Tag: accountability

“Financial Innovations for Rural Water Supply in Low-Resource Settings” Innovation 4: Performance-based Funding

This blog post is part of a series that summarizes the REAL-Water report, “Financial Innovations for Rural Water Supply in Low-Resource Settings,” which was developed by The Aquaya Institute and REAL-Water consortium members with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The report specifically focuses on identifying innovative financing mechanisms to tackle the significant challenge of providing safe and sustainable water supply in low-resource rural communities. These communities are characterized by smaller populations, dispersed settlements, and economic disadvantages, which create obstacles for cost recovery and hinder the realization of economies of scale.

Financial innovations have emerged as viable solutions to improve access to water supply services in low-resource settings. The REAL-Water report identifies seven financing or funding concepts that have the potential to address water supply challenges in rural communities:

  1. Village Savings for Water
  2. Digital Financial Services
  3.  Water Quality Assurance Funds
  4. Performance-Based Funding
  5. Development Impact Bonds
  6. Standardized Life-Cycle Costing
  7. Blending Public/Private Finance

Understanding Performance-based Funding

Many water supply development projects fail due to well-meaning but poorly-executed investments (McNicholl et al. 2019). Repayable water supply investments often risk losses, due to the pervasive challenges of serving low- and middle-income rural settings. Development aid recipients, including governments and water service providers, may face challenges such as limited capacity, oversight, victims of corrupt schemes, or weak governance. These factors can affect the incentives to achieve optimal outcomes. From the funder’s perspective, poor outcomes reinforce high-risk perceptions and may steer resources away from water supply investments. The potential beneficiaries, rural water consumers, suffer the consequences with little opportunity for recourse. As a way to create greater accountability, conditioning financing on verified service delivery has gained increasing attention since the mid-2000s.

How does it work?

Performance-based funding is designed to maximize accountability,  transparency, and efficiency of the service provider. Its elements generally include: (a) targets and/or ceilings of repayment, (b) an agreed per-unit payment amount for each output and/or outcome (e.g., new household water connection), and (c) independent verification of results prior to payment disbursement. 

Specific performance-based financing instruments include development impact bonds and conditional cash transfers. With conditional cash transfers, cash payments are made directly to needy households to stimulate investment in “human capital” (i.e., the knowledge, skills, and health that people invest in and accumulate throughout their lives to become productive members of society) if they meet predetermined conditions (e.g., periodic health checks or school attendance). Payments can also be structured to incentivize entire communities to achieve a public health or water access goal (Nguyen, Ljung, and Nguyen 2014).

Examples

Encouraging water-related examples have emerged on a limited scale in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, although this approach may not offer advantages under all circumstances

The World Bank established its Global Partnership on Output-based Aid in 2003, renamed in 2019 to the Global Partnership for Results-Based Approaches (World Bank 2022). As of 2022, the Global Partnership portfolio includes 58 individual projects in 30 countries, with more than 12 million verified beneficiaries as well as an array of technical assistance and knowledge activities (World Bank 2022). In Kenya, for example, the national government, World Bank, USAID Development Credit Authority, and Dutch development bank KfW’s Aid on Delivery program support the Water Services Trust Fund of Kenya (Advani 2016). It offers water service providers access to results-based finance to invest in pro-poor water infrastructure, such as urban household connections and public water kiosks. Service providers agree to meet targets for higher consumer consumptions, increased revenue, and reduced water losses.

The UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (formerly called the Department for International Development) has long led performance-based funding approaches, having supported the Global Partnership since its inception while building its own results-based funding portfolio with more than $2.7 billion invested across 19 programs as of 2016 (Clist 2019). An approximately $135 million performance-based “WASH Results Programme” has been implemented in South Asia from 2013 to 2022 by Plan International, the Sustainable WASH in Fragile  Contexts consortium led by Oxfam, and the Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All program led by SNV (Howard and White 2020).

The Uptime Catalyst Facility, created in 2020, piloted a results-based funding approach for post-construction rural water maintenance services. Its design built upon three metrics (reliable waterpoints, water volume, and local revenue) and eventually arrived at a “revenue matching” contract design, with supplementation of user payments and matching for a portion of locally-generated revenue. Service providers implement water services up front and are remunerated for results achieved, using a payment formula. Standardized contracts and performance metrics make the model easily scalable. Expansion to serve several million people is ongoing in African, Asia, and Latin America (McNicholl et al. 2021)

The UK government and USAID support the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme in Mozambique (Rudge 2019). It links 40% of a nearly $40 million grant to the government of Mozambique to  eight performance indicators, including the number of people in rural areas with access to new improved drinking water infrastructure and the percentage of contracts (works and services) procured at district level. The performance-based approach is being tested in 20 districts in two provinces of Mozambique (Nampula and Zambezia). Initial evaluation found key enablers: alignment with government priorities and effective transfer of responsibility and accountability for implementation by the sub-national government. Key challenges included ensuring domestic increases in financing for capital and operational expenses.

The international NGO, East Meets West (aka Thrive Networks), implemented output-based aid programs in Vietnam. With support from the Global Partnership, they carried out a rural water program in Central Vietnam and a separate activity in the Mekong Delta region (Nguyen, Ljung, and Nguyen, 2014).

Various management models were employed, involving private enterprises, provincial authorities, and East Meets West as the service provider. Supported by the Vietnamese National Target Program for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation since 2013, the program successfully achieved its target for new household water connections. It accomplished this by leveraging local investment through partial subsidies to low-income beneficiaries. Customer satisfaction surveys highlighted the benefits of introducing private water operators, including improved performance with fewer water losses and breakdowns.

While performance-based approaches may not be universally superior financing options,  they hold promise when targeted outcomes are well defined, service providers have experience and interest in achieving efficiencies, reliable data sources and monitoring systems are in place, funders allow room for innovation to service providers, and costs can be reliably priced to increase cost effectiveness for donors and enhance operating efficiencies by the implementer.

To access further information on financial innovations for rural water supply in low-resource settings, you can download the complete report HERE.

The information provided on this website is not official U.S. government information and does not represent the views or positions of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government.

References:

Strengthening accountability for water

This blog is based on the Accountability for Water action and research programme funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and managed by the Partnership For African Social and Governance Research (PASGR), supported by Water Witness International, KEWASNET and Shahidi Wa Maji. The full webinar summary is available here.

On 15th December 2022, a global webinar was held to discuss the critical importance of accountability for water. During the webinar, a partnership of organizations led by PASGR and Water Witness presented the findings of their Accountability for Water research program, which aimed to identify specific actions to strengthen accountability in different contexts. The programme partners involved in the research include KEWASNET, Shahidi Wa Maji, WaterAid, Water Integrity Network, End Water Poverty, IRC, and World Bank. Dr Pauline Ngimwa and Dr Muthio Nzau of PASGR introduced the webinar.

Dr Tim Brewer of Water Witness gave an overview of the research programme which started with the global review of evidence carried out in 2019-2020.  According to this review, 80% of the research papers on accountability found that interventions contributed to improved water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services and water resource management (WRM). Common lessons emerged with clear recommendations for action by governments, civil society, donors and others. While a key lesson is that accountability is context specific, an analytical framework based on the “5 Rs of accountability” can be used to identify specific challenges and opportunities within this framework – the ability to review, explain, and report performance against rules, responsibilities, and obligations, and to react constructively to improve performance through sanctions, incentives, or corrective measures.

The review identified a series of knowledge gaps and questions, including gender, donors, government responsiveness, measurement, and civic space. Based on this analysis, 14 Professional Research Fellows (PRF) working in the water sector in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Liberia, and Zimbabwe from a range of government, civil society and academic institutions investigated accountability issues in their own contexts. The full list of research topics and researchers is at the bottom of this blog.

The following key takeaways for governments, civil society organizations (CSOs), and donors were drawn from a compilation of recommendations from the research projects .Presenters included Dr Firehiwot Sintayehu (Addis Ababa University);  Eunice Kivuva (CESPAD); Chitimbwa Chifunda (WaterAid Zambia), The full list of research topics and researchers at the end of this blog demonstrates the depth and breadth of evidence underlying these recommendations .

Three key takeaways for governments      

  1. Laws, policies and accountability mechanisms are essential to support accountability. However, lack of clarity and consistency between sectors and levels, a lack of knowledge and capacity about the laws and mechanisms, and weak enforcement often undermine these. Therefore, the key recommendations are to: 
    • Harmonise, strengthen, and execute laws and policies for water resources and WASH at national and subnational levels,
    • Strengthen accountability systems and relationships:  mechanisms, standards, regulation, monitoring, stakeholder engagement and enforcement including for the private sector,
    • Build capacity on accountability, develop an accountable outlook and de-politicise accountability systems.
  2. Clear roles and responsibilities and better coordination: Accountability mechanisms are often let down by poor coordination, unclear or conflicting roles and responsibilities and widespread lack of enforcement. Key actions required are to:
    • Clarify institutional roles and responsibilities between actors for WASH and WRM – eliminate conflicts in functions,
    • Separate implementation and regulatory institutions,
    • Strengthen horizontal and vertical institutional and sector coordination across water users through enforceable accountability systems and mechanisms.
  3. Informed engagement with citizens and users: All the researchers found that effective engagement with citizens, citizen groups and water users is essential for accountability but wanting. To address this governments need to:
    • Introduce or strengthen accountability mechanisms such as public hearings and citizen oversight panels,
    • Provide Information, education, and mobilisation for communities ensure access for marginalised groups,
    • Support civil society to vertically integrate social accountability initiatives into decision making at different levels,
    • Support coordination amongst actors to increase the capacity of rural women and marginalised communities to participate in problem analyses and decision-making processes.

Three key takeaways for civil society,

  1. Activate and institutionalise effective citizen oversight mechanisms.  As well as the government actions to strengthen engagement with citizens and water users Civil society organisations need to support this, they should:
    • Advocate for more legally institutionalised avenues of citizen oversight,
    • Ensure that citizens’ monitoring and advocacy initiatives are vertically and strategically integrated in decision making at all levels,
    • Carry out budget tracking throughout the whole cycle from planning to expenditure.
  2. Build capacity, empowerment and organise communities. A very common cause of weak accountability is the low levels of knowledge and capacity of water users about their rights, the laws and responsibilities around water provision and resource management, and how they can use accountability mechanisms. Civil society organisations need to:
    • Build capacity on accountability mechanisms and support their use,
    • Strengthen grassroots user groups and associations to participate in decision making,
    • Support civil society and water users, especially women, to move up the Participation ladder from token participation to active participation,  decision making, and control.
  3. Build on what works, like budget tracking, evidence-based advocacy, litigation. There is growing knowledge about successful strategies for strengthening accountability. This research has helped to strengthen a community of practice on accountability and identify examples that others can learn from. Key lessons for civil society are to:
    • Strike a balance between constructive and critical approaches to advocacy,
    • Bring strong evidence for advocacy,
    • Raise awareness of WASH and WRM issues amongst all stakeholders including citizens, government and development partners.

Four key takeaways for donors and private sector

  1. Support governments and CSOs to strengthen accountability frameworks, monitoring and enforcement. Donors can provide financial and political support for the actions for governments and civil society mentioned above. They need to:
    • Support governments on WASH and WRM accountability actions as above,
    • Support CSO actions as above,
    • Support good governance and democratic space for citizens’ voice. Citizens’ engagement is critical to enhancing accountability,
    • Invest in women’s participation and reaching marginalised people,
    • Strengthen political will for accountability.  Donors can influence government priorities,
    • Invest seriously in sustainability.
  2. Water investments need to go beyond projects. They need to: 
    • Go beyond procedural & financial accountability. For example strengthen basins planning to ensure responsible industrial water use,
    • Support budget tracking through the cycle – budget tracking is an effective tool to improve budget performance,
    • Invest in appropriate technology to support accountable and responsive services, For example digital monitoring of services and water treatment technology to prevent pollution of water resources.
  3. Enhance due diligence. Researchers found examples of very weak accountability in economic uses of water by industrial and agricultural actors. Donors and private investors can help strengthen accountability by requiring:
    • Stronger due diligence of companies in relation to water use,
    • mandatory reporting on water,
    • promoting and enforcing the Polluter pays principle
  4. Be accountable!  Donors are major investors in the water sector but often do not fulfil their commitments. For example in Zambia the WASH sector is 80% funded by Donors but only 29% of that was tracked through the budget.
    • Accountability Mechanisms are needed to enable Governments and CSO to hold Donors accountable for their commitments. 

Discussion and next steps

During the webinar, Sareen Malik from KEWASNET, emphasised the importance of legislation to strengthen accountability mechanisms. NGOs can play an important role to advocate for this and bring stakeholders together in Joint Sector reviews as a critical mechanism for accountability, monitoring and reporting. 

Martin Atela of PASGR reflected on the role of politics in undermining accountability and suggested that political interference can be mitigated by greater clarity on roles and boundaries of ministerial responsibilities. He also emphasized the need to find ways to work with political elites so they see the value in change

Next steps involve joining the community of practice on accountability for water, to continue learning from experience and to advocate for commitments to strengthen accountability.

Research partners are organising an event at the UN Conference on Water 2023: “Where is the accountability”  on Tuesday 21st March, driving a greater emphasis on governance and accountability. This needs to be front and centre of all discussion.

The Research programme is managed by the Partnership for African Social and Governance Research (PASGR) and Water Witness International with financial support from the Hewlett Foundation.

More information about the research is on the website including findings from the global review of evidence, recorded presentations from webinars at World Water Week 2022 in Stockholm, presentations from country specific webinars, and summary briefings of all the research topics. www.accountabilityforwater.org

List of Research topics, Professional Research Fellows and host institutions

Ethiopia

  • Government Dynamics of Accountability in Ethiopia, Mulugeta Gashaw, Water Witness Ethiopia
  • Political Economy Analysis of water governance, Asnake Kefale
  • Risks and opportunities for growth in Ethiopia’s textile and apparel industries,  Esayas Samuel
  • Wastewater management in upstream catchment of ARB, Yosef Abebe, Addis Ababa University and Ministry of Water and Energy
  • Accountability of the One WASH National Programme of Ethiopia, Michael Negash, PSI
  • Towards a sustainable management of faecal sludge: the case of Addis Ababa, Tamene Hailu
  • Alwero Dam governance, Firehiwot Sentayu, Addis Ababa University

Kenya

  • Government Dynamics of Accountability in Kenya, Dr Tiberius Barasa
  • Enhancing coordination for accountability and sustainability in water resources management; a case of Kerio sub-catchment in Baringo rift valley basin. Eunice Kivuva (CESPAD)
  • Kakamega County Water and Sanitation Company, Kenya.  Mary Simiyu, Kakamega Water Service Provider
  • Rural Women and water decisions in Kwale and Kilifi Counties, Felix Brian, KWAHO
  • Strengthening accountability in solid waste management through incentives and penalties in Naivasha, Kenya, Naomi Korir, Sanivation

Tanzania

  • Government Dynamics of Accountability in Tanzania, Dr Opportuna Kweka
  • Assessment of Gender Power Relations and Accountability in Community Based Water Supply Operators in Selected Water Basins of Tanzania, Pitio Ndyeshumba, Institute of Lands
  • Regulatory and Legal Accountability for Water Pollution in Tanzania: The Case of Msimbazi River Basin in Dar es Salaam City, Mwajuma Salum, University of Dar Es Salaam
  • Opportunities and challenges of accountability claiming in Tanzania’s water sector, Dr Parestico Pastory, University of Dodoma

Zambia

  • What makes budget advocacy an effective accountability tool, Bubala Muyove, NGO WASH Forum and Chitimbwa Chifunda, WaterAid Zambia

Zimbabwe

  • Assessing the effectiveness and impact of statutory accountability mechanisms to improve water service provision and catchment management, Mable Murambiwa, Combined Harare Residents Association, Zimbabwe

Liberia

  • Accountability Challenges in The Liberia Water-Supply Sector: LWSC in Robertsport and Kakata, Timothy Kpeh, United Youth for Peace,  Liberia

About the author:  This blog is authored by Louisa Gosling, freelance specialist in accountability, rights and inclusion in WASH, previously working with WaterAid and as chair of RWSN.

Why does accountability matter for sustainable water services?

By Louisa Gosling, WaterAid and Meleesa Naughton, RWSN Secretariat

RWSN has been exploring the question of accountability for sustainable rural water services over the past few months through an e-discussion, a workshop, and webinars in French, English, and Spanish.

What is accountability?

Accountability is a new topic for the Leave no one behind Theme of RWSN, and one that is difficult to translate in other languages: there is no direct translation of accountability in French and Spanish, for instance – we translated it as ‘responsibility’.  In the e-discussion, we initially defined social accountability as ‘an approach that refers to the extent and capacity of citizens to hold the state and service providers accountable, and make them responsive to needs of citizens and beneficiaries’. But through the e-discussion and in particular the webinar, we also heard of initiatives that seek to empower citizens to hold not only service providers (direct accountability) and governments (indirect accountability) for water services, but also donors.

So who should be held accountable for what?

The definition proposed by Catarina Fonseca of IRC, who presented some preliminary findings from a recent study during one of the RWSN webinars, is perhaps more appropriate: she defined accountability as ‘those who are responsible, accept responsibility for their actions and omissions and accept that they are called upon to give an account of why and how they have acted or failed to act.’

While accountability is often a bottom-up process in practice, with citizens and citizens’ organisations seeking to hold  service providers, governments and donors to account, duty-bearers also have an obligation to put in place effective accountability mechanisms that lead to actionable change. The study Catarina presented showed that accountability mechanisms for SDG6 for service providers and governments are often not available in many countries, and that when they exist, they are not effective and not systematic due to the lack of financing, lack of monitoring data and reporting, and limited participation of civil society organisations.

What about donors’ accountability? According to Susan Davis from Improve International, most foundations do not prioritize evaluation of WASH projects post-implementations, which impedes learning and improving accountability for the end-users. Moreover, when they do conduct evaluations, they may not share the results – or have no incentive to share results showing poor performance of WASH services. Susan proposed a WASH donor accountability scorecard which would foster a culture of accountability and transparency through virtuous competition amongst donors to disclose the results of evaluations.

The e-discussion and the webinars highlight a range of different aspects of accountability. It is encouraging to see that this topic is gaining a higher profile in the water sector. Other recent discussions include a thinkshop on social accountability in the water sector recently held in Tanzania, and the recent expert consultation for the upcoming report by the UN Special Rapporteur for the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation. Greater understanding and application of this principle are essential for achieving SDG 6.

Resources

Photo credit: Simone D. McCourtie / World Bank  

 

 

 

RWSN members’ inputs on social accountability are helping Human Rights Special Rapporteur report to UN General Assembly

RWSN Secretariat Director, Sean Furey, took part in a consultation meeting on accountability in relation to Human Rights to Water and Sanitation.

by Sean Furey, Skat/RWSN Secretariat

What does ‘accountability’ mean to you? When it comes to the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation what progress has been made to ensure that Duty Bearers (Governments) are accountable to their Rights Holders (Citizens)?

Such legalistic sounding terms can seem distant from the needs of family in rural Mongolia or fast-growing city in India, but the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation form the legal back-bone to which signatory governments (which is nearly all of them) have to comply.

Léo Heller, the UN Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights to Water & Sanitation, has been running an open consultation on his forthcoming report to the UN General Assembly, which is focusing on the principle of accountability. I was honoured to be invited to attend a meeting in Geneva on 14 & 15 May on behalf of RWSN.

Like his predecessor, Catarina de Albuquerque , Prof. Heller has been collaborating with the network to engage with rural water supply practitioners so that he can communicate the global issues to those working on national and local implementation and policy, and likewise learn from the those who working to making Human Rights a reality at a practical level. This included the recent e-discussion on Social Accountability.

In his draft report, Prof. Heller drew points from this discussion, particularly regarding the accountability of non-governmental organisations:

“Participants [of the RWSN e-discussion] discussed that accountability is enhanced when reducing dependence on external funds, and through ensuring meaningful participation of citizens in all process relating to water, sanitation and hygiene processes.”

The principle of accountability as a core human rights principle does not have a set and agreed definition. The three dimensions that were used to frame the discussion were:

  1. “Responsibility” which means “what” Duty Bearers are accountable for; “who” carries out the duties; and “how” those WASH service responsibilities are done.
  2. “Answerability” is need for public officials to communicate what they are doing and why and how decisions have been taken. This is important because governments, as the Duty Bearers, are required to demonstrate the “progressive realisation”, which means maximising available resources to ensure universal access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene.
  3. “Enforceability” is about making sure that there are the mechanisms in place to ensure that rules and laws are enforced, and that there is a fair and accessible means for complaints and conflict resolution.

A lot of the discussion focused on factors and barriers to effective accountability, such as corruption and the lack of protection for whistle-blowers. It was also highlighted that civil society, and civil society organisations (CSOs), have a vital role to play in holding governments to account – not least where responsibility has been delegated to private sector service providers, community management or self-supply.

In the wide-ranging discussion it was clearer that there are lots of threats to accountability, not least because it involves changing power dynamics, which will be resisted by those in power. Defining clear roles and responsibilities is critical for accountability, which is why those are who are to be held accountable have an interest to keep such things vague.

“The fight for Human Rights is against human wrongs”

For rural water supply – as for rural issues generally in low and middle-income countries – a key problem is that formal legal processes and agencies, such as courts and lawyers, are often physically distant, expensive and not trusted. So where does that leave traditional social or religious mechanisms for conflict resolution? Do those working to extend a rights based approach work with these structures (at the risk of entrenching existing discrimination) or try to extend legal and judicial mechanisms?

What is clear is that these issues around accountability, rights and justice are not unique or special for rural water supply, or even for WASH, so it was great that in this meeting we had representatives from outside the sector, who highlighted, for example, the strong links between the Human Rights for Water and Sanitation with other Rights, including housing, food and dignity.

To keep up to date with this discussion and for opportunities to submit your ideas and experiences, follow Léo on Twitter.

20180515_122720 (2)
UN Special Rapporteur, Léo Heller (centre) with representatives from WASH and human rights organisations and networks (including RWSN, SIWI, Water Integrity Network, KEWASNET, End Water Poverty, Coalition Eau and WSSCC)

To find out more have a look at these RWSN resources:

E-discussion synthesis & publications:

Webinar Recordings:

charity: water – pushing boundaries for better projects & more accountability

After this year’s ‘Water & Health’ conference at UNC, I visited some organisations along the East Coast of the US. On Wednesday 23rd October, I visited the headquarters of charity: water in New York. The largely open-plan office was quietly buzzing with activity.

charity: water was founded in 2006 by a young night club promoter, Scott Harrison, who decided to put his considerable influencing and networking skills to a new, more productive (as he saw it) purpose.  His idea has been to tap into a different demographic than is usual for charitable donations – those below the age of 40, who have grown cynical of what charities actually achieve. To do this they use social media and celebrity endorsement (charity: water is currently the featured charity of Depeche Mode’s latest tour).  Their hook is a 100% model where all money donated goes directly to projects, implemented by established NGO partners such as Water For People, Water For Good (ICDI), Splash and World Vision.  The completed projects are shown on the website, as part of proving that work has been done.

Continue reading “charity: water – pushing boundaries for better projects & more accountability”