This document discusses strategies for strengthening accountability in water and natural resource projects. It provides examples from South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia of regulator-led actions to promote citizen participation and oversight of service providers. Key challenges discussed include the need for a paradigm shift towards partnerships between citizens, service providers, and governments to improve service delivery. Questions are also raised around ensuring citizen ownership of accountability mechanisms and selecting representative citizen groups.

1. Module 4: Taking Action
Session 4.1 cont’d
Regulator-led actions to
strengthen accountability
ACRA training
workshop, Nov 2010
Strengthening transparency, integrity and accountability:
preventing corruption in water and natural resources projects
IRC International Water
and Sanitation Centre

2. The Accountability Framework
(World Development Report 2004)
Client Power
Contracts
Com
pacts
Services
V
oice
Short Route
Long Route

3. Examples
• South Africa
• Tanzania
• Zambia

4. South Africa - context
• 1994: A third of the population without access safe
drinking water within a reasonable carrying distance, and
half without adequate sanitation (DWAF 1994)
• Govt. set ambitious targets for rapidly improving access
to water and sanitation, e.g. eradicate water backlogs by
2008 and sanitation backlogs by 2010
• Top-down delivery approaches, ‘plug and play’ delivery =
increased economies of scale
• However average unit costs more than doubled in the
past decade (Muller, 2008). Suppliers taking advantage
of the pressure on municipalities to meet targets?

5. • Citizens and users marginalized in spite of the people-
centered, inclusive and democratic sector vision
• Focus on accountability between government and service
providers, i.e. on relationships between different spheres of
government, and between municipalities and their service
providers
• Less attention to accountability mechanisms between citizens
and service providers, and between citizens and their political
representatives
• Emphasis in performance monitoring on spending rather than
on infrastructure quality, cost-effectiveness and service
performance on-site
• Technology choices and implementation options limited, one
size fits all
South Africa – previous
framework

6. Legislative and policy
response (1)
• Batho Pele (‘People First’) principles in the White Paper on
Transforming Public Sector Delivery (1997) emphasises the need to
support consumer participation in service delivery
• The Constitution: a key objective of local government is “..to
encourage the involvement of communities and community
organisations in matters of local government” S153(1)(e)
• Bill of Rights and PAIA guarantee citizens access to information held
by the state that directly affects them
• S16 of the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 100 requires the
municipality to develop a culture of community participation and to
contribute to building the capacity of local communities to participate
in the affairs of the municipality
• Strategic Framework for Water Services 2003 states the need for
mechanisms to enable the public to monitor the quality of water
services rendered

7. Legislative and policy
response (2)
• Water Services (Act 108 of 1997) states the need to separate out
water services Authority from water services Provider functions
at muncipal level
– But, in most cases, the provision arrangment is internal with no real
separation
• The National Water Services Regulation Strategy (06):
“consumers must firstly know their rights and secondly have the
means to make their concerns known to both the service
provider and the Regulator”
• “well informed, constructive and active consumers will (i)
encourage better service delivery and (ii) assist the national
Regulator by providing information about regulatory compliance
of providers and the adequacy of their services” (p57).

8. Citizens Voice
Initiatives
• Ethekwini Metro: Intensive public education through street theatre,
house visits, school programs and pamphlets, big effort to improve
service delivery – increased FBW from 6-9Kl per household in July
08 (McLeod 09)
• City of Cape Town: established user platforms in four townships,
through a DWAF-funded ‘Citizens’ Voice’ pilot in 2006
• The pilot explored participatory mechanisms to strengthen national
regulation, beginning with a 10-week public education programme
by Community Development Workers to +2000 citizens
• It demonstrated its value through improved water losses, increased
payment levels and enhancing citizen’s oversight role in water and
sanitation provision
• This model is now being taken up in Ekhuruleni and Msinduzi
(Pietermaritzburg), with strong interest shown elsewhere

9. Zambia NWASCO
• NWASCO, the Regulator, established Water Watch Groups under
Water Supply and Sanitation Act 28 of 1997
• 10 WWGs established across the country, 7 now focussing on
broader consumer issues
• Role to extend regulatory role in low income areas serviced by water
utilities: sensitise consumers on sector roles and responsibilities,
monitor service provision targets and pick up unresolved complaints
for follow up
• Undertake surveys, advocacy, joint utility – WWG public hearings
• Draw quarterly work plans, monthly reports and quarterly reports to
NWASCO
• Theatre groups to disseminate key messages to communities in
local langauges
• Use newspaper, radio, TV interviews to provide two way
communication

10. Tanzania – EWURA Consumer
Consultative Council
• EWURA – Energy and Water Utiltiies Regulatory Authority
established a Consumer Consultative Council with representatives
of local and business community. Appointees gazetted and
published in dailies
• Obliged to establish regional and sector consumer committees
• Undertake public consultations, hearings, tariff consultation
• Undertake public hearings soliciting views if general public
• Are availed of license applications, tariff revisions, draft rules for
comment
• Are preparing charter for national consumers’ rights and obligations
• Operate through EWURA budget

11. Accountability issues 1
• Participation = consultation and a checklist tick off
• Users have little or no choice of providers and low or no user
fees and co-payments
• Limited user oversight over service providers
• No systematic or institutionalized use of feedback mechanisms
such as citizens report cards
• No systematic and institutionalized reporting by service providers
and local government to the citizens about coverage and quality
of services and use of resources
• Insufficient use of accessible communication in local languages
in information provision and feedback mechanisms
• Ineffective complaints, redress, and sanctioning/reward
mechanisms

12. Accountability issues 2
• Compacts are focused on inputs and outputs, rather than on
outcomes
• Service delivery from sector silos - difficult to co-ordinate to
obtain desired outcomes
• Complex administrative procedures
• Lack of practical and comprehensive operational implementation
manuals
• Inadequate M&E, feedback and learning processes
• Incomplete decentralisation and overlapping mandates between
spheres of govt. and their service providers
• Complex requirements for Integrated Development Planning,
leading to a consultant-driven processes
• Lack of outsourcing of service provision by municipalities through
public-private or public-NGO/CBO partnerships due to the onerous
legal and procurement requirements

13. Questions and lessons 1
• Enabling environment and political will is required: Regulator lead
and supported accountability initiatives usually happen within the
context of sector reform, at a particular point..
• Usually follows civic action/ engagement
• Regulator/ govt. – lead/ embedded mechanisms increases
institutionalisation and the potential sustainability of accountability..
But:
• Political support must be secured
• Training and awareness raising is needed at all levels – users, user
groups, CSOs, councillors/ politicians, service providers, officials
• Energy and time is required to build buy in to a ‘partnerships for
improved service delivery’ paradigm
• Keep momentum going

14. Questions and lessons 2
• Positioning: Ensure citizen ownership of citizen platforms;
who drives? Credibility counts.
• Are user groups/ platforms (i) an arm of the regulator? (ii)
delegated by the regulator to the authority/ provider?, or (iii)
autonomous?
• Selection criteria and processes? Elite capture?
Unemployed = high turn over
• Learn as you go – action research and documentation!
• Balance credibility with sustainability
• How organised does civil society need to be?

15. Key challenge – A paradigm
shift
“The construction of new relationships between citizens,
service providers and governments. This means working
both sides of the equation – that is, going beyond ‘civil
society’ or ‘state based’ approaches, to focus on their
intersection, through new forms of participation,
responsiveness and accountability.”
= Partnerships for improved service delivery?
• From ‘coping’ to ‘voice’
• From ‘shouting’ to ‘counting’
• From ‘reaction’ to ‘informed action’
• From ‘episodic action’ to ‘organised action’
• From ‘confrontational’ to ‘win-win situations’

16. Additional resources
• http://www.kewasnet.org/wasreb.html
• http://www.eapirf.org/MenuItems/Resources/Papers/water/rsrc407.p
df
• http://www.nwasco.org.zm
• http://www.nwasco.org.zm/media/sector_report_2007.pdf
• http://www.wrc.org.za/downloads/report%20lists/web
%20rpts/devco/TT%20359-08%20DEVELOPING
%20COMMUNITIES.pdf