Changing the narrative: from counting infrastructure to monitoring services

682 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
682
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
46
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ADDITIONAL LOGOS CAN GO TO THE RIGHT OF THE LINE NEXT TO THE IRC LOGO; MOVE IRC LOG0 LEFT TO MAKE MORE ROOM IF NEED BE
  • Changing the narrative: from counting infrastructure to monitoring services

    1. 1. CHANGING THE NARRATIVE: FROM COUNTING INFRASTRUCTURE TO MONITORING SERVICES Harold Lockwood Aguaconsult Brisbane, Australia May 2011 Session B3.B
    2. 2. WHAT DOES ‘COVERAGE’ MEAN IN PRACTICE?
    3. 3. 30% - 40% of hand pumps in Africa do not function at any one time <ul><li>Measuring coverage (systems built or people served) does not account for actual services delivered </li></ul><ul><li>Functionality is a one-off check which cannot measure sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Functionality over time is a better measure, but is still insufficient </li></ul>CHALLENGES WITH CURRENT MONITORING?
    4. 4. MONITORING IN 13 COUNTRY STUDY Country Descriptor Rates Benin Functionality of water facilities 73% (handpumps) 69% (small piped systems) Burkina Faso Functionality of water facilities 82% (handpumps) 66% (small piped systems) Ethiopia Functionality of water facilities 67% Ghana Functionality of water facilities Honduras Composite indicator classifying performance of service into four levels 78% not classified as requiring major intervention India Extent of slippage 1 30% Mozambique Functionality – for handpumps only 85% Uganda Functionality of water facilities 81%
    5. 5. MONITORING UNDER A SERVICE DELIVERY APPROACH <ul><li>The services provided – including service levels </li></ul><ul><li>2. The service providers </li></ul><ul><li>3. The service authorities </li></ul>
    6. 6. MONITORING SERVICES <ul><li>The water service can be monitored for: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reliability (downtime) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Affordability (cost per unit) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quantity (l/p/d available) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quality (normative criteria) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Round trip time or distance (< 30 mins.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Numbers sharing access (crowding) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    7. 7. THE SERVICE LADDER APPROACH High service: 60l/c/d on demand Intermediate service: 40l/c/d <30 min/day Basic service: 20l/c/d <30 min/day Sub-standard: lacking basic criteria No service: poor quality, distant etc
    8. 8. MONITORING SERVICE PROVIDERS <ul><li>Service provider functions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical (maintenance and repairs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial (tariffs, accounts) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Management and organisational (record keeping, dispute resolution) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other roles (hygiene promotion, water source protection activities etc) </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. MONITORING SERVICE PROVIDERS - NICARAGUA ABOVE AVERAGE ACCEPTABLE BELOW AVERAGE ORGANISATIONAL <ul><li>Committee </li></ul><ul><li>functioning with all </li></ul><ul><li>members active; </li></ul><ul><li>Committee </li></ul><ul><li>functioning, but </li></ul><ul><li>incomplete; </li></ul><ul><li>Committee not </li></ul><ul><li>functioning; </li></ul><ul><li>Decisions made in </li></ul><ul><li>previous month </li></ul><ul><li>respected and </li></ul><ul><li>adhered to by </li></ul><ul><li>community; </li></ul><ul><li>Decisions made by committee in previous month not universally agreed on nor respected; </li></ul><ul><li>No decisions taken in previous month; </li></ul><ul><li>Committee functions without external support. </li></ul><ul><li>Committee functions, but with some need for external support </li></ul><ul><li>Organization impossible without external support. </li></ul>
    10. 10. MONITORING SERVICE AUTHORITIES <ul><li>District level government often has responsibility to ensure water provision: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enforcement of bye-laws </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning and coordination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Letting of contracts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support to service providers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Regulation’ of services and providers </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. SERVICE AUTHORITY INDICATORS - GHANA Score DWST does not monitor O&M of water facilities in terms of financial, technical and administrative performance. 0 DWST monitors O&M of water facilities in terms of financial, technical and administrative performance, but does not (immediately) provide the direct support when needed. 25 DWST monitors O&M of water facilities in terms of financial, technical and administrative performance, but does not (immediately) provide the direct support when needed. 50 DWST monitors O&M of water facilities in terms of financial, technical and administrative performance, and provides direct support where needed when challenges are identified. 75 DWST monitors O&M of water facilities in terms of financial, technical and administrative performance, including periodic audits, and provides direct support where needed. (CWSA standard) 100
    12. 12. Monitoring is only useful if it leads to action MAKING USE OF THE OUTPUTS So what?
    13. 13. SIAR HONDURAS – CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Monitoring data used to inform planning decisions and proactive interventions at local level – classification allows identification of risk factors Category and status of the system Recommended intervention A: System functions well Activities geared towards optimizing community participation and continued strengthening of management tasks by the water committee B: system may be working but with management gaps - sustainability at risk Supporting and strengthening management capacity. Supporting accountability and participation of the users. C: System functions only partially – both management and physical deficiencies Same as B, but support to the water committee in defining the works that need to be done, their budgeting and identifying of sources of funding. D: System is in bad management and physical state Define feasibility to be considered in future investment plans.
    14. 14. TARGETS FOR SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES <ul><ul><li>Uganda has formalised targets for sustainable services: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Eleven ‘golden’ indicators, including functionality </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>League tables with performance targets </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Trend analysis over time – consolidated reporting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>86% for 2009/2010 and 90% for 2014/2015 </li></ul></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Act on data collection results RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A SERVICE DELIVERY APPROACH <ul><ul><li>Monitor services (what the user really experiences), as well as coverage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitoring services has cost implications – incremental, small changes and benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strengthen existing monitoring systems to support improved performance management </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. WATER SERVICES THAT LAST www.waterservicesthatlast.org

    ×