Session Governance - Smits transparency honduras (pp-tminimizer)


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Session Governance - Smits transparency honduras (pp-tminimizer)

  1. 1. Strengthening transparency and accountability in community-based management in Honduras Stef Smits and Damian Suazo IRC, the Netherlands and RASHON, Honduras
  2. 2. (Support to) community-based management in Honduras <ul><li>Community-based management main service delivery model in rural water supply in Honduras </li></ul><ul><li>Complemented by various programmes and mechanisms for post-construction support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SANAA, through its TOMs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Municipal associations of water committees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Honduran Association of Water Committees (AHJASA) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Providing ongoing support to rural operators to improve sustainability of services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical assistance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitoring </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Curriculum of support, e.g. book keeping, plumbing, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying new investment needs </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Transparency and accountability in rural water supply <ul><li>Ongoing regulatory reforms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National regulator (ERPSAPS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Local branches for control at municipal level (USCL) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Water committees, as formal service providers, need to provide accountability to users and USCL </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation of rural regulation and control still incipient, particularly on issues such as indicators, formats, etc </li></ul><ul><li>Transparency and accountability not addressed in explicit way in curriculum of support, even though elements present in some modules </li></ul><ul><li>Issues around corruption risks and transparency during project implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Sector resource centre (RASHON) established working group to start addressing the topic for rural areas, with support from IRC and WIN </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Curriculum development </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Findings from study <ul><li>Corruption risks at community level: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corruption by community members and contractors during the implementation phase (e.g. inappropriate use of implementation funds, collusion by material suppliers, etc), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Petty corruption by water committee (inappropriate handling of water fees, etc) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But, also mis-management </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Good practices identified <ul><li>Implementation phase </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Projects Executed by the Community” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community responsible for leading and handling of implementation, procurement, contracting, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assisted by government agency (FHIS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased incentive for transparency and good management of funds, reducing corruption risks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need for simple tools and methods (e.g. how to do stock taking) and capacity building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk of going for cheapest, but not necessarily best options </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Good practices identified <ul><li>Operation and maintenance phase: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Range of methods for accountability from water committee to users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community meetings, but also use of local media channels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stronger in larger and more professionalised communities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Still little accountability to USCL </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Curriculum development <ul><li>Module on transparency and accountability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of corruption risks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal and policy framework and roles and responsibilities of water committees, users, USCL and regulator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tools, methods and good practices in different phases of project cycle </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Geared towards TOMs and other technicians for training of trainers </li></ul><ul><li>Field tested in different programmes </li></ul><ul><li>Adopted by other organisations in the sector </li></ul><ul><li>Development of additional information material: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplified version for water committees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Field notes </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Lessons learnt <ul><li>Need to be specific on corruption risks and corresponding transparency and accountability measures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Different stages of project cycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different interactions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transparency and accountability are sensitive issues – outside facilitators, such as TOMs, can introduce it in a practical way </li></ul><ul><li>Much emphasis placed on mismanagement at community level, between water committee and users </li></ul><ul><li>Need to take it to higher levels as well, particularly the Municipality through its USCL </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Addressing corruption risks in intervention cycles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strengthening role of USCL in control and accountability over water committees </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need for feed-back into development of rural regulation </li></ul>
  9. 9. Gracias