Systems (MUS)

Unclear. Multi-sector projects mentioned

Unclear None None – IWRM related, not MUS

Unclear None None None Okay – support for productive water use

None Good – providing water for multiple uses

Planning for asset management

None Okay – asset maintenance and management plans

Unclear Ok – appreciate need to plan for replacements but lacks detail

None None None Limited Unclear Good None

Post-construction support

Okay - Focus on capacity building for communities, supply chains and maintenance

Okay - details lacking, but support for local management, inc. financial

Limited – only about finance, not providing management, technical and financial to service providers

Good - Supporting government to provide support

None None OK – investing in service providers but unclear on details

Limited - Maintenance focusing on repairs (infrastructure focus)

Good - Supporting communities to manage systems

Good Good – there is understanding of the need for post-construction support and that is built into the approach



WaterAid


OK. Community management approach, but support for private sector and local government to support communities.

Limited - Support provided to communities, but no details.

Good – responsibilities clear for maintenance

Okay - Understanding of need to support communities, but lacks details on how to do this

Limited None Limited – some technical assistance, but reliant on communities own abilities

Limited – focus on community management

Good - Supporting communities. Community-management the default option

Okay – community support by private sector

Unclear– focus on ‘basic’ community management

Regulation OK. Plans for legislation & regulation

Unclear if urban only

Okay – but unclear if it includes rural service providers (relating to private sector)

Good (assuming it is for rural)

Okay – promoting all actors involved in regulation although lacks detail.

None Good (assuming it includes for the rural sector)

None None None None

Roles and responsibilities

Good – roles & responsibilities of stakeholders need legal backing

None Good Good – especially regarding communities

Good None limited – for institutional levels, but no information on household, community or local levels

None Good Limited None

Service levels OK, somewhat bit mixed / conflicted

OK – setting appropriate tariffs and service standards

OK – lacks detail about the minimum

OK - although not significantly detailed, appropriate service levels planned for

Limited – only quantity mentioned

Limited - focus on functionality but not other service levels.

Good Okay - Setting their own service levels not following national standards

Okay - Quality, access, and reliability mentioned, but not ‘quantity’

None Good

Supporting institutions and policy

Good – policy and institutional strengthening

Good Limited- support is only mentioned with respect to financial institutions

Good Good Good Good Unclear Good - Supporting policy and institutional development

Unclear Good. Influencing policy and supporting institutions

Technology Good. Appropriate technology

None None Good – appropriate technologies

None None None Good - Appropriate technology chosen

Good Okay Good


Rural water supply policies: Evidence through qualitative document analysis

Technology

Transcript of Rural water supply policies: Evidence through qualitative document analysis