Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Water Integrity Global Outlook : following the money

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 21 Ad

Water Integrity Global Outlook : following the money

Download to read offline

Despite investing US$ 486 million in rural water supply in Tanzania between 2007-2014, coverage is stagnating and even declining. Who is to blame? Findings and lessons of a "value for money" review of the rural water supply programme in Tanzania conducted by IRCconsult for DFID. Presented by Catarina Fonseca on 15 April 2016 at the WIN-IRC Event: "Water Integrity Global Outlook 2016: Launch in the Netherlands", The Hague, The Netherlands.

Despite investing US$ 486 million in rural water supply in Tanzania between 2007-2014, coverage is stagnating and even declining. Who is to blame? Findings and lessons of a "value for money" review of the rural water supply programme in Tanzania conducted by IRCconsult for DFID. Presented by Catarina Fonseca on 15 April 2016 at the WIN-IRC Event: "Water Integrity Global Outlook 2016: Launch in the Netherlands", The Hague, The Netherlands.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Advertisement

Similar to Water Integrity Global Outlook : following the money (20)

More from IRC (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Water Integrity Global Outlook : following the money

  1. 1. Supporting water sanitation and hygiene services for life The Hague, 15th April 2016 Water Integrity Global Outlook Following the money Catarina Fonseca
  2. 2. Rural water coverage stagnating and declining 45.5%
  3. 3. 2007-2014 Water Sector Development Programme USD 486,357,432 Source: GoT, Water Sector Status Report, 2015
  4. 4. Value for money = Money + Functioning infrastructure + Number of people benefiting from services
  5. 5. “There is no accuracy or quality of data within the rural water point inventory in Tanzania” – IRC Consult
  6. 6. “The fact that it is impossible to link funds with location, functionality of schemes and population served, seriously undermines accountability for the funds spent in the sector.” Money + Functioning infrastructure + Number of people benefiting from services
  7. 7. Who is to blame?
  8. 8. We are not asking the hard questions: • Has the money been spent where it is needed? • Is it spent effectively? • Does it actually lead to an improvement in services? Most programme evaluation reports, mid-term reviews and costing studies are not published.
  9. 9. 2007-2014 Water Sector Development Programme USD 486,357,432 Source: GoT, Water Sector Status Report, 2015
  10. 10. Visiting address Bezuidenhoutseweg 2 2594 AV The Hague The Netherlands Postal address P.O. BOX 82327 2508 EH The Hague The Netherlands T +31 70 3044000 info@ircwash.org www.ircwash.org Supporting water sanitation and hygiene services for life Thank you

Editor's Notes

  • I will be talking to you about following the money
    Which is a chapter in the Outlook Report

    I will be illustrating my main messages with one specific country - Tanzania
  • For those that don’t know Tanzania,
    It’s a country in Sub-saharan Africa with with 53 and a half million people
    Rural water supply is provided mostly through piped schemes (half gravity, half pumped)
  • it has one of the lowest coverage rates or rural water supply in the World
    These are the official statistics – an internal report last month points to 30% coverage
  • Why value for money?

    GoT developed a Water Sector Development Programme to improve the lives of 8 million people in rural Tanzania.
    The programme was funded by a basket funding totaling almost half a billion dollars
    (and representing 75% of overall investments in the sector)
    What is happening? Why is coverage not increasing?
    The money is not enough, is it misused?
  • What does value for money entail?

    In a simplified formula you track:
    The money
    You check the infrastructure is actually functioning
    You check the number of people benefiting from the services
  • This is an example from several countries and I’m sure many of you have similar examples.
  • I think we are to blame.
    We civil society, we donors, we NGOs…
    We are not asking the hard questions

  • Arguably the amount of money lost in inefficiencies is much higher than corruption
    These inefficiencies can only be addressed with increasing accountability and transparency…

×