Blog by Jeff Tan, Aga Khan University – Institute for the Study of Muslim Civilisations (AKU-ISMC). Featured photo: Hunza Valley, Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan, Jeff Tan
The limitations of community-based management (CBM), and the conditions for its success, were identified as early as 1990 in a World Bank discussion paper. From very early on, it was recognised that communities needed ongoing external support from donors, NGOs and governments. However, management training, capacity building, technical input, financial assistance, and supportive policy and legislation necessary to create an “enabling environment” for successful community management rarely materialised. This raises a number of questions: Why has this external support not been forthcoming? Why has community management continued to be promoted despite the absence of support and lack of sustainability? Why has there been ‘a reluctance amongst academics and practitioners to challenge the CBM model’?
To answer these questions requires some appreciation of the wider discourse on development and in particular the anti-state rhetoric of neoliberalism that has sought to downsize, decentralise and ultimately bypass government. This has had the effect of fragmenting and hollowing out the state while at the same time prioritising markets and the private sector. Given that there is no profit to be made from delivering water services to low-income households that cannot afford to pay cost-covering tariffs, it is not surprising that previous state failure was replaced by market failure, with the private sector failing to step in to deliver water services.
One obvious solution would have been to address the sources of state failure, specifically underfunding, fragmentation and the loss of technical capacity. Instead of rebuilding state capacities, the distrust of, and ideological aversion to, the state has shifted the responsibility of water services from governments to local communities, built around the narrative of community participation, empowerment and self-help, with communities expected to take responsibility of their circumstances. It is hardly surprising then that community management is seen to enable ‘government officials and donors alike to abdicate responsibility for ensuring long-term sustainable water services’.
The recent turn against community management, not least by the World Bank, shows the persistence of CBM problems. But the Bank’s promotion of “professionalization” of water services as an alternative reflects a failure to examine the underlying tensions and problems in the CBM model and the wider delivery of rural water services, and reinforces an anti-state bias and blind faith in private sector participation. There are three structural tensions in the CBM model that have been noted in the literature and that need to be more cogently articulated.
The first tension is between access to water and cost recovery (a cornerstone to the sustainability of CBM), with low tariffs (to ensure access to water) unable to cover operating costs, let alone major repairs and capital refurbishment. Compounding this is the inability of households to pay already very low tariffs, with irregular, if any, tariff payments or collections.
The second tension is the long-term needs of water services and the short-term horizons of donors and NGOs. Only the state has a sufficiently long-term horizon to provide the indefinite support needed to sustain community management and ensure ongoing water services. But this added burden on the state for this comes at a time when the state in lower middle income countries (LMICs) is severely constrained financially and technically, having had fiscal discipline imposed on it and broken up and hollowed out in the name of decentralisation and localisation. If governments do not have the capacity to provide the so-called “enabling environment” to support community management, as has been the case since 1990, then a model that requires continued external support that is not forthcoming cannot be sustainable, “islands of success” notwithstanding.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the funding model for CBM is short-term, project driven (rather than programmatic or cross-sectoral) and fragmented, where the needs of water services are indefinite, with the choice being between reaching a greater number of underserved communities in the short term or serving fewer communities but with longer term support and greater sustainability. Longer-term support is especially needed because communities cannot even finance major repairs let alone capital refurbishment needed at the end of the lifespan of water infrastructure (typically 15-20 years) and to expand services to cater for population growth.
These structural features of CBM can be illustrated in the constraints faced by an otherwise successful delivery of clean drinking water through piped water networks to 459 settlements serving around 48,000 households and over 400,000 people under the Water and Sanitation Extension Programme (WASEP) in Gilgit-Baltistan, northern Pakistan. The challenges of sustaining and scaling up this textbook implementation of community management are reported in the results of a two-and-a-half-year British Academy-funded research involving a large-scale household survey of over 3,000 households, interviews with water management committees and a review of financial records, focus group discussions, an engineering audit and water quality tests.
Unlike qualitative and selective case studies, the combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis here presents important insights into the resilience but also limits of communities in sustaining water services, particularly given weak state capacities and the lack of external support. It also highlights the importance of “hardware” (engineering and water infrastructure) in sustaining water delivery, and best practices in the implementation and delivery of water services that can transcend some of the limitations of the CBM model.
The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) or its Executive Committee.
Jeff Tan is a Professor of Political Economy at AKU-ISMC and was Principal Investigator on a British Academy grant on the sustainability and scalability of community water management in Northern Pakistan.
Rural Water Supply Network - blog 