Sida Wsp Meeting Edits Gpo + Ys 18 August 2009

445 views
346 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Travel
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
445
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This slide is a lead-in to the next few case studies
  • 5 Communities: Sechura (Piura); Tabalosa (Tarapoto) ; Nauta (Iquitos) ; Laredo (Trujillo) Talavera (Andahuaylas)
  • 5 Communities: Sechura (Piura); Tabalosa (Tarapoto) ; Nauta (Iquitos) ; Laredo (Trujillo) Talavera (Andahuaylas)
  • 5 Communities: Sechura (Piura); Tabalosa (Tarapoto) ; Nauta (Iquitos) ; Laredo (Trujillo) Talavera (Andahuaylas)
  • Sida Wsp Meeting Edits Gpo + Ys 18 August 2009

    1. 1. Lessons from the Water & Sanitation Sector<br />How WSS can contribute to<br />Decentralization, Governance,and Local-Government capacity building<br />Stockholm <br />August 2009<br />
    2. 2. Natural nexus between:<br />Local government <br />capacity building<br />Decentralization<br />Basic service delivery<br />Accountability<br /><ul><li>Basic service delivery is most effectively managed at a decentralized level.
    3. 3. One of the most visible decentralized activities (WSS including solid waste management).</li></li></ul><li>Lessons from WSPDecentralization & Service Delivery<br />Decentralization trend in many countries:<br /><ul><li>Political, administrative or service delivery reasons.</li></ul>WSP focus is on service delivery gains & capacity<br /><ul><li>Large scale cross-cutting (e.g. India and Bangladesh).
    4. 4. Issue and sector specific (e.g. Peru and Indonesia).</li></li></ul><li>Lessons from WSPDecentralization & Service Delivery<br />Not a panacea, but decentralization can enhance service delivery<br /><ul><li>Addressing institutional roadblocks to service improvements.
    5. 5. Increased management capacity (local level).
    6. 6. Assigning roles & responsibilities.
    7. 7. Empowering citizens and improving accountability.</li></li></ul><li>Overlapping <br />roles<br />Fragmentation<br />Limited <br />autonomy<br />Weak citizen <br />links<br />Lack of <br />incentives<br />Lack of <br />capacity<br />Strengthening decentralizationthrough improved service delivery<br />Roadblocks<br />Roadmap<br />Institutions for better services<br /><ul><li>Policy frameworks
    8. 8. Separate policy, regulation and ops
    9. 9. Clearly assigned powers of levels
    10. 10. Multi-year planning</li></ul>Fiscal Flows<br />Decentralized <br />decision-making<br />Reforms for service delivery outcomes<br /><ul><li>Operational autonomy at local level
    11. 11. Performance management
    12. 12. Reliable information for monitoring
    13. 13. Citizen empowerment & participation</li></ul>Accountability<br /> to citizens<br />Fiscal & financial incentives<br /><ul><li>Outcome focused transfers
    14. 14. Hard budget constraint
    15. 15. Both revenue & expenditure reform
    16. 16. Accounting reform</li></li></ul><li><ul><li>Decentralization often highly politicized issue:
    17. 17. Demands sound analysis of political economy.
    18. 18. Get the focus right:
    19. 19. Systems and policies, not just training at local level.
    20. 20. Stay evidence based.
    21. 21. Practical experience needed: Issue-specific (e.g. sanitation) or integrated or both.
    22. 22. Opportunities to influence other sectors.
    23. 23. Peer learning.
    24. 24. Harmonization among international agencies to support government policies.</li></ul>How development partners can supportdecentralization<br />
    25. 25. India<br />WSP-SIDA support to urban reform<br />Context<br /><ul><li>Formal decentralization, but ambiguity of roles; higher tier control; fiscal unpredictability, rewards new assets, not maintenance.
    26. 26. Increased infrastructure investment but no 24/7, poor quality services.
    27. 27. Customers use alternative providers & coping infrastructure: the poor continue to struggle.
    28. 28. Severe health, environmental & economic costs.</li></li></ul><li>India<br />WSP-SIDA support to urban reform<br />WSP-SIDA emphasis<br /><ul><li>Improved transparency: benchmark, monitor, data, disclosure.
    29. 29. Fiscal & policy incentives for reform.
    30. 30. Strategy development at all tiers.
    31. 31. City level assessments & planning.
    32. 32. Provider performance improvement.
    33. 33. Local-level capacity building.
    34. 34. Citizen voice.</li></li></ul><li>India<br />Results of WSP-SIDA partnership<br />Evidence-based policy dialogue <br /><ul><li>Fiscal framework global best practice & trends in India.
    35. 35. Helped design $3bn JNNURM grant as fiscal support for service delivery reform.
    36. 36. National Urban Sanitation Policy design on basis of sector assessment & consultations.
    37. 37. Profile of urban priorities tangibly raised.
    38. 38. City-level learning fed back to policy level.</li></li></ul><li>India<br />Results of WSP-SIDA partnership<br />WSS strategy & capacity building<br /><ul><li>Citywide planning.
    39. 39. City governance arrangements, i.e. state-city; city-provider-customer/citizen relationships.
    40. 40. Financial capacity: cost recovery, municipal borrowing, accountable financial management.
    41. 41. Citizen engagement.</li></li></ul><li>Indonesia<br />Local Sanitation Planning & Capacity<br />Context <br /><ul><li>“Big bang’ decentralization.
    42. 42. Resource ,capacity, delivery challenges for new structures.
    43. 43. Sanitation: local initiative needed to achieve change.</li></li></ul><li>Indonesia<br />Local Sanitation Planning & Capacity<br />Sanitation & decentralization<br /><ul><li>Multi-stakeholder sanitation working groups (‘pokja’).
    44. 44. Pokia’s do assessments, sanitation mapping and participatory prioritization.
    45. 45. City Sanitation Strategy (CSS) within government planning & budgeting system, not parallel process.
    46. 46. Integrates city planning with community-based processes.</li></li></ul><li>Peru <br />Small Towns Pilot Project<br />Context<br /><ul><li>Small towns: 2.001 to 30.000 inhabitants.
    47. 47. 650 small towns have 4.1 million inhabitants (2003).
    48. 48. Intervention in 9 localities.
    49. 49. localities population: from 5.000 to 25.000 inhabitants.
    50. 50. 3 years (2004-2007).</li></li></ul><li>Peru <br />Small Towns Pilot Project<br />Process<br />Sustainability of services Improved quality and coverage<br />Development of new W&S management modelsfor STPP<br />Consultation & Capacity Building<br />Social Agreement<br />Partnership<br />Public-Private-Social<br />
    51. 51. Peru <br />Small Towns Pilot Project<br />Results <br /><ul><li>STPP Sector Assessments included in the National Sanitation Plan (2006-15).
    52. 52. STPP management model included in W&S Legislation.
    53. 53. STPP alternative technologies proposal included in National Edification Norms.
    54. 54. 6 out of 9 new models remained with new local authorities.
    55. 55. 6 Peruvian specialized operators trained by the STPP and 6 from PRONASAR.</li></ul>2009New management models still in force in 5 communities.<br />
    56. 56. Bolivia<br />WSP-SIDA peri-urban sanitation<br />Highlights<br /><ul><li>Support government focus on peri-urban areas.
    57. 57. Entry point of peri-urban strategy for improved sanitation in 24 cities.
    58. 58. Include cross-cutting variable of impact of climate change on the poor.
    59. 59. Support of strategy addresses.
    60. 60. local government capacity.
    61. 61. Responsiveness to most vulnerable.
    62. 62. Strategy is vehicle for harmonization among development partners.</li></li></ul><li>BangladeshHorizontal Learning for Local Capacity<br />Context<br />Rural local government (Union Parishads) needs capacity building for planning, budgeting and implementing development schemes.<br />
    63. 63. BangladeshHorizontal Learning for Local Capacity<br />Strategy<br />Horizontal Learning Program is facilitated by GoB with support from WSP & partners.<br /><ul><li>Identifying existing good practices.
    64. 64. Peer to peer learning of good practices.
    65. 65. Replicating good practices.
    66. 66. Peer reviewing for validating replication.
    67. 67. Programmatic: i.e. fed into broader frameworks rather than sole pilots.</li></li></ul><li>Bangladesh Horizontal Learning for Local Capacity<br />Results: <br />Some Examples<br />300 LGI representatives exposed to good practices by 7 exposure visits. <br />17 Good practices replicating by 62 unions and allocated around USD 350,000 from their own ADP for replication of these good practices.<br />44 Unions have replicated the “open budget process” which helps bottom up planning and inter-face with citizens.<br />
    68. 68. Decentralizationa means to an end<br />Avoid ‘ideological’ position but programmatically explore what decentralization can offer <br />Responsive governance<br />To do the right things – deliver services consistent with citizen preferences<br />Responsible governance<br />To do it right. Costing less and working better. Benchmarking with the best.<br />Accountable Governance<br />To be accountable to citizens. Legal institutional framework for in-between elections accountability e.g. citizens’ charter, recall etc…<br />
    69. 69. Key programmatic considerations <br /><ul><li>National & mid-term policy and fiscal frameworks vital for enabling conditions.
    70. 70. Clear ownership and separation of roles vital.
    71. 71. Performance accountability through outcome budgeting and hard fiscal constraints.
    72. 72. Poor communities and customers need special attention as not all voters are users of service.
    73. 73. Four key modules: governance, finance, planning, service delivery.
    74. 74. The value of peer learning.</li></li></ul><li>Tak!<br />

    ×