Prepared by Stef Smits, Erma Uytewaal and Germán Sturzenegger for the Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium, 9 - 11 April 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

1. Institutionalising monitoring of rural water
services in Latin America; Lessons from El
Salvador, Honduras and Paraguay
Stef Smits, Erma Uytewaal and Germán Sturzenegger

2. Background
• Monitoring is considered key in addressing sustainability of rural water
supplies
– Corrective action by service providers
– Earlier and better targeted post-construction support
– Informing policies and strategies for rural water
• Monitoring systems themselves also fraught with coverage and
sustainability problems
– Regulators focus on urban areas, not rural
– External funding for initial mapping, but not for regular updating
– Limited accessibility of data
• IDB, AECID and IRC have been supporting the development of monitoring
systems in various countries
• Approach to their institutionalisation, seeking to make sustainability risks
explicit and mitigate them - applied in Honduras, El Salvador and
Paraguay
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

3. Developing monitoring systems
• Set of procedures for carrying out monitoring:
– Objectives
– Processes
– Institutional arrangements
– Information system
• Critically assess the capacity to use and maintain it:
– Financing framework
– Human resources to fulfil responsibilities
– Institutional ownership and governance
• Multi-stakeholder process, with leadership by main
government agency – even though not always clear
who that is
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

4. Overview of the approach
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

5. Step 1: Analysis of current
monitoring practices
• Even in absence of national monitoring
system, much monitoring or information
flows may be going on
• Analyse potential for building on these and
avoiding pitfalls and limitations
• Tools: matrix with monitoring activities –
broken down by steps – at different levels
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

6. Step
Identifying corrective
Data collection Processing Analysis Reporting
actions
Stakeholder
Some decision making
On-going but Without standard Without standard Annual reports to users
Service providers tools for water quality
unstructured procedure or tool procedure or tool
and administration
Municipal Sometimes, but without
On-going but Without standard
Association of Water standard procedure or Unknown Unknown
unstructured procedure or tool
Committees tool
Operation and Using standard tool. Based on standard set
To the service provider
Maintenance Demand-based and Using SIAR Using SIAR of typical corrective
and national utility
Technician depending on resources measures
National regulator
Regulation and As above, but using other Reports on website of
Using standard tool By national regulator informs municipality to
Control Technician information system national regulator
take action
Environmental Using standard tool, but Data provided to Regional
Unknown Unknown Unknown
Health Technicians limited Resource Health Secretariat
Detailed assessments Feasibility assessment
NGOs and projects Based on own criteria Based on own criteria Internal
based on project needs of Project
Honduran Social
Detailed assessments Based on own and Go/no-go of the project
Investment Fund Based on own criteria To mayor and to funders
for pre-feasibility funders’ criteria
(FHIS)

7. Step 2: Definition of the
monitoring system
• Step 2a: set the purposes(s) of monitoring; post-construction
support and investment planning
• Step 2b: identifying roles
• Step 2c: defining the steps in the process
• Step 2d: developing the information system, with specific
attention to:
– Links to existing information system
– Need for and ways of aggregating information
– Information technology and corresponding resource requirements
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

8. Roles
Institution System Information
manager Data collector Validator PAT
user
Technical assistance provider
(SANAA)
Policy making body (CONASA)
Regulator (ERSAPS)
Implementing agency (FHIS)
Health Secretariat
Finance and Planning
Secretariat
Association of Municipalities
of Honduras
Municipalities
Associations of Water
Committees
Water Committees
NGOs
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

9. Step 3: Defining the institutional
arrangements
• Dialogue to assign institutional responsibilities
– Broken down by steps in monitoring
– Phases in the development of the monitoring system
• Tools: matrix with responsibilities
Identifying
Data Publishing of
Validation Processing Analysis corrective
collection results
measures
Self-reporting In municipal Water Automatized but ANDA makes Municipal Water Municipal Water
by service Roundtables, bringing under supervision of national synthesis Roundtables do this Roundtables do this
providers together municipal officials ANDA report. jointly jointly, supported by
and water committees. Municipalities make ANDA or other
ANDA (national utility) local reports based PATs
revises information to on the results from
identity obvious errors and database, where
uploads to database needed supported
by ANDA
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

10. Step 3: Defining the institutional
arrangements
Considerations from the 3 countries:
•Data collection: by centralised agency initially, but
eventually moving to self-reporting by service providers
•Validation: spot checks to improve information system,
and then by communities and municipalities
•Processing and reporting: administrator through
automated system
•Interpretation and identifying corrective actions:
facilitated analysis and tailor-made packaging
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

11. Step 4: Costing and
responsibilities for financing
• Detailed budgeting of all steps in monitoring
– Differentiated between baseline and regular monitoring
– Quantifying all costs, including hidden costs, e.g. time of
communities and local government staff
• Calibration through rounds of piloting
• Based on this, agree on financial agreements
• Check whether the costs can be met feasibly by different bodies
• Iterations – to adjust budgets or ambitions
• Continuous monitoring of the costs of monitoring in the roll-out
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

12. Step 4: Costing and
responsibilities for financing
El Salvador Honduras Paraguay
Baseline 0.39 0.24-0.34 0.09
(actual)
Regular 0.11 + 0.08 0.23
updating
• Main costs are in data collection, but don’t
underestimate costs of analysis
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium

13. Conclusions
• Monitoring considered important contribution to improve sustainability,
particularly through actions by service providers and post-construction
support
• As many monitoring systems often suffer sustainability problems themselves,
need to identify these risks and identify mitigation
• Structured approach for defining institutional arrangements through multi-
stakeholder process
• Lessons from applications:
– Build on existing monitoring practices even if they are incomplete or imperfect
– Decentralise most of the steps in monitoring but ensure sufficient support to
local governments
– Gradual approach to the comprehensiveness of the scope of the monitoring
– Phased approach to reach country-wide scale, including pilots to adjust
information system and create ownership within sector
– Costing is important tool in assigning responsibilities and assessing risks
Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium