I I I I I I I I I

Community-Based Management of Piped WaterI Supply Systems

I A Case Study in five West African

I countries reveals that delegation and backstoppping are key determinants for achieving sustainable community-

based management of piped water supply systems

I By Lucien Angbo

I I I I I

March 1999

I bull

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

I I I I I

AUE CBM CBMC CBMWS

I CCAEP

I CBO CWSD DA

I ORA ESA GWSC

I IEC

I

MM PO RWSG-WCA

RWSS

I SCS

I SFAS SPC SSPSP STC

I OampM Toe

WATSAN

I WSDB WUA

I I I I I bull

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Association des Usagers dEau Commun ity-Based Management Community-Based Management Committee Community-Based Management of Water and Sanitation Systems Cellule Conseil aux Adductions dEau Potable Committee-Based Organization Community Water and Sanitation Division District Assembly Demand Responsive Approach External Support Agencies Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporation Information Education and Communication Management Models Partner Organizations Regional Water Supply amp Sanitation Group - West and Central Africa Rural Water and San itation Services Sustainability Consumer Satisfaction Sustainability Financial and Administrative Soundness Sustainabil ityPhysical Condition Small Scale Private Sector Provider Slistailidbility 1(chnical Conditions Operation and Maintenance Town Development Council Water and Sanitation Committee Water and Sanitation Development Board Water Users Association

I I

CommunllV-llsad Mlnagamant 01 Plpad Water SIIPPIV Slstems

I Table of Contents

I 1 FOREWORD

I 2 EXECUTIVE SUM MARY 21 Overview 22 Objective

I 23 Methodology 24 Study Findings 25 Lessons Learned

I 3 INTRODUCTION 31 Background

I 32 Changing Trends 33 Objective of Study

I 4 METHODOLOGY 41 Selection Criteria 42 Analytical Framework

I 43 Data Analysis 44 Study Design

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS 51 Preliminary findings 52 Management Models

I 53 Management Models Sub-Indicator Characteristics

51 1 Do the models prolilote cOlllmunily-based management 1) Arc Ihe models 1(()1l11tabJc ) tlie comnnillily

5JJ Do the models promote competence

I 534 Do the models delegate 54 Sustainability of Systems

I 541 Management models and stlstainability 542 Delegation and Sustainability 543 Accountability and Sustainability 544 Community-Based Management and Sustainability 545 Competence and SustainabiIity

I 55 Other Factors of Sustainability 551 Backstopping 552 Training

I 553 Incentives 554 Infonnation Education and Communication

I 6 CONCLUSIONS 6 I Factors of sustainability 62 Other findings

I 7 LESSONS LEARNED

I ANNEXES

bull

II ii jj

ii iii iii

1 I 2 2

2 2 3 3 3

5 5 6

10 ]()

10 II 12 12 15 15 16 17 18 18 20 20 20

20 20 21

21

I I

1 FOREWORD

I In recent years policy and practice in rural

I water supply and sanitation projects have been gradually reoriented and several countries have developed national strategies and implemented investment projects that reflect

I the new approaches -- demand responsiveness linked to institutional arrangements that promote and support community responshy

I sibility and participation to ensure ownership and community capacity building is regarded as central component of project design

I I The provision of basic services to un-served

and under-served populations in poor communities in both rural and urban

I environments has been the focus of attention of sector leaders and new innovative approaches are being tested and developed

I These approaches and institutional arranshygements have proven very effective in addressing water and sanitation problems and

I could measurably improve the quality of services and promote sustainable deveshylopment

I Empirical evidence has shown that results and effectiveness are greatly enhanced when the community members have the opportunity to

I participate directly in their own development Enabling the community to express their desires is a challenge that requires new ways of thinking and acting on the part of the development practitioners This case study

I Community-Based Management of Piped Water Supply Systems demonstrates that the sustainability of the system is largely

I dependent upon the management models adopted and the degree of accountabi lity delegation and competence of those running

I the systems

I I I

bull

- I shy

This study has been carried out by RWSGshyWCA as part of the Programs regional learning agenda It is a multi-country study developed to capture regional synergy that focuses on understanding the institutional arrangements and management models that have proven effective and sustainable in addressing water and sanitation problems The case study was supported by a team of national consultant who carried out the field work This report was prepared by Lucien Angbo Study Coordinator The Peer Reviewers were Yao Badjo Piers Cross Tore Lium and Jan Janssens Special thanks to Jennifer Sara who has been actively involved from its inception and provided invaluable guidance on study methodology Mathewos Woldu for his guidance support and substantive contribution in strengthening the substance of this report and Brian Grover for providing encouragement and support in completing the study

The study also benefited from the comments of Jean Doyen Mukami Kariuki Wambui Gichuri Annie Manou Savina and Eric Cole and the secretarial support provided by Evelyne Ligan and Helene Katele N cho and other RWSG-WCA colleagues who provided continuous encouragement and support This paper is expected to stimulate discussion among sector professionals with a view to providing increasing understanding of the workings of the management aspects of water supply and sanitation systems

Lucien Angbo Regional Water amp Sanitation Group Abidjan Cote divoire

I - ii shy

I 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I 21 Overview

I Currently the West Africa region is facing

I tremendous challenges in the water supply and sanitation sector with approximately two-thirds of the rural popu lation and one-quarter of the urban population lacking access to safe drinking water and an even much larger

I proportion approximately half of the urban

I I

population and three-quarters of the rural population lack adequate sanitation services In rural areas the lack of adequate water supply facilities forces most households to devote substantial amounts of time to fetching water from distant sources -- a burden that falls mainly on women and children and the poor

I who often pay the most for water services and suffer the most in terms of health and economic opportunities This lack of overall

I access to basic services is at the heart of the poverty trap

Although there has been an increase in the coverage of rural water supply and sanitation

I services in most countries both for the urban and rural poor it has not kept pace with population growth and rapid urban ization The

I key issues are the lack of a coherent national iJolicy and stltCgy illtitlJlional dkll(CC

insufficient attention to cost recovery and

I OampM and poor community participation and

I ownership A number of water supply systems are either non-operational owing to poor OampM which is largely due to the lack of the required capacity and a low level of cost recovery

I I I The importance of increasing community

participation and ownership in order to improve OampM and cost recovery has led to innovative approaches for community-based management of services that require different institutional approaches These include

I increased reliance on the demand expressed by the community for the provision of services and associated investment decisions increased reliance on the private sector and a

I decentralized approach to management and implementation In some countries a few onshygoing projects have been adopting a new

bull

approach of community management and the results have been satisfactory This study was initiated and carried out as part of the Programs regional learning agenda Its objective was to design and test the sustainability of various community manashygement models for delivering services to the rural popu lations and to draw lessons of experience The study draws from projects that introduced new approaches in project design and which are being implemented in the numerous countries in which the RWSGshyWCA is active

22 Objective

The case study presents results draws its main conclusions and lessons of experience from the institutional arrangements in communityshybased management systems

23 Methodology

The study was implemented over a period of 18 months by field based teams of national con~)ultants in five WCst African COllfllriCs lkll Burkilld raso (-(lte dli(lie Ghli I

Mali Each country team was made up or national consultants which used a common methodology developed by the Task Manager with input from a resource person in Washington DC The projects included in the case study were selected because they used piped systems and employed communityshybased management The selection was made from countries in which the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (RWSGshyWCA) was active and has knowledge of the broad sectoral context in each of the countries involved Pre-selection was made by country consultants and final selection done jointly by the Study Coordinator and directors of sector departments in each country

The analysis is based on a set of four indicators comprising ten sub-indicators or variables developed specifically for this study Data was collected from the field using questionnaires household surveys and focused interviews with

I - iii shy

I Water Committees and community leaders

I supplemented by technicai and qualitative assessment by the survey teams In total the study team members surveyed 780 households

I representing 26 community-based manashygement of piped water supply systems

In the analysis these variables which included some background variables were subjected to

I a number of statistical tests such as correlation and regression analyses to determine what factors were most important in explaining

I system sustainability

24 Study Findings

I The study has found that in order to achieve high level of sustainability

I Management Model Matters

I bull Management by a WUA which allows

I greater delegation is highly competent and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

I bull MMl and MM3 Models (Water

Committees WATSANs) could also attain improved levels of sustainability with a

I competent management unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

I bull Competence is strongly correlated to

sustainability no matter which model is

I adopted

Backstopping and Training are Essential

I I bull Backstopping is of prime importance to

sustainability as it enhances competence accountability and delegation and other management ski lis

I bull Training adequately administered fosters competence and accountability and facilishytates delegation

I Delegation is Necessary

I bull Delegation has a reasonably good Pearson correlation to sustainability

Besides the key findings above that are directly related to management and sustainability the study has also found that

bull the large majority of households surveyed have shown an overall satisfaction with their system

bull in spite of that overall satisfaction only 40 percent of them regularly and exclusively use their system more than that proportion (44 percent) have an alternative use while the remaining 16 percent continue to exclusively use non-system water

bull 90 percent of non-users did not wish to respond to questions about the system and those who responded were wi lIing to use it and pay for doing so

bull reasons given by non-users for not using the system were varied and ranged from their own unwillingness to use it to social and technical considerations

The study has also identified four communityshybased management models namely Water Committees (WCs) Water Users Associations (WUAs) Water and Sanitation Committees (WATSANs) and Water and Sanitation Development Boards (WSDB) operating in the five countries covered by the study

25 Lessons Learned

Some key conclusions have emerged from the study in terms of what was successfully accomplished and what might have been done differently

Backstopping More emphasis should be put on backstopping in the design of communityshybased management in order to strengthen competence accountability and delegation and thus improving sustainability of piped water supply systems

Delegation The study has found that delegation was not fully utilized by any of the MMs This probably was one reason why the correlation between delegation and sustainability was not so strong In designing CBM in the future adequate attention should be paid to delegation and to ensuring that all

I

I I stakeholders including the government

community management body and other support bodies understand and effectively play their respective roles

I I Community-Based Management The

importance of community participation in water supply and sanitation has been stressed time and time again The study has shown that the involvement of the communities in the

I management process has not been optimized by any of the models This probably has had a negative impact on the performance of the models Therefore in the future community participation should be specifically addressed

I when designing community-based manashygement

I Accountability The issue of accountability also needs to be addressed by a (BM which is concerned about the sustainability of its

I system Training and backstopping also help address this issue in an adequate and efficient manner

I I Training Training should be better designed

to encompass not on Iy OampM but all aspects of management including administrative

I financial public relations as well as technical skills in order to achieve adequate capacity building and ensure the sustainability of piped water supply systems

I I I I I I I bull

- iv-

Given the importance of competence accountability and delegation in system sustainability training should be designed so as to specifically address these issues

Incentives Even though management personnel has often shown its willingness and unselfishness the study has revealed that in many cases management teams tended to be more dedicated to their activities when they expect an incentive whether in kind or otherwise Projects that design (BM should therefore include adequate means of motishyvating the management team

Maintenance One major weakness of sustainable community-based management is the inefficiency of delegated maintenance As far as piped water supply systems are concerned this is not just a matter of spare parts It is an issue that shou Id be tackled at the national level through a nationally developed policy that addresses problems related to spare parts but as well as logistics and the competence of the maintenance contractor

Information Education and Communication In order to heighten the communitys interest in efficiently using the system the commushynity must be informed and educated and communication maintained during and after project implementation

I I I 3 INTRODUCTION

The present study aims at identifying and

I evaluating the impact of different communityshybased management models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of

I delegation on the sustainability of piped village water supply services The issue is addressed in 26 communities of five West

I African countries namely Benin Burkina

I Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali The various piped village water supply technologies and types of management models found in these countries are representative of those models currently used in the sub-region

I 31 Background

I During the last few years very ambitious programs in the rural water supply and

I sanitation sector have been defined by governments in West Africa as a means of improving living conditions for the poor and

I slowing down migration towards the cities Also today the human driven handpump installations are giving way to piped water supply systems in larger village communities and small to medium size secondary towns of

I the stlbmiddotregion In the Ilext S-10 years p()gtlI11S for constrllctillg such s)(~ms in tilE five countries covered by this study wi II be

I implemented in a total of more than 1000 communities with a population of 1000 to 5000 people or more in small towns

I I In spite of this impressive commitment to the

sector programs are poorly designed and lack adequate framework with which to be guided

I Clear policy framework are still lacking in many countries in spite of the growing awareness of the need for a policy statement

I I

that provides guidelines and clear mandates for institutions Institutions themselves when they exist suffer from the lack of clearly defined mandates poor working conditions and frequent changes in structure which render them unstable and inefficient Most of the time they lack adequate resources human and

I financial and a strong political will to undertake much needed reforms

- 1 shy

Financial support provided by multilateral and bilateral donors has been significant In Burkina Faso for example external financing represents 79 percent of expenditures in the water and sanitation sector However the full benefit of such financing efforts has been hampered by insufficient national counterpart funds Government expenditures in the water and sanitation sector in the countries of the sub-region account for less than 1 percent of the national budget Potential alternative sources of financing including more community and private sector participation are not properly explored Most financial resources are devoted towards building new facilities rather than securing sustainable services through improved operation and maintenance of existing ones

The important role played by NGOs and other ESAs in the sub-sector in providing support for policy development institutional reform capacity building technical assistance and financing even though such support has to be better channeled and coordinated has not been given the necessary attention and recognition by gOV(JWllCI) offtcials ~() thJI

lell entili( can bClOll1 liill) )J(C()laquo

With the exception of Ghana where community empowerment recommended by the national RWSS strategy is being implemented capacity building suffers from the lack of systematic policy and inadequate training facilities as it is generally directed towards high level government personnel at the expense of community needs

Private sector participation in the activities of the sector is still mostly restricted to construction work Apart from Cote divoire whose water and sanitation schemes are managed by a private company on a concession basiS and Ghana that is in a transitional phase the water and sanitation systems of the three other countries of the study as is the case for most countries in the sub- region are operated by state owned utilities The role of the private sector

I I

- 2 shy

especially at the community level is rather 4 METHODOLOGY

I limited in the areas of financing and

I management The small providers who seem to be very active in the poor peri-urban zones of the cities are virtually non-existent in the rural areas

I 32 Changing Trends

I In spite of the general picture given above there is a genuine hope shared by most stakeholders in the rural water and sanitation sector in the five countries studied that the sector will adopt new ideas and approaches

I that are indispensable for its growth

The acceptance of the concept of water as an

I economic good that has value is gaining momentum among all stakeholders and in particular within the communities them-selves

I As a corollary to the foregoing the idea of cost

I recovery is as demonstrated by studies conducted in Benin and Burkina Faso increasingly better accepted even by local

I politicians and the willingness to pay is growing among community members New and innovative ideas are being introduced with respect to the financing of the sector

I I The Demand Responsive Approach (Burkina

Faso Benin and Ghana) i~ being used with much more frequency in the implementation of projects and in general most government

I officials will become more favorable to this approach as they continue to be better informed and sensitized about it Social intermediation is becoming more effective as it

I becomes better perceived by both government officials and community members

33 Objective of Study

I The objective of this study is to evaluate how in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation different community-based

I management models impact on the sustainability of piped village water supply systems The study hypothesis is that a

I community management system that delegates key operational tasks attains greater sustainashybility in water services

I bull

41 Selection Criteria

The projects included in the study were selected based on the following criteria (i)

countries where WSG-WCA is active and in respect of which it has considerable sector knowledge (ii) countries where the governments are interested in participating in the case study and (iii) countries where there is a broad coverage of different management models On the basis of the foregoing criteria projects in Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali were selected

Village selection was based on the following criteria villages representing different management models villages offering different levels of service and are accessible at all times willing to participate in the case study documented project of information villages with a population size is between 1000 and 5000 (up to 15000 for Ghana) with technology that is not human-driven and systems at least 3 years old Five vi IIages were selected in each country and pre-selection of villages was made by the country team with final selection being made by RWSG-WCA and country government

In order to make the statistical analysis meaningful 30 households were randomly selected in each village with due account being taken of the particularities of the system Approximately five household heads of nonshyuser sections of the village were surveyed and one-third of the persons interviewed were women

The Study Coordinator with assistance from Program staff from Headquarters developed three types of questionnaires which included a household survey questionnaire (30 questionshynaires per village) applicable to 30 houseshyholds per vi lIage (five of which were applicable to non-users of the system) a committee questionnaire (1 per village) applicable to members of the management body in the village and a technical evaluation questionnaire (1 per village) to assess the

I I

technical financial and administrative

I management Questions on delegation were included in the technical evaluation questionnaire

I I The questionnaires were pre-tested and

adjusted to conditions in each country before the study was launched The Study Coordinator developed a database for data input by country teams

I I

- 3 shy

42 Analytical Framework

An analytical framework defining indicators for testing relationships between delegation and model characteristics versus sustainability was constructed A scoring system developed from this framework made it possible to weigh different characteristics of the models and make comparative analyses between models Table 1 below provides a summary of the major indicators and sub-indicators used in the study and the primary sources of data from which they have been constructed

Table 1 Sou rces of data for indicator and sub-indicators categories

I I I I I I I 43 Data Analysis

The system studied uses indicators developed

I to test a number of relationships between management models and sustainability delegation and sustainability the management

I models characteristics and sustainability and the impact of background information on

I sustainability A scoring system rating of 0-10 has been used to assess relative weights whi Ie Pearson correlation coefficients have been utilized to test the strength of relationships Frequency table analyses have also been used

I to assess qualitative relationships

I bull

44 Study Design

The study is designed and implemented by the Water and Sanitation program (WSPshyWCA) A full-time Study Coordinator was appointed to oversee and coordinate all aspects of study implementation Program staff at Headquarters and Bank Task Managers provided technical assistance Implementation of the study in the five countries was contracted to local consultants who in turn hired a team of 2-3 surveyors and provided all logistical support for data collection Local consultants participated in vi lIage selection undertook the surveys input the quantitative

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I I

CommunllV-llsad Mlnagamant 01 Plpad Water SIIPPIV Slstems

I Table of Contents

I 1 FOREWORD

I 2 EXECUTIVE SUM MARY 21 Overview 22 Objective

I 23 Methodology 24 Study Findings 25 Lessons Learned

I 3 INTRODUCTION 31 Background

I 32 Changing Trends 33 Objective of Study

I 4 METHODOLOGY 41 Selection Criteria 42 Analytical Framework

I 43 Data Analysis 44 Study Design

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS 51 Preliminary findings 52 Management Models

I 53 Management Models Sub-Indicator Characteristics

51 1 Do the models prolilote cOlllmunily-based management 1) Arc Ihe models 1(()1l11tabJc ) tlie comnnillily

5JJ Do the models promote competence

I 534 Do the models delegate 54 Sustainability of Systems

I 541 Management models and stlstainability 542 Delegation and Sustainability 543 Accountability and Sustainability 544 Community-Based Management and Sustainability 545 Competence and SustainabiIity

I 55 Other Factors of Sustainability 551 Backstopping 552 Training

I 553 Incentives 554 Infonnation Education and Communication

I 6 CONCLUSIONS 6 I Factors of sustainability 62 Other findings

I 7 LESSONS LEARNED

I ANNEXES

bull

II ii jj

ii iii iii

1 I 2 2

2 2 3 3 3

5 5 6

10 ]()

10 II 12 12 15 15 16 17 18 18 20 20 20

20 20 21

21

I I

1 FOREWORD

I In recent years policy and practice in rural

I water supply and sanitation projects have been gradually reoriented and several countries have developed national strategies and implemented investment projects that reflect

I the new approaches -- demand responsiveness linked to institutional arrangements that promote and support community responshy

I sibility and participation to ensure ownership and community capacity building is regarded as central component of project design

I I The provision of basic services to un-served

and under-served populations in poor communities in both rural and urban

I environments has been the focus of attention of sector leaders and new innovative approaches are being tested and developed

I These approaches and institutional arranshygements have proven very effective in addressing water and sanitation problems and

I could measurably improve the quality of services and promote sustainable deveshylopment

I Empirical evidence has shown that results and effectiveness are greatly enhanced when the community members have the opportunity to

I participate directly in their own development Enabling the community to express their desires is a challenge that requires new ways of thinking and acting on the part of the development practitioners This case study

I Community-Based Management of Piped Water Supply Systems demonstrates that the sustainability of the system is largely

I dependent upon the management models adopted and the degree of accountabi lity delegation and competence of those running

I the systems

I I I

bull

- I shy

This study has been carried out by RWSGshyWCA as part of the Programs regional learning agenda It is a multi-country study developed to capture regional synergy that focuses on understanding the institutional arrangements and management models that have proven effective and sustainable in addressing water and sanitation problems The case study was supported by a team of national consultant who carried out the field work This report was prepared by Lucien Angbo Study Coordinator The Peer Reviewers were Yao Badjo Piers Cross Tore Lium and Jan Janssens Special thanks to Jennifer Sara who has been actively involved from its inception and provided invaluable guidance on study methodology Mathewos Woldu for his guidance support and substantive contribution in strengthening the substance of this report and Brian Grover for providing encouragement and support in completing the study

The study also benefited from the comments of Jean Doyen Mukami Kariuki Wambui Gichuri Annie Manou Savina and Eric Cole and the secretarial support provided by Evelyne Ligan and Helene Katele N cho and other RWSG-WCA colleagues who provided continuous encouragement and support This paper is expected to stimulate discussion among sector professionals with a view to providing increasing understanding of the workings of the management aspects of water supply and sanitation systems

Lucien Angbo Regional Water amp Sanitation Group Abidjan Cote divoire

I - ii shy

I 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I 21 Overview

I Currently the West Africa region is facing

I tremendous challenges in the water supply and sanitation sector with approximately two-thirds of the rural popu lation and one-quarter of the urban population lacking access to safe drinking water and an even much larger

I proportion approximately half of the urban

I I

population and three-quarters of the rural population lack adequate sanitation services In rural areas the lack of adequate water supply facilities forces most households to devote substantial amounts of time to fetching water from distant sources -- a burden that falls mainly on women and children and the poor

I who often pay the most for water services and suffer the most in terms of health and economic opportunities This lack of overall

I access to basic services is at the heart of the poverty trap

Although there has been an increase in the coverage of rural water supply and sanitation

I services in most countries both for the urban and rural poor it has not kept pace with population growth and rapid urban ization The

I key issues are the lack of a coherent national iJolicy and stltCgy illtitlJlional dkll(CC

insufficient attention to cost recovery and

I OampM and poor community participation and

I ownership A number of water supply systems are either non-operational owing to poor OampM which is largely due to the lack of the required capacity and a low level of cost recovery

I I I The importance of increasing community

participation and ownership in order to improve OampM and cost recovery has led to innovative approaches for community-based management of services that require different institutional approaches These include

I increased reliance on the demand expressed by the community for the provision of services and associated investment decisions increased reliance on the private sector and a

I decentralized approach to management and implementation In some countries a few onshygoing projects have been adopting a new

bull

approach of community management and the results have been satisfactory This study was initiated and carried out as part of the Programs regional learning agenda Its objective was to design and test the sustainability of various community manashygement models for delivering services to the rural popu lations and to draw lessons of experience The study draws from projects that introduced new approaches in project design and which are being implemented in the numerous countries in which the RWSGshyWCA is active

22 Objective

The case study presents results draws its main conclusions and lessons of experience from the institutional arrangements in communityshybased management systems

23 Methodology

The study was implemented over a period of 18 months by field based teams of national con~)ultants in five WCst African COllfllriCs lkll Burkilld raso (-(lte dli(lie Ghli I

Mali Each country team was made up or national consultants which used a common methodology developed by the Task Manager with input from a resource person in Washington DC The projects included in the case study were selected because they used piped systems and employed communityshybased management The selection was made from countries in which the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (RWSGshyWCA) was active and has knowledge of the broad sectoral context in each of the countries involved Pre-selection was made by country consultants and final selection done jointly by the Study Coordinator and directors of sector departments in each country

The analysis is based on a set of four indicators comprising ten sub-indicators or variables developed specifically for this study Data was collected from the field using questionnaires household surveys and focused interviews with

I - iii shy

I Water Committees and community leaders

I supplemented by technicai and qualitative assessment by the survey teams In total the study team members surveyed 780 households

I representing 26 community-based manashygement of piped water supply systems

In the analysis these variables which included some background variables were subjected to

I a number of statistical tests such as correlation and regression analyses to determine what factors were most important in explaining

I system sustainability

24 Study Findings

I The study has found that in order to achieve high level of sustainability

I Management Model Matters

I bull Management by a WUA which allows

I greater delegation is highly competent and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

I bull MMl and MM3 Models (Water

Committees WATSANs) could also attain improved levels of sustainability with a

I competent management unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

I bull Competence is strongly correlated to

sustainability no matter which model is

I adopted

Backstopping and Training are Essential

I I bull Backstopping is of prime importance to

sustainability as it enhances competence accountability and delegation and other management ski lis

I bull Training adequately administered fosters competence and accountability and facilishytates delegation

I Delegation is Necessary

I bull Delegation has a reasonably good Pearson correlation to sustainability

Besides the key findings above that are directly related to management and sustainability the study has also found that

bull the large majority of households surveyed have shown an overall satisfaction with their system

bull in spite of that overall satisfaction only 40 percent of them regularly and exclusively use their system more than that proportion (44 percent) have an alternative use while the remaining 16 percent continue to exclusively use non-system water

bull 90 percent of non-users did not wish to respond to questions about the system and those who responded were wi lIing to use it and pay for doing so

bull reasons given by non-users for not using the system were varied and ranged from their own unwillingness to use it to social and technical considerations

The study has also identified four communityshybased management models namely Water Committees (WCs) Water Users Associations (WUAs) Water and Sanitation Committees (WATSANs) and Water and Sanitation Development Boards (WSDB) operating in the five countries covered by the study

25 Lessons Learned

Some key conclusions have emerged from the study in terms of what was successfully accomplished and what might have been done differently

Backstopping More emphasis should be put on backstopping in the design of communityshybased management in order to strengthen competence accountability and delegation and thus improving sustainability of piped water supply systems

Delegation The study has found that delegation was not fully utilized by any of the MMs This probably was one reason why the correlation between delegation and sustainability was not so strong In designing CBM in the future adequate attention should be paid to delegation and to ensuring that all

I

I I stakeholders including the government

community management body and other support bodies understand and effectively play their respective roles

I I Community-Based Management The

importance of community participation in water supply and sanitation has been stressed time and time again The study has shown that the involvement of the communities in the

I management process has not been optimized by any of the models This probably has had a negative impact on the performance of the models Therefore in the future community participation should be specifically addressed

I when designing community-based manashygement

I Accountability The issue of accountability also needs to be addressed by a (BM which is concerned about the sustainability of its

I system Training and backstopping also help address this issue in an adequate and efficient manner

I I Training Training should be better designed

to encompass not on Iy OampM but all aspects of management including administrative

I financial public relations as well as technical skills in order to achieve adequate capacity building and ensure the sustainability of piped water supply systems

I I I I I I I bull

- iv-

Given the importance of competence accountability and delegation in system sustainability training should be designed so as to specifically address these issues

Incentives Even though management personnel has often shown its willingness and unselfishness the study has revealed that in many cases management teams tended to be more dedicated to their activities when they expect an incentive whether in kind or otherwise Projects that design (BM should therefore include adequate means of motishyvating the management team

Maintenance One major weakness of sustainable community-based management is the inefficiency of delegated maintenance As far as piped water supply systems are concerned this is not just a matter of spare parts It is an issue that shou Id be tackled at the national level through a nationally developed policy that addresses problems related to spare parts but as well as logistics and the competence of the maintenance contractor

Information Education and Communication In order to heighten the communitys interest in efficiently using the system the commushynity must be informed and educated and communication maintained during and after project implementation

I I I 3 INTRODUCTION

The present study aims at identifying and

I evaluating the impact of different communityshybased management models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of

I delegation on the sustainability of piped village water supply services The issue is addressed in 26 communities of five West

I African countries namely Benin Burkina

I Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali The various piped village water supply technologies and types of management models found in these countries are representative of those models currently used in the sub-region

I 31 Background

I During the last few years very ambitious programs in the rural water supply and

I sanitation sector have been defined by governments in West Africa as a means of improving living conditions for the poor and

I slowing down migration towards the cities Also today the human driven handpump installations are giving way to piped water supply systems in larger village communities and small to medium size secondary towns of

I the stlbmiddotregion In the Ilext S-10 years p()gtlI11S for constrllctillg such s)(~ms in tilE five countries covered by this study wi II be

I implemented in a total of more than 1000 communities with a population of 1000 to 5000 people or more in small towns

I I In spite of this impressive commitment to the

sector programs are poorly designed and lack adequate framework with which to be guided

I Clear policy framework are still lacking in many countries in spite of the growing awareness of the need for a policy statement

I I

that provides guidelines and clear mandates for institutions Institutions themselves when they exist suffer from the lack of clearly defined mandates poor working conditions and frequent changes in structure which render them unstable and inefficient Most of the time they lack adequate resources human and

I financial and a strong political will to undertake much needed reforms

- 1 shy

Financial support provided by multilateral and bilateral donors has been significant In Burkina Faso for example external financing represents 79 percent of expenditures in the water and sanitation sector However the full benefit of such financing efforts has been hampered by insufficient national counterpart funds Government expenditures in the water and sanitation sector in the countries of the sub-region account for less than 1 percent of the national budget Potential alternative sources of financing including more community and private sector participation are not properly explored Most financial resources are devoted towards building new facilities rather than securing sustainable services through improved operation and maintenance of existing ones

The important role played by NGOs and other ESAs in the sub-sector in providing support for policy development institutional reform capacity building technical assistance and financing even though such support has to be better channeled and coordinated has not been given the necessary attention and recognition by gOV(JWllCI) offtcials ~() thJI

lell entili( can bClOll1 liill) )J(C()laquo

With the exception of Ghana where community empowerment recommended by the national RWSS strategy is being implemented capacity building suffers from the lack of systematic policy and inadequate training facilities as it is generally directed towards high level government personnel at the expense of community needs

Private sector participation in the activities of the sector is still mostly restricted to construction work Apart from Cote divoire whose water and sanitation schemes are managed by a private company on a concession basiS and Ghana that is in a transitional phase the water and sanitation systems of the three other countries of the study as is the case for most countries in the sub- region are operated by state owned utilities The role of the private sector

I I

- 2 shy

especially at the community level is rather 4 METHODOLOGY

I limited in the areas of financing and

I management The small providers who seem to be very active in the poor peri-urban zones of the cities are virtually non-existent in the rural areas

I 32 Changing Trends

I In spite of the general picture given above there is a genuine hope shared by most stakeholders in the rural water and sanitation sector in the five countries studied that the sector will adopt new ideas and approaches

I that are indispensable for its growth

The acceptance of the concept of water as an

I economic good that has value is gaining momentum among all stakeholders and in particular within the communities them-selves

I As a corollary to the foregoing the idea of cost

I recovery is as demonstrated by studies conducted in Benin and Burkina Faso increasingly better accepted even by local

I politicians and the willingness to pay is growing among community members New and innovative ideas are being introduced with respect to the financing of the sector

I I The Demand Responsive Approach (Burkina

Faso Benin and Ghana) i~ being used with much more frequency in the implementation of projects and in general most government

I officials will become more favorable to this approach as they continue to be better informed and sensitized about it Social intermediation is becoming more effective as it

I becomes better perceived by both government officials and community members

33 Objective of Study

I The objective of this study is to evaluate how in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation different community-based

I management models impact on the sustainability of piped village water supply systems The study hypothesis is that a

I community management system that delegates key operational tasks attains greater sustainashybility in water services

I bull

41 Selection Criteria

The projects included in the study were selected based on the following criteria (i)

countries where WSG-WCA is active and in respect of which it has considerable sector knowledge (ii) countries where the governments are interested in participating in the case study and (iii) countries where there is a broad coverage of different management models On the basis of the foregoing criteria projects in Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali were selected

Village selection was based on the following criteria villages representing different management models villages offering different levels of service and are accessible at all times willing to participate in the case study documented project of information villages with a population size is between 1000 and 5000 (up to 15000 for Ghana) with technology that is not human-driven and systems at least 3 years old Five vi IIages were selected in each country and pre-selection of villages was made by the country team with final selection being made by RWSG-WCA and country government

In order to make the statistical analysis meaningful 30 households were randomly selected in each village with due account being taken of the particularities of the system Approximately five household heads of nonshyuser sections of the village were surveyed and one-third of the persons interviewed were women

The Study Coordinator with assistance from Program staff from Headquarters developed three types of questionnaires which included a household survey questionnaire (30 questionshynaires per village) applicable to 30 houseshyholds per vi lIage (five of which were applicable to non-users of the system) a committee questionnaire (1 per village) applicable to members of the management body in the village and a technical evaluation questionnaire (1 per village) to assess the

I I

technical financial and administrative

I management Questions on delegation were included in the technical evaluation questionnaire

I I The questionnaires were pre-tested and

adjusted to conditions in each country before the study was launched The Study Coordinator developed a database for data input by country teams

I I

- 3 shy

42 Analytical Framework

An analytical framework defining indicators for testing relationships between delegation and model characteristics versus sustainability was constructed A scoring system developed from this framework made it possible to weigh different characteristics of the models and make comparative analyses between models Table 1 below provides a summary of the major indicators and sub-indicators used in the study and the primary sources of data from which they have been constructed

Table 1 Sou rces of data for indicator and sub-indicators categories

I I I I I I I 43 Data Analysis

The system studied uses indicators developed

I to test a number of relationships between management models and sustainability delegation and sustainability the management

I models characteristics and sustainability and the impact of background information on

I sustainability A scoring system rating of 0-10 has been used to assess relative weights whi Ie Pearson correlation coefficients have been utilized to test the strength of relationships Frequency table analyses have also been used

I to assess qualitative relationships

I bull

44 Study Design

The study is designed and implemented by the Water and Sanitation program (WSPshyWCA) A full-time Study Coordinator was appointed to oversee and coordinate all aspects of study implementation Program staff at Headquarters and Bank Task Managers provided technical assistance Implementation of the study in the five countries was contracted to local consultants who in turn hired a team of 2-3 surveyors and provided all logistical support for data collection Local consultants participated in vi lIage selection undertook the surveys input the quantitative

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I I

1 FOREWORD

I In recent years policy and practice in rural

I water supply and sanitation projects have been gradually reoriented and several countries have developed national strategies and implemented investment projects that reflect

I the new approaches -- demand responsiveness linked to institutional arrangements that promote and support community responshy

I sibility and participation to ensure ownership and community capacity building is regarded as central component of project design

I I The provision of basic services to un-served

and under-served populations in poor communities in both rural and urban

I environments has been the focus of attention of sector leaders and new innovative approaches are being tested and developed

I These approaches and institutional arranshygements have proven very effective in addressing water and sanitation problems and

I could measurably improve the quality of services and promote sustainable deveshylopment

I Empirical evidence has shown that results and effectiveness are greatly enhanced when the community members have the opportunity to

I participate directly in their own development Enabling the community to express their desires is a challenge that requires new ways of thinking and acting on the part of the development practitioners This case study

I Community-Based Management of Piped Water Supply Systems demonstrates that the sustainability of the system is largely

I dependent upon the management models adopted and the degree of accountabi lity delegation and competence of those running

I the systems

I I I

bull

- I shy

This study has been carried out by RWSGshyWCA as part of the Programs regional learning agenda It is a multi-country study developed to capture regional synergy that focuses on understanding the institutional arrangements and management models that have proven effective and sustainable in addressing water and sanitation problems The case study was supported by a team of national consultant who carried out the field work This report was prepared by Lucien Angbo Study Coordinator The Peer Reviewers were Yao Badjo Piers Cross Tore Lium and Jan Janssens Special thanks to Jennifer Sara who has been actively involved from its inception and provided invaluable guidance on study methodology Mathewos Woldu for his guidance support and substantive contribution in strengthening the substance of this report and Brian Grover for providing encouragement and support in completing the study

The study also benefited from the comments of Jean Doyen Mukami Kariuki Wambui Gichuri Annie Manou Savina and Eric Cole and the secretarial support provided by Evelyne Ligan and Helene Katele N cho and other RWSG-WCA colleagues who provided continuous encouragement and support This paper is expected to stimulate discussion among sector professionals with a view to providing increasing understanding of the workings of the management aspects of water supply and sanitation systems

Lucien Angbo Regional Water amp Sanitation Group Abidjan Cote divoire

I - ii shy

I 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I 21 Overview

I Currently the West Africa region is facing

I tremendous challenges in the water supply and sanitation sector with approximately two-thirds of the rural popu lation and one-quarter of the urban population lacking access to safe drinking water and an even much larger

I proportion approximately half of the urban

I I

population and three-quarters of the rural population lack adequate sanitation services In rural areas the lack of adequate water supply facilities forces most households to devote substantial amounts of time to fetching water from distant sources -- a burden that falls mainly on women and children and the poor

I who often pay the most for water services and suffer the most in terms of health and economic opportunities This lack of overall

I access to basic services is at the heart of the poverty trap

Although there has been an increase in the coverage of rural water supply and sanitation

I services in most countries both for the urban and rural poor it has not kept pace with population growth and rapid urban ization The

I key issues are the lack of a coherent national iJolicy and stltCgy illtitlJlional dkll(CC

insufficient attention to cost recovery and

I OampM and poor community participation and

I ownership A number of water supply systems are either non-operational owing to poor OampM which is largely due to the lack of the required capacity and a low level of cost recovery

I I I The importance of increasing community

participation and ownership in order to improve OampM and cost recovery has led to innovative approaches for community-based management of services that require different institutional approaches These include

I increased reliance on the demand expressed by the community for the provision of services and associated investment decisions increased reliance on the private sector and a

I decentralized approach to management and implementation In some countries a few onshygoing projects have been adopting a new

bull

approach of community management and the results have been satisfactory This study was initiated and carried out as part of the Programs regional learning agenda Its objective was to design and test the sustainability of various community manashygement models for delivering services to the rural popu lations and to draw lessons of experience The study draws from projects that introduced new approaches in project design and which are being implemented in the numerous countries in which the RWSGshyWCA is active

22 Objective

The case study presents results draws its main conclusions and lessons of experience from the institutional arrangements in communityshybased management systems

23 Methodology

The study was implemented over a period of 18 months by field based teams of national con~)ultants in five WCst African COllfllriCs lkll Burkilld raso (-(lte dli(lie Ghli I

Mali Each country team was made up or national consultants which used a common methodology developed by the Task Manager with input from a resource person in Washington DC The projects included in the case study were selected because they used piped systems and employed communityshybased management The selection was made from countries in which the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (RWSGshyWCA) was active and has knowledge of the broad sectoral context in each of the countries involved Pre-selection was made by country consultants and final selection done jointly by the Study Coordinator and directors of sector departments in each country

The analysis is based on a set of four indicators comprising ten sub-indicators or variables developed specifically for this study Data was collected from the field using questionnaires household surveys and focused interviews with

I - iii shy

I Water Committees and community leaders

I supplemented by technicai and qualitative assessment by the survey teams In total the study team members surveyed 780 households

I representing 26 community-based manashygement of piped water supply systems

In the analysis these variables which included some background variables were subjected to

I a number of statistical tests such as correlation and regression analyses to determine what factors were most important in explaining

I system sustainability

24 Study Findings

I The study has found that in order to achieve high level of sustainability

I Management Model Matters

I bull Management by a WUA which allows

I greater delegation is highly competent and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

I bull MMl and MM3 Models (Water

Committees WATSANs) could also attain improved levels of sustainability with a

I competent management unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

I bull Competence is strongly correlated to

sustainability no matter which model is

I adopted

Backstopping and Training are Essential

I I bull Backstopping is of prime importance to

sustainability as it enhances competence accountability and delegation and other management ski lis

I bull Training adequately administered fosters competence and accountability and facilishytates delegation

I Delegation is Necessary

I bull Delegation has a reasonably good Pearson correlation to sustainability

Besides the key findings above that are directly related to management and sustainability the study has also found that

bull the large majority of households surveyed have shown an overall satisfaction with their system

bull in spite of that overall satisfaction only 40 percent of them regularly and exclusively use their system more than that proportion (44 percent) have an alternative use while the remaining 16 percent continue to exclusively use non-system water

bull 90 percent of non-users did not wish to respond to questions about the system and those who responded were wi lIing to use it and pay for doing so

bull reasons given by non-users for not using the system were varied and ranged from their own unwillingness to use it to social and technical considerations

The study has also identified four communityshybased management models namely Water Committees (WCs) Water Users Associations (WUAs) Water and Sanitation Committees (WATSANs) and Water and Sanitation Development Boards (WSDB) operating in the five countries covered by the study

25 Lessons Learned

Some key conclusions have emerged from the study in terms of what was successfully accomplished and what might have been done differently

Backstopping More emphasis should be put on backstopping in the design of communityshybased management in order to strengthen competence accountability and delegation and thus improving sustainability of piped water supply systems

Delegation The study has found that delegation was not fully utilized by any of the MMs This probably was one reason why the correlation between delegation and sustainability was not so strong In designing CBM in the future adequate attention should be paid to delegation and to ensuring that all

I

I I stakeholders including the government

community management body and other support bodies understand and effectively play their respective roles

I I Community-Based Management The

importance of community participation in water supply and sanitation has been stressed time and time again The study has shown that the involvement of the communities in the

I management process has not been optimized by any of the models This probably has had a negative impact on the performance of the models Therefore in the future community participation should be specifically addressed

I when designing community-based manashygement

I Accountability The issue of accountability also needs to be addressed by a (BM which is concerned about the sustainability of its

I system Training and backstopping also help address this issue in an adequate and efficient manner

I I Training Training should be better designed

to encompass not on Iy OampM but all aspects of management including administrative

I financial public relations as well as technical skills in order to achieve adequate capacity building and ensure the sustainability of piped water supply systems

I I I I I I I bull

- iv-

Given the importance of competence accountability and delegation in system sustainability training should be designed so as to specifically address these issues

Incentives Even though management personnel has often shown its willingness and unselfishness the study has revealed that in many cases management teams tended to be more dedicated to their activities when they expect an incentive whether in kind or otherwise Projects that design (BM should therefore include adequate means of motishyvating the management team

Maintenance One major weakness of sustainable community-based management is the inefficiency of delegated maintenance As far as piped water supply systems are concerned this is not just a matter of spare parts It is an issue that shou Id be tackled at the national level through a nationally developed policy that addresses problems related to spare parts but as well as logistics and the competence of the maintenance contractor

Information Education and Communication In order to heighten the communitys interest in efficiently using the system the commushynity must be informed and educated and communication maintained during and after project implementation

I I I 3 INTRODUCTION

The present study aims at identifying and

I evaluating the impact of different communityshybased management models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of

I delegation on the sustainability of piped village water supply services The issue is addressed in 26 communities of five West

I African countries namely Benin Burkina

I Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali The various piped village water supply technologies and types of management models found in these countries are representative of those models currently used in the sub-region

I 31 Background

I During the last few years very ambitious programs in the rural water supply and

I sanitation sector have been defined by governments in West Africa as a means of improving living conditions for the poor and

I slowing down migration towards the cities Also today the human driven handpump installations are giving way to piped water supply systems in larger village communities and small to medium size secondary towns of

I the stlbmiddotregion In the Ilext S-10 years p()gtlI11S for constrllctillg such s)(~ms in tilE five countries covered by this study wi II be

I implemented in a total of more than 1000 communities with a population of 1000 to 5000 people or more in small towns

I I In spite of this impressive commitment to the

sector programs are poorly designed and lack adequate framework with which to be guided

I Clear policy framework are still lacking in many countries in spite of the growing awareness of the need for a policy statement

I I

that provides guidelines and clear mandates for institutions Institutions themselves when they exist suffer from the lack of clearly defined mandates poor working conditions and frequent changes in structure which render them unstable and inefficient Most of the time they lack adequate resources human and

I financial and a strong political will to undertake much needed reforms

- 1 shy

Financial support provided by multilateral and bilateral donors has been significant In Burkina Faso for example external financing represents 79 percent of expenditures in the water and sanitation sector However the full benefit of such financing efforts has been hampered by insufficient national counterpart funds Government expenditures in the water and sanitation sector in the countries of the sub-region account for less than 1 percent of the national budget Potential alternative sources of financing including more community and private sector participation are not properly explored Most financial resources are devoted towards building new facilities rather than securing sustainable services through improved operation and maintenance of existing ones

The important role played by NGOs and other ESAs in the sub-sector in providing support for policy development institutional reform capacity building technical assistance and financing even though such support has to be better channeled and coordinated has not been given the necessary attention and recognition by gOV(JWllCI) offtcials ~() thJI

lell entili( can bClOll1 liill) )J(C()laquo

With the exception of Ghana where community empowerment recommended by the national RWSS strategy is being implemented capacity building suffers from the lack of systematic policy and inadequate training facilities as it is generally directed towards high level government personnel at the expense of community needs

Private sector participation in the activities of the sector is still mostly restricted to construction work Apart from Cote divoire whose water and sanitation schemes are managed by a private company on a concession basiS and Ghana that is in a transitional phase the water and sanitation systems of the three other countries of the study as is the case for most countries in the sub- region are operated by state owned utilities The role of the private sector

I I

- 2 shy

especially at the community level is rather 4 METHODOLOGY

I limited in the areas of financing and

I management The small providers who seem to be very active in the poor peri-urban zones of the cities are virtually non-existent in the rural areas

I 32 Changing Trends

I In spite of the general picture given above there is a genuine hope shared by most stakeholders in the rural water and sanitation sector in the five countries studied that the sector will adopt new ideas and approaches

I that are indispensable for its growth

The acceptance of the concept of water as an

I economic good that has value is gaining momentum among all stakeholders and in particular within the communities them-selves

I As a corollary to the foregoing the idea of cost

I recovery is as demonstrated by studies conducted in Benin and Burkina Faso increasingly better accepted even by local

I politicians and the willingness to pay is growing among community members New and innovative ideas are being introduced with respect to the financing of the sector

I I The Demand Responsive Approach (Burkina

Faso Benin and Ghana) i~ being used with much more frequency in the implementation of projects and in general most government

I officials will become more favorable to this approach as they continue to be better informed and sensitized about it Social intermediation is becoming more effective as it

I becomes better perceived by both government officials and community members

33 Objective of Study

I The objective of this study is to evaluate how in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation different community-based

I management models impact on the sustainability of piped village water supply systems The study hypothesis is that a

I community management system that delegates key operational tasks attains greater sustainashybility in water services

I bull

41 Selection Criteria

The projects included in the study were selected based on the following criteria (i)

countries where WSG-WCA is active and in respect of which it has considerable sector knowledge (ii) countries where the governments are interested in participating in the case study and (iii) countries where there is a broad coverage of different management models On the basis of the foregoing criteria projects in Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali were selected

Village selection was based on the following criteria villages representing different management models villages offering different levels of service and are accessible at all times willing to participate in the case study documented project of information villages with a population size is between 1000 and 5000 (up to 15000 for Ghana) with technology that is not human-driven and systems at least 3 years old Five vi IIages were selected in each country and pre-selection of villages was made by the country team with final selection being made by RWSG-WCA and country government

In order to make the statistical analysis meaningful 30 households were randomly selected in each village with due account being taken of the particularities of the system Approximately five household heads of nonshyuser sections of the village were surveyed and one-third of the persons interviewed were women

The Study Coordinator with assistance from Program staff from Headquarters developed three types of questionnaires which included a household survey questionnaire (30 questionshynaires per village) applicable to 30 houseshyholds per vi lIage (five of which were applicable to non-users of the system) a committee questionnaire (1 per village) applicable to members of the management body in the village and a technical evaluation questionnaire (1 per village) to assess the

I I

technical financial and administrative

I management Questions on delegation were included in the technical evaluation questionnaire

I I The questionnaires were pre-tested and

adjusted to conditions in each country before the study was launched The Study Coordinator developed a database for data input by country teams

I I

- 3 shy

42 Analytical Framework

An analytical framework defining indicators for testing relationships between delegation and model characteristics versus sustainability was constructed A scoring system developed from this framework made it possible to weigh different characteristics of the models and make comparative analyses between models Table 1 below provides a summary of the major indicators and sub-indicators used in the study and the primary sources of data from which they have been constructed

Table 1 Sou rces of data for indicator and sub-indicators categories

I I I I I I I 43 Data Analysis

The system studied uses indicators developed

I to test a number of relationships between management models and sustainability delegation and sustainability the management

I models characteristics and sustainability and the impact of background information on

I sustainability A scoring system rating of 0-10 has been used to assess relative weights whi Ie Pearson correlation coefficients have been utilized to test the strength of relationships Frequency table analyses have also been used

I to assess qualitative relationships

I bull

44 Study Design

The study is designed and implemented by the Water and Sanitation program (WSPshyWCA) A full-time Study Coordinator was appointed to oversee and coordinate all aspects of study implementation Program staff at Headquarters and Bank Task Managers provided technical assistance Implementation of the study in the five countries was contracted to local consultants who in turn hired a team of 2-3 surveyors and provided all logistical support for data collection Local consultants participated in vi lIage selection undertook the surveys input the quantitative

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I - ii shy

I 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I 21 Overview

I Currently the West Africa region is facing

I tremendous challenges in the water supply and sanitation sector with approximately two-thirds of the rural popu lation and one-quarter of the urban population lacking access to safe drinking water and an even much larger

I proportion approximately half of the urban

I I

population and three-quarters of the rural population lack adequate sanitation services In rural areas the lack of adequate water supply facilities forces most households to devote substantial amounts of time to fetching water from distant sources -- a burden that falls mainly on women and children and the poor

I who often pay the most for water services and suffer the most in terms of health and economic opportunities This lack of overall

I access to basic services is at the heart of the poverty trap

Although there has been an increase in the coverage of rural water supply and sanitation

I services in most countries both for the urban and rural poor it has not kept pace with population growth and rapid urban ization The

I key issues are the lack of a coherent national iJolicy and stltCgy illtitlJlional dkll(CC

insufficient attention to cost recovery and

I OampM and poor community participation and

I ownership A number of water supply systems are either non-operational owing to poor OampM which is largely due to the lack of the required capacity and a low level of cost recovery

I I I The importance of increasing community

participation and ownership in order to improve OampM and cost recovery has led to innovative approaches for community-based management of services that require different institutional approaches These include

I increased reliance on the demand expressed by the community for the provision of services and associated investment decisions increased reliance on the private sector and a

I decentralized approach to management and implementation In some countries a few onshygoing projects have been adopting a new

bull

approach of community management and the results have been satisfactory This study was initiated and carried out as part of the Programs regional learning agenda Its objective was to design and test the sustainability of various community manashygement models for delivering services to the rural popu lations and to draw lessons of experience The study draws from projects that introduced new approaches in project design and which are being implemented in the numerous countries in which the RWSGshyWCA is active

22 Objective

The case study presents results draws its main conclusions and lessons of experience from the institutional arrangements in communityshybased management systems

23 Methodology

The study was implemented over a period of 18 months by field based teams of national con~)ultants in five WCst African COllfllriCs lkll Burkilld raso (-(lte dli(lie Ghli I

Mali Each country team was made up or national consultants which used a common methodology developed by the Task Manager with input from a resource person in Washington DC The projects included in the case study were selected because they used piped systems and employed communityshybased management The selection was made from countries in which the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (RWSGshyWCA) was active and has knowledge of the broad sectoral context in each of the countries involved Pre-selection was made by country consultants and final selection done jointly by the Study Coordinator and directors of sector departments in each country

The analysis is based on a set of four indicators comprising ten sub-indicators or variables developed specifically for this study Data was collected from the field using questionnaires household surveys and focused interviews with

I - iii shy

I Water Committees and community leaders

I supplemented by technicai and qualitative assessment by the survey teams In total the study team members surveyed 780 households

I representing 26 community-based manashygement of piped water supply systems

In the analysis these variables which included some background variables were subjected to

I a number of statistical tests such as correlation and regression analyses to determine what factors were most important in explaining

I system sustainability

24 Study Findings

I The study has found that in order to achieve high level of sustainability

I Management Model Matters

I bull Management by a WUA which allows

I greater delegation is highly competent and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

I bull MMl and MM3 Models (Water

Committees WATSANs) could also attain improved levels of sustainability with a

I competent management unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

I bull Competence is strongly correlated to

sustainability no matter which model is

I adopted

Backstopping and Training are Essential

I I bull Backstopping is of prime importance to

sustainability as it enhances competence accountability and delegation and other management ski lis

I bull Training adequately administered fosters competence and accountability and facilishytates delegation

I Delegation is Necessary

I bull Delegation has a reasonably good Pearson correlation to sustainability

Besides the key findings above that are directly related to management and sustainability the study has also found that

bull the large majority of households surveyed have shown an overall satisfaction with their system

bull in spite of that overall satisfaction only 40 percent of them regularly and exclusively use their system more than that proportion (44 percent) have an alternative use while the remaining 16 percent continue to exclusively use non-system water

bull 90 percent of non-users did not wish to respond to questions about the system and those who responded were wi lIing to use it and pay for doing so

bull reasons given by non-users for not using the system were varied and ranged from their own unwillingness to use it to social and technical considerations

The study has also identified four communityshybased management models namely Water Committees (WCs) Water Users Associations (WUAs) Water and Sanitation Committees (WATSANs) and Water and Sanitation Development Boards (WSDB) operating in the five countries covered by the study

25 Lessons Learned

Some key conclusions have emerged from the study in terms of what was successfully accomplished and what might have been done differently

Backstopping More emphasis should be put on backstopping in the design of communityshybased management in order to strengthen competence accountability and delegation and thus improving sustainability of piped water supply systems

Delegation The study has found that delegation was not fully utilized by any of the MMs This probably was one reason why the correlation between delegation and sustainability was not so strong In designing CBM in the future adequate attention should be paid to delegation and to ensuring that all

I

I I stakeholders including the government

community management body and other support bodies understand and effectively play their respective roles

I I Community-Based Management The

importance of community participation in water supply and sanitation has been stressed time and time again The study has shown that the involvement of the communities in the

I management process has not been optimized by any of the models This probably has had a negative impact on the performance of the models Therefore in the future community participation should be specifically addressed

I when designing community-based manashygement

I Accountability The issue of accountability also needs to be addressed by a (BM which is concerned about the sustainability of its

I system Training and backstopping also help address this issue in an adequate and efficient manner

I I Training Training should be better designed

to encompass not on Iy OampM but all aspects of management including administrative

I financial public relations as well as technical skills in order to achieve adequate capacity building and ensure the sustainability of piped water supply systems

I I I I I I I bull

- iv-

Given the importance of competence accountability and delegation in system sustainability training should be designed so as to specifically address these issues

Incentives Even though management personnel has often shown its willingness and unselfishness the study has revealed that in many cases management teams tended to be more dedicated to their activities when they expect an incentive whether in kind or otherwise Projects that design (BM should therefore include adequate means of motishyvating the management team

Maintenance One major weakness of sustainable community-based management is the inefficiency of delegated maintenance As far as piped water supply systems are concerned this is not just a matter of spare parts It is an issue that shou Id be tackled at the national level through a nationally developed policy that addresses problems related to spare parts but as well as logistics and the competence of the maintenance contractor

Information Education and Communication In order to heighten the communitys interest in efficiently using the system the commushynity must be informed and educated and communication maintained during and after project implementation

I I I 3 INTRODUCTION

The present study aims at identifying and

I evaluating the impact of different communityshybased management models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of

I delegation on the sustainability of piped village water supply services The issue is addressed in 26 communities of five West

I African countries namely Benin Burkina

I Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali The various piped village water supply technologies and types of management models found in these countries are representative of those models currently used in the sub-region

I 31 Background

I During the last few years very ambitious programs in the rural water supply and

I sanitation sector have been defined by governments in West Africa as a means of improving living conditions for the poor and

I slowing down migration towards the cities Also today the human driven handpump installations are giving way to piped water supply systems in larger village communities and small to medium size secondary towns of

I the stlbmiddotregion In the Ilext S-10 years p()gtlI11S for constrllctillg such s)(~ms in tilE five countries covered by this study wi II be

I implemented in a total of more than 1000 communities with a population of 1000 to 5000 people or more in small towns

I I In spite of this impressive commitment to the

sector programs are poorly designed and lack adequate framework with which to be guided

I Clear policy framework are still lacking in many countries in spite of the growing awareness of the need for a policy statement

I I

that provides guidelines and clear mandates for institutions Institutions themselves when they exist suffer from the lack of clearly defined mandates poor working conditions and frequent changes in structure which render them unstable and inefficient Most of the time they lack adequate resources human and

I financial and a strong political will to undertake much needed reforms

- 1 shy

Financial support provided by multilateral and bilateral donors has been significant In Burkina Faso for example external financing represents 79 percent of expenditures in the water and sanitation sector However the full benefit of such financing efforts has been hampered by insufficient national counterpart funds Government expenditures in the water and sanitation sector in the countries of the sub-region account for less than 1 percent of the national budget Potential alternative sources of financing including more community and private sector participation are not properly explored Most financial resources are devoted towards building new facilities rather than securing sustainable services through improved operation and maintenance of existing ones

The important role played by NGOs and other ESAs in the sub-sector in providing support for policy development institutional reform capacity building technical assistance and financing even though such support has to be better channeled and coordinated has not been given the necessary attention and recognition by gOV(JWllCI) offtcials ~() thJI

lell entili( can bClOll1 liill) )J(C()laquo

With the exception of Ghana where community empowerment recommended by the national RWSS strategy is being implemented capacity building suffers from the lack of systematic policy and inadequate training facilities as it is generally directed towards high level government personnel at the expense of community needs

Private sector participation in the activities of the sector is still mostly restricted to construction work Apart from Cote divoire whose water and sanitation schemes are managed by a private company on a concession basiS and Ghana that is in a transitional phase the water and sanitation systems of the three other countries of the study as is the case for most countries in the sub- region are operated by state owned utilities The role of the private sector

I I

- 2 shy

especially at the community level is rather 4 METHODOLOGY

I limited in the areas of financing and

I management The small providers who seem to be very active in the poor peri-urban zones of the cities are virtually non-existent in the rural areas

I 32 Changing Trends

I In spite of the general picture given above there is a genuine hope shared by most stakeholders in the rural water and sanitation sector in the five countries studied that the sector will adopt new ideas and approaches

I that are indispensable for its growth

The acceptance of the concept of water as an

I economic good that has value is gaining momentum among all stakeholders and in particular within the communities them-selves

I As a corollary to the foregoing the idea of cost

I recovery is as demonstrated by studies conducted in Benin and Burkina Faso increasingly better accepted even by local

I politicians and the willingness to pay is growing among community members New and innovative ideas are being introduced with respect to the financing of the sector

I I The Demand Responsive Approach (Burkina

Faso Benin and Ghana) i~ being used with much more frequency in the implementation of projects and in general most government

I officials will become more favorable to this approach as they continue to be better informed and sensitized about it Social intermediation is becoming more effective as it

I becomes better perceived by both government officials and community members

33 Objective of Study

I The objective of this study is to evaluate how in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation different community-based

I management models impact on the sustainability of piped village water supply systems The study hypothesis is that a

I community management system that delegates key operational tasks attains greater sustainashybility in water services

I bull

41 Selection Criteria

The projects included in the study were selected based on the following criteria (i)

countries where WSG-WCA is active and in respect of which it has considerable sector knowledge (ii) countries where the governments are interested in participating in the case study and (iii) countries where there is a broad coverage of different management models On the basis of the foregoing criteria projects in Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali were selected

Village selection was based on the following criteria villages representing different management models villages offering different levels of service and are accessible at all times willing to participate in the case study documented project of information villages with a population size is between 1000 and 5000 (up to 15000 for Ghana) with technology that is not human-driven and systems at least 3 years old Five vi IIages were selected in each country and pre-selection of villages was made by the country team with final selection being made by RWSG-WCA and country government

In order to make the statistical analysis meaningful 30 households were randomly selected in each village with due account being taken of the particularities of the system Approximately five household heads of nonshyuser sections of the village were surveyed and one-third of the persons interviewed were women

The Study Coordinator with assistance from Program staff from Headquarters developed three types of questionnaires which included a household survey questionnaire (30 questionshynaires per village) applicable to 30 houseshyholds per vi lIage (five of which were applicable to non-users of the system) a committee questionnaire (1 per village) applicable to members of the management body in the village and a technical evaluation questionnaire (1 per village) to assess the

I I

technical financial and administrative

I management Questions on delegation were included in the technical evaluation questionnaire

I I The questionnaires were pre-tested and

adjusted to conditions in each country before the study was launched The Study Coordinator developed a database for data input by country teams

I I

- 3 shy

42 Analytical Framework

An analytical framework defining indicators for testing relationships between delegation and model characteristics versus sustainability was constructed A scoring system developed from this framework made it possible to weigh different characteristics of the models and make comparative analyses between models Table 1 below provides a summary of the major indicators and sub-indicators used in the study and the primary sources of data from which they have been constructed

Table 1 Sou rces of data for indicator and sub-indicators categories

I I I I I I I 43 Data Analysis

The system studied uses indicators developed

I to test a number of relationships between management models and sustainability delegation and sustainability the management

I models characteristics and sustainability and the impact of background information on

I sustainability A scoring system rating of 0-10 has been used to assess relative weights whi Ie Pearson correlation coefficients have been utilized to test the strength of relationships Frequency table analyses have also been used

I to assess qualitative relationships

I bull

44 Study Design

The study is designed and implemented by the Water and Sanitation program (WSPshyWCA) A full-time Study Coordinator was appointed to oversee and coordinate all aspects of study implementation Program staff at Headquarters and Bank Task Managers provided technical assistance Implementation of the study in the five countries was contracted to local consultants who in turn hired a team of 2-3 surveyors and provided all logistical support for data collection Local consultants participated in vi lIage selection undertook the surveys input the quantitative

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I - iii shy

I Water Committees and community leaders

I supplemented by technicai and qualitative assessment by the survey teams In total the study team members surveyed 780 households

I representing 26 community-based manashygement of piped water supply systems

In the analysis these variables which included some background variables were subjected to

I a number of statistical tests such as correlation and regression analyses to determine what factors were most important in explaining

I system sustainability

24 Study Findings

I The study has found that in order to achieve high level of sustainability

I Management Model Matters

I bull Management by a WUA which allows

I greater delegation is highly competent and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

I bull MMl and MM3 Models (Water

Committees WATSANs) could also attain improved levels of sustainability with a

I competent management unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

I bull Competence is strongly correlated to

sustainability no matter which model is

I adopted

Backstopping and Training are Essential

I I bull Backstopping is of prime importance to

sustainability as it enhances competence accountability and delegation and other management ski lis

I bull Training adequately administered fosters competence and accountability and facilishytates delegation

I Delegation is Necessary

I bull Delegation has a reasonably good Pearson correlation to sustainability

Besides the key findings above that are directly related to management and sustainability the study has also found that

bull the large majority of households surveyed have shown an overall satisfaction with their system

bull in spite of that overall satisfaction only 40 percent of them regularly and exclusively use their system more than that proportion (44 percent) have an alternative use while the remaining 16 percent continue to exclusively use non-system water

bull 90 percent of non-users did not wish to respond to questions about the system and those who responded were wi lIing to use it and pay for doing so

bull reasons given by non-users for not using the system were varied and ranged from their own unwillingness to use it to social and technical considerations

The study has also identified four communityshybased management models namely Water Committees (WCs) Water Users Associations (WUAs) Water and Sanitation Committees (WATSANs) and Water and Sanitation Development Boards (WSDB) operating in the five countries covered by the study

25 Lessons Learned

Some key conclusions have emerged from the study in terms of what was successfully accomplished and what might have been done differently

Backstopping More emphasis should be put on backstopping in the design of communityshybased management in order to strengthen competence accountability and delegation and thus improving sustainability of piped water supply systems

Delegation The study has found that delegation was not fully utilized by any of the MMs This probably was one reason why the correlation between delegation and sustainability was not so strong In designing CBM in the future adequate attention should be paid to delegation and to ensuring that all

I

I I stakeholders including the government

community management body and other support bodies understand and effectively play their respective roles

I I Community-Based Management The

importance of community participation in water supply and sanitation has been stressed time and time again The study has shown that the involvement of the communities in the

I management process has not been optimized by any of the models This probably has had a negative impact on the performance of the models Therefore in the future community participation should be specifically addressed

I when designing community-based manashygement

I Accountability The issue of accountability also needs to be addressed by a (BM which is concerned about the sustainability of its

I system Training and backstopping also help address this issue in an adequate and efficient manner

I I Training Training should be better designed

to encompass not on Iy OampM but all aspects of management including administrative

I financial public relations as well as technical skills in order to achieve adequate capacity building and ensure the sustainability of piped water supply systems

I I I I I I I bull

- iv-

Given the importance of competence accountability and delegation in system sustainability training should be designed so as to specifically address these issues

Incentives Even though management personnel has often shown its willingness and unselfishness the study has revealed that in many cases management teams tended to be more dedicated to their activities when they expect an incentive whether in kind or otherwise Projects that design (BM should therefore include adequate means of motishyvating the management team

Maintenance One major weakness of sustainable community-based management is the inefficiency of delegated maintenance As far as piped water supply systems are concerned this is not just a matter of spare parts It is an issue that shou Id be tackled at the national level through a nationally developed policy that addresses problems related to spare parts but as well as logistics and the competence of the maintenance contractor

Information Education and Communication In order to heighten the communitys interest in efficiently using the system the commushynity must be informed and educated and communication maintained during and after project implementation

I I I 3 INTRODUCTION

The present study aims at identifying and

I evaluating the impact of different communityshybased management models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of

I delegation on the sustainability of piped village water supply services The issue is addressed in 26 communities of five West

I African countries namely Benin Burkina

I Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali The various piped village water supply technologies and types of management models found in these countries are representative of those models currently used in the sub-region

I 31 Background

I During the last few years very ambitious programs in the rural water supply and

I sanitation sector have been defined by governments in West Africa as a means of improving living conditions for the poor and

I slowing down migration towards the cities Also today the human driven handpump installations are giving way to piped water supply systems in larger village communities and small to medium size secondary towns of

I the stlbmiddotregion In the Ilext S-10 years p()gtlI11S for constrllctillg such s)(~ms in tilE five countries covered by this study wi II be

I implemented in a total of more than 1000 communities with a population of 1000 to 5000 people or more in small towns

I I In spite of this impressive commitment to the

sector programs are poorly designed and lack adequate framework with which to be guided

I Clear policy framework are still lacking in many countries in spite of the growing awareness of the need for a policy statement

I I

that provides guidelines and clear mandates for institutions Institutions themselves when they exist suffer from the lack of clearly defined mandates poor working conditions and frequent changes in structure which render them unstable and inefficient Most of the time they lack adequate resources human and

I financial and a strong political will to undertake much needed reforms

- 1 shy

Financial support provided by multilateral and bilateral donors has been significant In Burkina Faso for example external financing represents 79 percent of expenditures in the water and sanitation sector However the full benefit of such financing efforts has been hampered by insufficient national counterpart funds Government expenditures in the water and sanitation sector in the countries of the sub-region account for less than 1 percent of the national budget Potential alternative sources of financing including more community and private sector participation are not properly explored Most financial resources are devoted towards building new facilities rather than securing sustainable services through improved operation and maintenance of existing ones

The important role played by NGOs and other ESAs in the sub-sector in providing support for policy development institutional reform capacity building technical assistance and financing even though such support has to be better channeled and coordinated has not been given the necessary attention and recognition by gOV(JWllCI) offtcials ~() thJI

lell entili( can bClOll1 liill) )J(C()laquo

With the exception of Ghana where community empowerment recommended by the national RWSS strategy is being implemented capacity building suffers from the lack of systematic policy and inadequate training facilities as it is generally directed towards high level government personnel at the expense of community needs

Private sector participation in the activities of the sector is still mostly restricted to construction work Apart from Cote divoire whose water and sanitation schemes are managed by a private company on a concession basiS and Ghana that is in a transitional phase the water and sanitation systems of the three other countries of the study as is the case for most countries in the sub- region are operated by state owned utilities The role of the private sector

I I

- 2 shy

especially at the community level is rather 4 METHODOLOGY

I limited in the areas of financing and

I management The small providers who seem to be very active in the poor peri-urban zones of the cities are virtually non-existent in the rural areas

I 32 Changing Trends

I In spite of the general picture given above there is a genuine hope shared by most stakeholders in the rural water and sanitation sector in the five countries studied that the sector will adopt new ideas and approaches

I that are indispensable for its growth

The acceptance of the concept of water as an

I economic good that has value is gaining momentum among all stakeholders and in particular within the communities them-selves

I As a corollary to the foregoing the idea of cost

I recovery is as demonstrated by studies conducted in Benin and Burkina Faso increasingly better accepted even by local

I politicians and the willingness to pay is growing among community members New and innovative ideas are being introduced with respect to the financing of the sector

I I The Demand Responsive Approach (Burkina

Faso Benin and Ghana) i~ being used with much more frequency in the implementation of projects and in general most government

I officials will become more favorable to this approach as they continue to be better informed and sensitized about it Social intermediation is becoming more effective as it

I becomes better perceived by both government officials and community members

33 Objective of Study

I The objective of this study is to evaluate how in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation different community-based

I management models impact on the sustainability of piped village water supply systems The study hypothesis is that a

I community management system that delegates key operational tasks attains greater sustainashybility in water services

I bull

41 Selection Criteria

The projects included in the study were selected based on the following criteria (i)

countries where WSG-WCA is active and in respect of which it has considerable sector knowledge (ii) countries where the governments are interested in participating in the case study and (iii) countries where there is a broad coverage of different management models On the basis of the foregoing criteria projects in Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali were selected

Village selection was based on the following criteria villages representing different management models villages offering different levels of service and are accessible at all times willing to participate in the case study documented project of information villages with a population size is between 1000 and 5000 (up to 15000 for Ghana) with technology that is not human-driven and systems at least 3 years old Five vi IIages were selected in each country and pre-selection of villages was made by the country team with final selection being made by RWSG-WCA and country government

In order to make the statistical analysis meaningful 30 households were randomly selected in each village with due account being taken of the particularities of the system Approximately five household heads of nonshyuser sections of the village were surveyed and one-third of the persons interviewed were women

The Study Coordinator with assistance from Program staff from Headquarters developed three types of questionnaires which included a household survey questionnaire (30 questionshynaires per village) applicable to 30 houseshyholds per vi lIage (five of which were applicable to non-users of the system) a committee questionnaire (1 per village) applicable to members of the management body in the village and a technical evaluation questionnaire (1 per village) to assess the

I I

technical financial and administrative

I management Questions on delegation were included in the technical evaluation questionnaire

I I The questionnaires were pre-tested and

adjusted to conditions in each country before the study was launched The Study Coordinator developed a database for data input by country teams

I I

- 3 shy

42 Analytical Framework

An analytical framework defining indicators for testing relationships between delegation and model characteristics versus sustainability was constructed A scoring system developed from this framework made it possible to weigh different characteristics of the models and make comparative analyses between models Table 1 below provides a summary of the major indicators and sub-indicators used in the study and the primary sources of data from which they have been constructed

Table 1 Sou rces of data for indicator and sub-indicators categories

I I I I I I I 43 Data Analysis

The system studied uses indicators developed

I to test a number of relationships between management models and sustainability delegation and sustainability the management

I models characteristics and sustainability and the impact of background information on

I sustainability A scoring system rating of 0-10 has been used to assess relative weights whi Ie Pearson correlation coefficients have been utilized to test the strength of relationships Frequency table analyses have also been used

I to assess qualitative relationships

I bull

44 Study Design

The study is designed and implemented by the Water and Sanitation program (WSPshyWCA) A full-time Study Coordinator was appointed to oversee and coordinate all aspects of study implementation Program staff at Headquarters and Bank Task Managers provided technical assistance Implementation of the study in the five countries was contracted to local consultants who in turn hired a team of 2-3 surveyors and provided all logistical support for data collection Local consultants participated in vi lIage selection undertook the surveys input the quantitative

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I

I I stakeholders including the government

community management body and other support bodies understand and effectively play their respective roles

I I Community-Based Management The

importance of community participation in water supply and sanitation has been stressed time and time again The study has shown that the involvement of the communities in the

I management process has not been optimized by any of the models This probably has had a negative impact on the performance of the models Therefore in the future community participation should be specifically addressed

I when designing community-based manashygement

I Accountability The issue of accountability also needs to be addressed by a (BM which is concerned about the sustainability of its

I system Training and backstopping also help address this issue in an adequate and efficient manner

I I Training Training should be better designed

to encompass not on Iy OampM but all aspects of management including administrative

I financial public relations as well as technical skills in order to achieve adequate capacity building and ensure the sustainability of piped water supply systems

I I I I I I I bull

- iv-

Given the importance of competence accountability and delegation in system sustainability training should be designed so as to specifically address these issues

Incentives Even though management personnel has often shown its willingness and unselfishness the study has revealed that in many cases management teams tended to be more dedicated to their activities when they expect an incentive whether in kind or otherwise Projects that design (BM should therefore include adequate means of motishyvating the management team

Maintenance One major weakness of sustainable community-based management is the inefficiency of delegated maintenance As far as piped water supply systems are concerned this is not just a matter of spare parts It is an issue that shou Id be tackled at the national level through a nationally developed policy that addresses problems related to spare parts but as well as logistics and the competence of the maintenance contractor

Information Education and Communication In order to heighten the communitys interest in efficiently using the system the commushynity must be informed and educated and communication maintained during and after project implementation

I I I 3 INTRODUCTION

The present study aims at identifying and

I evaluating the impact of different communityshybased management models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of

I delegation on the sustainability of piped village water supply services The issue is addressed in 26 communities of five West

I African countries namely Benin Burkina

I Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali The various piped village water supply technologies and types of management models found in these countries are representative of those models currently used in the sub-region

I 31 Background

I During the last few years very ambitious programs in the rural water supply and

I sanitation sector have been defined by governments in West Africa as a means of improving living conditions for the poor and

I slowing down migration towards the cities Also today the human driven handpump installations are giving way to piped water supply systems in larger village communities and small to medium size secondary towns of

I the stlbmiddotregion In the Ilext S-10 years p()gtlI11S for constrllctillg such s)(~ms in tilE five countries covered by this study wi II be

I implemented in a total of more than 1000 communities with a population of 1000 to 5000 people or more in small towns

I I In spite of this impressive commitment to the

sector programs are poorly designed and lack adequate framework with which to be guided

I Clear policy framework are still lacking in many countries in spite of the growing awareness of the need for a policy statement

I I

that provides guidelines and clear mandates for institutions Institutions themselves when they exist suffer from the lack of clearly defined mandates poor working conditions and frequent changes in structure which render them unstable and inefficient Most of the time they lack adequate resources human and

I financial and a strong political will to undertake much needed reforms

- 1 shy

Financial support provided by multilateral and bilateral donors has been significant In Burkina Faso for example external financing represents 79 percent of expenditures in the water and sanitation sector However the full benefit of such financing efforts has been hampered by insufficient national counterpart funds Government expenditures in the water and sanitation sector in the countries of the sub-region account for less than 1 percent of the national budget Potential alternative sources of financing including more community and private sector participation are not properly explored Most financial resources are devoted towards building new facilities rather than securing sustainable services through improved operation and maintenance of existing ones

The important role played by NGOs and other ESAs in the sub-sector in providing support for policy development institutional reform capacity building technical assistance and financing even though such support has to be better channeled and coordinated has not been given the necessary attention and recognition by gOV(JWllCI) offtcials ~() thJI

lell entili( can bClOll1 liill) )J(C()laquo

With the exception of Ghana where community empowerment recommended by the national RWSS strategy is being implemented capacity building suffers from the lack of systematic policy and inadequate training facilities as it is generally directed towards high level government personnel at the expense of community needs

Private sector participation in the activities of the sector is still mostly restricted to construction work Apart from Cote divoire whose water and sanitation schemes are managed by a private company on a concession basiS and Ghana that is in a transitional phase the water and sanitation systems of the three other countries of the study as is the case for most countries in the sub- region are operated by state owned utilities The role of the private sector

I I

- 2 shy

especially at the community level is rather 4 METHODOLOGY

I limited in the areas of financing and

I management The small providers who seem to be very active in the poor peri-urban zones of the cities are virtually non-existent in the rural areas

I 32 Changing Trends

I In spite of the general picture given above there is a genuine hope shared by most stakeholders in the rural water and sanitation sector in the five countries studied that the sector will adopt new ideas and approaches

I that are indispensable for its growth

The acceptance of the concept of water as an

I economic good that has value is gaining momentum among all stakeholders and in particular within the communities them-selves

I As a corollary to the foregoing the idea of cost

I recovery is as demonstrated by studies conducted in Benin and Burkina Faso increasingly better accepted even by local

I politicians and the willingness to pay is growing among community members New and innovative ideas are being introduced with respect to the financing of the sector

I I The Demand Responsive Approach (Burkina

Faso Benin and Ghana) i~ being used with much more frequency in the implementation of projects and in general most government

I officials will become more favorable to this approach as they continue to be better informed and sensitized about it Social intermediation is becoming more effective as it

I becomes better perceived by both government officials and community members

33 Objective of Study

I The objective of this study is to evaluate how in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation different community-based

I management models impact on the sustainability of piped village water supply systems The study hypothesis is that a

I community management system that delegates key operational tasks attains greater sustainashybility in water services

I bull

41 Selection Criteria

The projects included in the study were selected based on the following criteria (i)

countries where WSG-WCA is active and in respect of which it has considerable sector knowledge (ii) countries where the governments are interested in participating in the case study and (iii) countries where there is a broad coverage of different management models On the basis of the foregoing criteria projects in Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali were selected

Village selection was based on the following criteria villages representing different management models villages offering different levels of service and are accessible at all times willing to participate in the case study documented project of information villages with a population size is between 1000 and 5000 (up to 15000 for Ghana) with technology that is not human-driven and systems at least 3 years old Five vi IIages were selected in each country and pre-selection of villages was made by the country team with final selection being made by RWSG-WCA and country government

In order to make the statistical analysis meaningful 30 households were randomly selected in each village with due account being taken of the particularities of the system Approximately five household heads of nonshyuser sections of the village were surveyed and one-third of the persons interviewed were women

The Study Coordinator with assistance from Program staff from Headquarters developed three types of questionnaires which included a household survey questionnaire (30 questionshynaires per village) applicable to 30 houseshyholds per vi lIage (five of which were applicable to non-users of the system) a committee questionnaire (1 per village) applicable to members of the management body in the village and a technical evaluation questionnaire (1 per village) to assess the

I I

technical financial and administrative

I management Questions on delegation were included in the technical evaluation questionnaire

I I The questionnaires were pre-tested and

adjusted to conditions in each country before the study was launched The Study Coordinator developed a database for data input by country teams

I I

- 3 shy

42 Analytical Framework

An analytical framework defining indicators for testing relationships between delegation and model characteristics versus sustainability was constructed A scoring system developed from this framework made it possible to weigh different characteristics of the models and make comparative analyses between models Table 1 below provides a summary of the major indicators and sub-indicators used in the study and the primary sources of data from which they have been constructed

Table 1 Sou rces of data for indicator and sub-indicators categories

I I I I I I I 43 Data Analysis

The system studied uses indicators developed

I to test a number of relationships between management models and sustainability delegation and sustainability the management

I models characteristics and sustainability and the impact of background information on

I sustainability A scoring system rating of 0-10 has been used to assess relative weights whi Ie Pearson correlation coefficients have been utilized to test the strength of relationships Frequency table analyses have also been used

I to assess qualitative relationships

I bull

44 Study Design

The study is designed and implemented by the Water and Sanitation program (WSPshyWCA) A full-time Study Coordinator was appointed to oversee and coordinate all aspects of study implementation Program staff at Headquarters and Bank Task Managers provided technical assistance Implementation of the study in the five countries was contracted to local consultants who in turn hired a team of 2-3 surveyors and provided all logistical support for data collection Local consultants participated in vi lIage selection undertook the surveys input the quantitative

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I I I 3 INTRODUCTION

The present study aims at identifying and

I evaluating the impact of different communityshybased management models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of

I delegation on the sustainability of piped village water supply services The issue is addressed in 26 communities of five West

I African countries namely Benin Burkina

I Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali The various piped village water supply technologies and types of management models found in these countries are representative of those models currently used in the sub-region

I 31 Background

I During the last few years very ambitious programs in the rural water supply and

I sanitation sector have been defined by governments in West Africa as a means of improving living conditions for the poor and

I slowing down migration towards the cities Also today the human driven handpump installations are giving way to piped water supply systems in larger village communities and small to medium size secondary towns of

I the stlbmiddotregion In the Ilext S-10 years p()gtlI11S for constrllctillg such s)(~ms in tilE five countries covered by this study wi II be

I implemented in a total of more than 1000 communities with a population of 1000 to 5000 people or more in small towns

I I In spite of this impressive commitment to the

sector programs are poorly designed and lack adequate framework with which to be guided

I Clear policy framework are still lacking in many countries in spite of the growing awareness of the need for a policy statement

I I

that provides guidelines and clear mandates for institutions Institutions themselves when they exist suffer from the lack of clearly defined mandates poor working conditions and frequent changes in structure which render them unstable and inefficient Most of the time they lack adequate resources human and

I financial and a strong political will to undertake much needed reforms

- 1 shy

Financial support provided by multilateral and bilateral donors has been significant In Burkina Faso for example external financing represents 79 percent of expenditures in the water and sanitation sector However the full benefit of such financing efforts has been hampered by insufficient national counterpart funds Government expenditures in the water and sanitation sector in the countries of the sub-region account for less than 1 percent of the national budget Potential alternative sources of financing including more community and private sector participation are not properly explored Most financial resources are devoted towards building new facilities rather than securing sustainable services through improved operation and maintenance of existing ones

The important role played by NGOs and other ESAs in the sub-sector in providing support for policy development institutional reform capacity building technical assistance and financing even though such support has to be better channeled and coordinated has not been given the necessary attention and recognition by gOV(JWllCI) offtcials ~() thJI

lell entili( can bClOll1 liill) )J(C()laquo

With the exception of Ghana where community empowerment recommended by the national RWSS strategy is being implemented capacity building suffers from the lack of systematic policy and inadequate training facilities as it is generally directed towards high level government personnel at the expense of community needs

Private sector participation in the activities of the sector is still mostly restricted to construction work Apart from Cote divoire whose water and sanitation schemes are managed by a private company on a concession basiS and Ghana that is in a transitional phase the water and sanitation systems of the three other countries of the study as is the case for most countries in the sub- region are operated by state owned utilities The role of the private sector

I I

- 2 shy

especially at the community level is rather 4 METHODOLOGY

I limited in the areas of financing and

I management The small providers who seem to be very active in the poor peri-urban zones of the cities are virtually non-existent in the rural areas

I 32 Changing Trends

I In spite of the general picture given above there is a genuine hope shared by most stakeholders in the rural water and sanitation sector in the five countries studied that the sector will adopt new ideas and approaches

I that are indispensable for its growth

The acceptance of the concept of water as an

I economic good that has value is gaining momentum among all stakeholders and in particular within the communities them-selves

I As a corollary to the foregoing the idea of cost

I recovery is as demonstrated by studies conducted in Benin and Burkina Faso increasingly better accepted even by local

I politicians and the willingness to pay is growing among community members New and innovative ideas are being introduced with respect to the financing of the sector

I I The Demand Responsive Approach (Burkina

Faso Benin and Ghana) i~ being used with much more frequency in the implementation of projects and in general most government

I officials will become more favorable to this approach as they continue to be better informed and sensitized about it Social intermediation is becoming more effective as it

I becomes better perceived by both government officials and community members

33 Objective of Study

I The objective of this study is to evaluate how in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation different community-based

I management models impact on the sustainability of piped village water supply systems The study hypothesis is that a

I community management system that delegates key operational tasks attains greater sustainashybility in water services

I bull

41 Selection Criteria

The projects included in the study were selected based on the following criteria (i)

countries where WSG-WCA is active and in respect of which it has considerable sector knowledge (ii) countries where the governments are interested in participating in the case study and (iii) countries where there is a broad coverage of different management models On the basis of the foregoing criteria projects in Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali were selected

Village selection was based on the following criteria villages representing different management models villages offering different levels of service and are accessible at all times willing to participate in the case study documented project of information villages with a population size is between 1000 and 5000 (up to 15000 for Ghana) with technology that is not human-driven and systems at least 3 years old Five vi IIages were selected in each country and pre-selection of villages was made by the country team with final selection being made by RWSG-WCA and country government

In order to make the statistical analysis meaningful 30 households were randomly selected in each village with due account being taken of the particularities of the system Approximately five household heads of nonshyuser sections of the village were surveyed and one-third of the persons interviewed were women

The Study Coordinator with assistance from Program staff from Headquarters developed three types of questionnaires which included a household survey questionnaire (30 questionshynaires per village) applicable to 30 houseshyholds per vi lIage (five of which were applicable to non-users of the system) a committee questionnaire (1 per village) applicable to members of the management body in the village and a technical evaluation questionnaire (1 per village) to assess the

I I

technical financial and administrative

I management Questions on delegation were included in the technical evaluation questionnaire

I I The questionnaires were pre-tested and

adjusted to conditions in each country before the study was launched The Study Coordinator developed a database for data input by country teams

I I

- 3 shy

42 Analytical Framework

An analytical framework defining indicators for testing relationships between delegation and model characteristics versus sustainability was constructed A scoring system developed from this framework made it possible to weigh different characteristics of the models and make comparative analyses between models Table 1 below provides a summary of the major indicators and sub-indicators used in the study and the primary sources of data from which they have been constructed

Table 1 Sou rces of data for indicator and sub-indicators categories

I I I I I I I 43 Data Analysis

The system studied uses indicators developed

I to test a number of relationships between management models and sustainability delegation and sustainability the management

I models characteristics and sustainability and the impact of background information on

I sustainability A scoring system rating of 0-10 has been used to assess relative weights whi Ie Pearson correlation coefficients have been utilized to test the strength of relationships Frequency table analyses have also been used

I to assess qualitative relationships

I bull

44 Study Design

The study is designed and implemented by the Water and Sanitation program (WSPshyWCA) A full-time Study Coordinator was appointed to oversee and coordinate all aspects of study implementation Program staff at Headquarters and Bank Task Managers provided technical assistance Implementation of the study in the five countries was contracted to local consultants who in turn hired a team of 2-3 surveyors and provided all logistical support for data collection Local consultants participated in vi lIage selection undertook the surveys input the quantitative

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I I

- 2 shy

especially at the community level is rather 4 METHODOLOGY

I limited in the areas of financing and

I management The small providers who seem to be very active in the poor peri-urban zones of the cities are virtually non-existent in the rural areas

I 32 Changing Trends

I In spite of the general picture given above there is a genuine hope shared by most stakeholders in the rural water and sanitation sector in the five countries studied that the sector will adopt new ideas and approaches

I that are indispensable for its growth

The acceptance of the concept of water as an

I economic good that has value is gaining momentum among all stakeholders and in particular within the communities them-selves

I As a corollary to the foregoing the idea of cost

I recovery is as demonstrated by studies conducted in Benin and Burkina Faso increasingly better accepted even by local

I politicians and the willingness to pay is growing among community members New and innovative ideas are being introduced with respect to the financing of the sector

I I The Demand Responsive Approach (Burkina

Faso Benin and Ghana) i~ being used with much more frequency in the implementation of projects and in general most government

I officials will become more favorable to this approach as they continue to be better informed and sensitized about it Social intermediation is becoming more effective as it

I becomes better perceived by both government officials and community members

33 Objective of Study

I The objective of this study is to evaluate how in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation different community-based

I management models impact on the sustainability of piped village water supply systems The study hypothesis is that a

I community management system that delegates key operational tasks attains greater sustainashybility in water services

I bull

41 Selection Criteria

The projects included in the study were selected based on the following criteria (i)

countries where WSG-WCA is active and in respect of which it has considerable sector knowledge (ii) countries where the governments are interested in participating in the case study and (iii) countries where there is a broad coverage of different management models On the basis of the foregoing criteria projects in Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana and Mali were selected

Village selection was based on the following criteria villages representing different management models villages offering different levels of service and are accessible at all times willing to participate in the case study documented project of information villages with a population size is between 1000 and 5000 (up to 15000 for Ghana) with technology that is not human-driven and systems at least 3 years old Five vi IIages were selected in each country and pre-selection of villages was made by the country team with final selection being made by RWSG-WCA and country government

In order to make the statistical analysis meaningful 30 households were randomly selected in each village with due account being taken of the particularities of the system Approximately five household heads of nonshyuser sections of the village were surveyed and one-third of the persons interviewed were women

The Study Coordinator with assistance from Program staff from Headquarters developed three types of questionnaires which included a household survey questionnaire (30 questionshynaires per village) applicable to 30 houseshyholds per vi lIage (five of which were applicable to non-users of the system) a committee questionnaire (1 per village) applicable to members of the management body in the village and a technical evaluation questionnaire (1 per village) to assess the

I I

technical financial and administrative

I management Questions on delegation were included in the technical evaluation questionnaire

I I The questionnaires were pre-tested and

adjusted to conditions in each country before the study was launched The Study Coordinator developed a database for data input by country teams

I I

- 3 shy

42 Analytical Framework

An analytical framework defining indicators for testing relationships between delegation and model characteristics versus sustainability was constructed A scoring system developed from this framework made it possible to weigh different characteristics of the models and make comparative analyses between models Table 1 below provides a summary of the major indicators and sub-indicators used in the study and the primary sources of data from which they have been constructed

Table 1 Sou rces of data for indicator and sub-indicators categories

I I I I I I I 43 Data Analysis

The system studied uses indicators developed

I to test a number of relationships between management models and sustainability delegation and sustainability the management

I models characteristics and sustainability and the impact of background information on

I sustainability A scoring system rating of 0-10 has been used to assess relative weights whi Ie Pearson correlation coefficients have been utilized to test the strength of relationships Frequency table analyses have also been used

I to assess qualitative relationships

I bull

44 Study Design

The study is designed and implemented by the Water and Sanitation program (WSPshyWCA) A full-time Study Coordinator was appointed to oversee and coordinate all aspects of study implementation Program staff at Headquarters and Bank Task Managers provided technical assistance Implementation of the study in the five countries was contracted to local consultants who in turn hired a team of 2-3 surveyors and provided all logistical support for data collection Local consultants participated in vi lIage selection undertook the surveys input the quantitative

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I I

technical financial and administrative

I management Questions on delegation were included in the technical evaluation questionnaire

I I The questionnaires were pre-tested and

adjusted to conditions in each country before the study was launched The Study Coordinator developed a database for data input by country teams

I I

- 3 shy

42 Analytical Framework

An analytical framework defining indicators for testing relationships between delegation and model characteristics versus sustainability was constructed A scoring system developed from this framework made it possible to weigh different characteristics of the models and make comparative analyses between models Table 1 below provides a summary of the major indicators and sub-indicators used in the study and the primary sources of data from which they have been constructed

Table 1 Sou rces of data for indicator and sub-indicators categories

I I I I I I I 43 Data Analysis

The system studied uses indicators developed

I to test a number of relationships between management models and sustainability delegation and sustainability the management

I models characteristics and sustainability and the impact of background information on

I sustainability A scoring system rating of 0-10 has been used to assess relative weights whi Ie Pearson correlation coefficients have been utilized to test the strength of relationships Frequency table analyses have also been used

I to assess qualitative relationships

I bull

44 Study Design

The study is designed and implemented by the Water and Sanitation program (WSPshyWCA) A full-time Study Coordinator was appointed to oversee and coordinate all aspects of study implementation Program staff at Headquarters and Bank Task Managers provided technical assistance Implementation of the study in the five countries was contracted to local consultants who in turn hired a team of 2-3 surveyors and provided all logistical support for data collection Local consultants participated in vi lIage selection undertook the surveys input the quantitative

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I I I

data wrote a qualitative assessment of each village and prepared a country report The Study Coordinator provided hands-on training to each country team launched the study in

I each country and supervised implementation He was also responsible for writing this final report

I 5 STUDY FINDINGS

I 51 Preliminary findings

I I Community characteristics The study

examined piped water supply system manashygement models in 26 communities ranging in

I population from 620 to 15000 inhabitants which all had Development Associations Most of the populations in these communities grew cash crops or were engaged in other

I economic activities Even though there was poverty profile of the communities it appeared that most of them had basic faci liti es About

I 40 percent are connected to the national elecshytricity network they all possess a dispensary and most of them lie within 50 km from a major city The basic profi Ie of these communities are summarized in Table la

I System characteristics The age of watler systems surveyed ranges between 3 -10 years

I with the newest being recently rehabilitated systems All the resources are drawn from wells and boreholes except in Ghana where

I there were spring and reservoir catchments

I Source of energy may be solar thermal or electric level of service comprises a mixture of standposts and private connections In Cote

I divoire the absence of water treatment facilities was the result of deliberate government policy In all other countries the

I

systems were equipped with treatment facilities in not very good working conditions

I Respondents characteristics Approximately 60 percent of the persons interviewed were male average age was 45 Seventy percent were head of households and forty five percent work

- 5 shy

in the agricultural sector Fifteen percent of the respondents had more than one employment usually in association with agriculture The respondents level of education ranged from primary school to university level A small proportion (15 percent) has had koranic education In general household members had sufficient educational background and understood problems related to the water system For household educational background see Tables 3 to 6

Households attitude towards the system Regular and exclusive use of project water was low (40 percent of households interviewed) in most of the countries except in Cote divoire and Ghana (65 percent and 73 percent respectively) On the other hand not too many people (16 percent) used non-project sources on a regular and exclusive basis This was compensated by a relatively high ratio of mixed use of project and non-project sources (44 percent) in Burkina Faso (79 percent) and Mali and Benin approximately (55 percent)

The large majority of people surveyed did not find their daily water bill to be expensive The cost of water was seen as a major reason for using alternative sources

Consumer satisfaction is a good measure of how members of the community feel about the performance of their system as operated and maintained by management Sub-indicators of consumer satisfaction are concerned with the reliability of the system opening and closing hours distance to the water point water quality and quantity level of service etc

The sub-indicators presented above measure consumer satisfaction and scores given in Table 14 show that there is above average satisfaction among consumers for all models

bull I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

- 6 shy

coJ~~~s~middot~neralmiddoti~sati~~wit~teircurrentI~~middotmiddotmiddot~~~~~tpeymiddotyvouI~middot~~femiddot~middot~i~hrlevelmiddotmiddotmiddotofserviCtllQqa systemthatislnOtereliableandprtXlucesrilorewatet~middotmiddot bull bullbullbull uu bullbullbull bull bull

Inspiteol overaUsatisfaction only 40 percent of them use water fromth~SY~~IIl)riaregular and exc11llive basisr44 percent use alt~ativesOurceswhereas16~JXentoontlnue to USElnon- syamptem waterexdluSlvely

~~

The large majority (90 percent) ofnonusers ofthesystemdid hat want to respond toquest1()nsrelated to it However those who responded (lopercent)showed a strorigwillingnessto use it and~rt1ady topayfur dOfug so

Waiting time reliability and quantity of water produced are among the most frequent reasansgiven for this trend The cost ofwater was not found to bea major reasOn for this behavior

52 Management Models

The study has identified four management models based on their internal organization level of responsibility and authority level of accountability to the community and their relationship with local government and other stakeholders How these management models are distributed among the five countries and 26 communities studied is shown in Table 17

Model 1(MM1) Water Committee is a management unit with a limited number of members (5-7) including a pr(ident a secretary a 11(lt1gt1 Irel dlH j two 1 Hrnb(gtrs at large one of which must be a woman The WC is not directly accountable to the community In most cases it is accountable to the Executive Committee of the Development Association and its members are elected during the general assembly of this organization The Development Association delegates wide authority and responsibility to the Water Committee to run the system One or two technicians (depending on the size of the community) who are not members of the Committee assist the Committee with operation and maintenance The WC itself is in charge of financial and administrative matters Tariff is set by the WC discussed and agreed upon with the Executive Committee of the Development Association before being submitted for the communitys approval

Model 2 (MM2) Water Users Association is an association of all users of the water supply

system In practice everybody in the community is a member of the association as there are no membership obligations in most cases The WUA appoints a board of 1 members representing all sections and interest groups including women in the community During the general assembly of the WUA the community elects an executive committee of 5-7 members comprising 1-2 women The Executive Committee is accountable to the Board Operation and maintenance is handled by a private and independent body called the Management COlYllllittc( or IIl( CorllllliIHgti

which has 2-3 members (usually 1 technician 1 manager and 1 non- skilled worker) This Committee is accountable to the Board The Board is responsible for interfacing with all the systems external partners whereas the Committee is responsible for the day to day management of the system A supervisory government unit is supposed to assist the Association but in practice this is seldom done as the unit lacks the budgetary resources to carry out its responsibility Tariff is set by the Board and must be approved by the community and sometimes by the government unit before it can become effective

Model 3 (MM3) Water and Sanitation Committee This Committee WATSAN has 5-8 members including 2-3 women composed of President Secretary Treasurer (a woman) Financial Secretary (a woman) District Assemblyman and the care-taker(s) Through

I I

- 8 shy

I by-laws adopted by and registered with the District Assembly it is generally a legal body

I I

establish to perform on behalf of the District Assembly The WATSAN is accountable to the community and the District Assembly It is often directly responsible for the management of the system and does not engage operations staff to run the system Tariff setting is decided

I upon by the WATSAN which requests community acceptance before the tariffs are submitted for review and approval by the District Assembly Most of the time the tariff is

I a flat monthly rate paid by each household WATSANs operate in small to medium size communities with populations between 500shy5000

I Model 4(MM4) Water and Sanitation Development Board WSDBs are found in larger communities and small towns of Ghana

I (population 5000 -15000) once managed by Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC) The Water Board as it is called is

I accountable to the community for all

I community-related matters to GWSC for some support needs and to the District Assembly for policy financial and investment matters This

I relationship with the District Assembly includes the submission of a monthly financial statement and periodic briefing of the Assembly by Boards Chairman In return the Uistrict Assembly contributes to the reserve

I I I I I I I bull

fund of the system assists the Board to meet heads of ministerial departments and with training WSDB reports on its operational and financial activities at a general community forum at least once a year In the communities studied such a forum has not yet been held The Water Board represents all interest groups of the community the traditional chiefs the District Assembly the women all sections of the community and the water users as a whole The Executive Body of the Board is made up of 7 -15 members amongst whom 3shy5 are women who often hold the position of Treasurer and Assistant Secretary Very often the Executive Body is responsible for the management of a complex and composite system of boreholes hand pumps and mechanized schemes To perform its operation and maintenance functions the Board hires an operations and maintenance staff of 5 members The staff is composed of a pump attendant who carries out minor repairs on pumps an administrator who keeps the accounts 2 clerks (usually female) responsible for revenue collection and a pipe fitter who is in charge of pipeline repairs The operations staff who are not members of the Board is permanent and is paid for by WSDB WSDB revises tariff as appropriate for the District Assemblys approval after discussing the plOposcd r()visions wltl1 tile lormnunitv

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -bull - 9 shy

Table 2 Management Model Profile

ement I Selection Criteria IMembership Organization legal Documents IAccountable to I Responsibility I Observations (MM)

Elected by General 5 - 8 including 1middot 2 President Did not exist or Development bull Directly Usually found in Assembly of women Secretary existed as an Association responsible for villages in Burkina Development Treasury unofficial draft on Iy OampM and Faso and COte Association finance divoire

bull Delegates other functions

5 10 member bull Existed at Community bull Delegates OampM Usually found in elected Executive sometime in to management villages in Benin Bureau with Mali staff and villages and President Secretary bull Did not exist in bull Responsible for some secondary and Treasurer + Benin or existed financial and towns in Mali women in draft form policy matters

+ women bull Delegates other

Usually comprises 115 - 30 Executive members of the Board members

appOinted from all sections of

functions

bull Directly Usually found in Assembly of the

Existed in some Community and ~N I Elected by General 5 - 8 including at President responsible for villages in Ghana

community cases in draft form District Assembly least 2 women Secretary

(DA) OampM and finance

Treasury

bull Delegates other

Delegates OampM to management I small to

functic Selected by the Community and Up to 70 members 15 20 elected Existed in some bull Project from among District Assembly opinion leaders

Board ofTrustees Executive Board cases in draft form (DA) staff size towns in Ghana

interest groups and comprising women

bull Responsible for women from all

all elected from and financial and

sections of town by the Board of

policy mattersTrustees

bull Delegates other functions

I

I I I I I

-10shy

gt- ~ ~lt~ j~~~~ lt~~~~~ --_ t~~~-~ _ Inprncticet~1llodel$haroly fttnctlonedthe waYthey~~~lt~aboveexceptmiddotwhere they benefitoo fr()lflsustatl~baelltst()pping)tt~andom (M~4)jtheaCCQUI1tanfcent1~rk is sopposedltto prepare inoome arid expetiditure$~~tetil~~~1il9~hfQFthe13oard to$llbmit~q~l~DistrictmiddotAssemlJly~ middotSometimes thismiddotis nqtdqne o~~heduleexcepf l1IJQrith~ill$~et1~QflheProjec~st~ftWS)Jli$suppgsedtofeporton its ~ratiPnaI3ritt-fip~m~ILactiViti~middotat~ig~Ii~~tCOtnmW1itY~~m~(J~sIQ11~ayti~t~tmiddot~~rthls has riQt~IldQflijmiddotmiddotThe DiStrict ~~blYi$~peaedmiddotfumiddotIltQlitQrthemiddotacliVitiesmiddot()fthe~rdmiddotmiddotbutmiddotthiSiSriOt the caSehiKlikQr(MM3) the WA1JSAN coopted-llie chief(ii1the Committee to make surijthey would not have anylqplertlwtthhiwQn the Qther halldinManflJ9lllla~e (MM3) the Project erigJneerwho is a non resident nativelogetherwithfheotherl11embers ofthe implementation sub~cotriIriittee of the ToWn DevelopmeritCouncii (TDe) continu I tq pay regular visits to tl1~community to participate in the monthly TDe llleetingsand monitor theachiev~m~ritof the system withreSpectto its admirii$trative financial and technicalperformancea~ Vell~QIlpolicy matters Herealmostregularllccotmtisgivett to the community andortothe DistriCtAsscentrriblYmiddotmiddot

I 53 Management Models Sub-Indicator Characteristics

I 531 Do the models promote communityshybased management

I By definition all the management models were designed to manage the systems as representatives of the community In practice only Water Users Associations in Mali were

I closest to the principles of a community-based management WUA members are elected from different sections of the community in

I most cases they work as a team and are accountable Lo the community Lhrough General Assemblies WATSANs operate like

I sub-committees of the Executive Board of the TDC that ensures the interface with the community WCs function more like a small

I private unit accountable only to the Executive

I Board of the Development Association which generally acts rather like a Board of Trustees WSDB may rely on a large representation of all

I sections of the community but functions with only a reduced number of its members thus not making optimal use of its large community base

I I I bull

532 Are the models accountable to the community

The level of accountability differed from one model to the other and depended on how well the hierarchy was defined and identified The more diffuse the hierarchy the less accountable management was In general while WCs tended to be readily accountable to the Development Association WATSANs tended to vaciitalp lletw(( I tile ulmrnllni1y

Ill( community Cliie-( dlld the lJIli( I

Assembly The tendency to vacillate was even more pronounced for Water Boards that were doubly accountable to the District Assembly and the communities The WUAs in Mali showed a good practice of giving account probably owing to the guidance and strong backstopping provided by CCAEP

533 Do the models promote competence

Throughout the study competence has been observed to be an important variable for sustainability often associated with authority effectiveness and a pronounced sense of responsibility of management (Soko (MM1) and many communities of MM2) Scores of competence by models is provided in Table 39 and it indicates high scores for MM1 and MM2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -bull - 9 shy

Table 2 Management Model Profile

ement I Selection Criteria IMembership Organization legal Documents IAccountable to I Responsibility I Observations (MM)

Elected by General 5 - 8 including 1middot 2 President Did not exist or Development bull Directly Usually found in Assembly of women Secretary existed as an Association responsible for villages in Burkina Development Treasury unofficial draft on Iy OampM and Faso and COte Association finance divoire

bull Delegates other functions

5 10 member bull Existed at Community bull Delegates OampM Usually found in elected Executive sometime in to management villages in Benin Bureau with Mali staff and villages and President Secretary bull Did not exist in bull Responsible for some secondary and Treasurer + Benin or existed financial and towns in Mali women in draft form policy matters

+ women bull Delegates other

Usually comprises 115 - 30 Executive members of the Board members

appOinted from all sections of

functions

bull Directly Usually found in Assembly of the

Existed in some Community and ~N I Elected by General 5 - 8 including at President responsible for villages in Ghana

community cases in draft form District Assembly least 2 women Secretary

(DA) OampM and finance

Treasury

bull Delegates other

Delegates OampM to management I small to

functic Selected by the Community and Up to 70 members 15 20 elected Existed in some bull Project from among District Assembly opinion leaders

Board ofTrustees Executive Board cases in draft form (DA) staff size towns in Ghana

interest groups and comprising women

bull Responsible for women from all

all elected from and financial and

sections of town by the Board of

policy mattersTrustees

bull Delegates other functions

I

I I I I I

-10shy

gt- ~ ~lt~ j~~~~ lt~~~~~ --_ t~~~-~ _ Inprncticet~1llodel$haroly fttnctlonedthe waYthey~~~lt~aboveexceptmiddotwhere they benefitoo fr()lflsustatl~baelltst()pping)tt~andom (M~4)jtheaCCQUI1tanfcent1~rk is sopposedltto prepare inoome arid expetiditure$~~tetil~~~1il9~hfQFthe13oard to$llbmit~q~l~DistrictmiddotAssemlJly~ middotSometimes thismiddotis nqtdqne o~~heduleexcepf l1IJQrith~ill$~et1~QflheProjec~st~ftWS)Jli$suppgsedtofeporton its ~ratiPnaI3ritt-fip~m~ILactiViti~middotat~ig~Ii~~tCOtnmW1itY~~m~(J~sIQ11~ayti~t~tmiddot~~rthls has riQt~IldQflijmiddotmiddotThe DiStrict ~~blYi$~peaedmiddotfumiddotIltQlitQrthemiddotacliVitiesmiddot()fthe~rdmiddotmiddotbutmiddotthiSiSriOt the caSehiKlikQr(MM3) the WA1JSAN coopted-llie chief(ii1the Committee to make surijthey would not have anylqplertlwtthhiwQn the Qther halldinManflJ9lllla~e (MM3) the Project erigJneerwho is a non resident nativelogetherwithfheotherl11embers ofthe implementation sub~cotriIriittee of the ToWn DevelopmeritCouncii (TDe) continu I tq pay regular visits to tl1~community to participate in the monthly TDe llleetingsand monitor theachiev~m~ritof the system withreSpectto its admirii$trative financial and technicalperformancea~ Vell~QIlpolicy matters Herealmostregularllccotmtisgivett to the community andortothe DistriCtAsscentrriblYmiddotmiddot

I 53 Management Models Sub-Indicator Characteristics

I 531 Do the models promote communityshybased management

I By definition all the management models were designed to manage the systems as representatives of the community In practice only Water Users Associations in Mali were

I closest to the principles of a community-based management WUA members are elected from different sections of the community in

I most cases they work as a team and are accountable Lo the community Lhrough General Assemblies WATSANs operate like

I sub-committees of the Executive Board of the TDC that ensures the interface with the community WCs function more like a small

I private unit accountable only to the Executive

I Board of the Development Association which generally acts rather like a Board of Trustees WSDB may rely on a large representation of all

I sections of the community but functions with only a reduced number of its members thus not making optimal use of its large community base

I I I bull

532 Are the models accountable to the community

The level of accountability differed from one model to the other and depended on how well the hierarchy was defined and identified The more diffuse the hierarchy the less accountable management was In general while WCs tended to be readily accountable to the Development Association WATSANs tended to vaciitalp lletw(( I tile ulmrnllni1y

Ill( community Cliie-( dlld the lJIli( I

Assembly The tendency to vacillate was even more pronounced for Water Boards that were doubly accountable to the District Assembly and the communities The WUAs in Mali showed a good practice of giving account probably owing to the guidance and strong backstopping provided by CCAEP

533 Do the models promote competence

Throughout the study competence has been observed to be an important variable for sustainability often associated with authority effectiveness and a pronounced sense of responsibility of management (Soko (MM1) and many communities of MM2) Scores of competence by models is provided in Table 39 and it indicates high scores for MM1 and MM2

I

I I I I I

-10shy

gt- ~ ~lt~ j~~~~ lt~~~~~ --_ t~~~-~ _ Inprncticet~1llodel$haroly fttnctlonedthe waYthey~~~lt~aboveexceptmiddotwhere they benefitoo fr()lflsustatl~baelltst()pping)tt~andom (M~4)jtheaCCQUI1tanfcent1~rk is sopposedltto prepare inoome arid expetiditure$~~tetil~~~1il9~hfQFthe13oard to$llbmit~q~l~DistrictmiddotAssemlJly~ middotSometimes thismiddotis nqtdqne o~~heduleexcepf l1IJQrith~ill$~et1~QflheProjec~st~ftWS)Jli$suppgsedtofeporton its ~ratiPnaI3ritt-fip~m~ILactiViti~middotat~ig~Ii~~tCOtnmW1itY~~m~(J~sIQ11~ayti~t~tmiddot~~rthls has riQt~IldQflijmiddotmiddotThe DiStrict ~~blYi$~peaedmiddotfumiddotIltQlitQrthemiddotacliVitiesmiddot()fthe~rdmiddotmiddotbutmiddotthiSiSriOt the caSehiKlikQr(MM3) the WA1JSAN coopted-llie chief(ii1the Committee to make surijthey would not have anylqplertlwtthhiwQn the Qther halldinManflJ9lllla~e (MM3) the Project erigJneerwho is a non resident nativelogetherwithfheotherl11embers ofthe implementation sub~cotriIriittee of the ToWn DevelopmeritCouncii (TDe) continu I tq pay regular visits to tl1~community to participate in the monthly TDe llleetingsand monitor theachiev~m~ritof the system withreSpectto its admirii$trative financial and technicalperformancea~ Vell~QIlpolicy matters Herealmostregularllccotmtisgivett to the community andortothe DistriCtAsscentrriblYmiddotmiddot

I 53 Management Models Sub-Indicator Characteristics

I 531 Do the models promote communityshybased management

I By definition all the management models were designed to manage the systems as representatives of the community In practice only Water Users Associations in Mali were

I closest to the principles of a community-based management WUA members are elected from different sections of the community in

I most cases they work as a team and are accountable Lo the community Lhrough General Assemblies WATSANs operate like

I sub-committees of the Executive Board of the TDC that ensures the interface with the community WCs function more like a small

I private unit accountable only to the Executive

I Board of the Development Association which generally acts rather like a Board of Trustees WSDB may rely on a large representation of all

I sections of the community but functions with only a reduced number of its members thus not making optimal use of its large community base

I I I bull

532 Are the models accountable to the community

The level of accountability differed from one model to the other and depended on how well the hierarchy was defined and identified The more diffuse the hierarchy the less accountable management was In general while WCs tended to be readily accountable to the Development Association WATSANs tended to vaciitalp lletw(( I tile ulmrnllni1y

Ill( community Cliie-( dlld the lJIli( I

Assembly The tendency to vacillate was even more pronounced for Water Boards that were doubly accountable to the District Assembly and the communities The WUAs in Mali showed a good practice of giving account probably owing to the guidance and strong backstopping provided by CCAEP

533 Do the models promote competence

Throughout the study competence has been observed to be an important variable for sustainability often associated with authority effectiveness and a pronounced sense of responsibility of management (Soko (MM1) and many communities of MM2) Scores of competence by models is provided in Table 39 and it indicates high scores for MM1 and MM2

I I

-11shy

I I I

534 Do the models delegate

I Delegation of tasks Most technical tasks of operation and maintenance are delegated to a

I private enterprise from the community that is usually represented by the small unit of OampM staff More complex tasks (major repairs preventive maintenance) and expansion new

I connections and replacement tasks are delegated to private providers outside the community Training and technical assistance

I are always delegated to administration units or in some cases to private providers working on a voluntary basis andor community-based or

I partner organizations Training is sometimes

I administered by NGOs Overall coordination of management is usually delegated to a larger body which is informally accountable to the

I community (Water Boards Development Associations etc) Table 26 shows how management delegates tasks

I Delegation of decision making for performance of tasks Decisions about dayshyto-day operation and maintenance of the system is made by OampM staff Decisions concerning major repairs and new connections

I I are made either by the WUA or the we

Expansion is decided upon by WUA or the community in a non-WUA management model In the case of Water Board

I Management expansion is decided upon in collaboration with the DA Finally training and technical assistance have seldom been

I decided upon by any structure within the community Table 27 shows in detail how delegation of decisions to manage the system is achieved

I Delegation of financial functions In the case of WUA management model tariffs are set by the Executive Committee of the WUA with the

I approval of the WUA In WATSAN manashy

bull gement is model tariffs are set by the committee following the communitys

approval WATSANs and Water Boards usually set tariffs and seek approval from the community and the DA As indicated in Table 28 all major financial tasks are performed according to this pattern and it is seen that most financial functions are performed by the WCIWATSANs Financial policy is implemented by WUA or WSDB For WATSANs and WCs this function is performed by the community or the DA for the WATSAN More technical functions are carried out by private providers from the community

Delegation of financial decisions Decisions concerning financial functions are initiated or made by entities closest to the financial needs of the system (Executive Committee of WUA and WSDB WC WATSAN) Once a decision is made approval is sought from the hierarchy (WUA Water Board community DA ) before it can become effective Table 29 shows how financial decision making is distributed among the partners of the system

Quality of delegation Contracts with private providers from the commun ity are for immediate OampM tasks Even though in some cases attempts have been made to legalize these contracts were informal Legal contracts are made for major repairs and preventive maintenance with private enterprises outside the community which specialize in maintenance System expansions construction of new connections and system replacement or rehabilitation when they exist are contracted out to private contractors through legal contracts In Mali there was a contract between the WUAs and CCAEP for backstopping and technical assistance In C6te divoire a private individual from the community and in Ghana TDC members performed technical assistance and

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

-12shy

backstopping tasks in some cases without any formal contract In about 15 percent of the cases WUAs and Water Boards produced duly executed contracts relating to the handing over of the system by government officials to the commun ities Delegation sometimes is coerced In Klikor (Model MM3) an eleven member team was formed to manage the system The following roles were assigned to individual members of the Committee Chairman Vice-Chairman Secretary Financial Secretary and Treasurer In practice the chief performs the roles of Chairman and Treasurer The Committee has engaged one of its own members (the Secretary) to operate the facility instead using an operations staff

Model Delegation Scores Delegation Scores have been derived by taking into account the two sub-indicators of level and quality of delegation Model delegation scores given in Table 31

54 Sustainability of Systems

541 Management models and sustainability

In this section we will assess the ability of each model to achieve sustainability by looking at the performanngt of tl1( lTlod(ls based on sub-indicators of sustainability physical conditions financial and admishynistrative soundness and technical capacity of systems

Physical conditions The physical condition of the system is a good measure of its ability to ensure sustainability Variables related to leakage possibility of contamination exisshytence of a treatment facility in working

cond ition etc have been used to measure the physical condition of the system

Leakage has been found in most of the systems particularly on the standposts in 81 percent of WSDB systems studied thus indicating that maintenance is not properly carried out

Treatment facility and risk of contamination Sixty-one percent of the systems studied were equipped with treatment facilities (chlorination) and are currently in working condition In spite of this risks of contamination were found to be high In Burkina Faso for example 100 percent of the systems presented a risk of contamination either at water source reservoir network or standposts

Scores of physical condition indicators are high for MMl and MM2 they are average for MM3 and MM4 (Table 33)

Financial and administrative soundness Good financial results attained through appropriate tariff structure good revenue collection and sound book-keeping coupled with good courageous administrative decisions are necessary for achieving sustainability Ass(ssment of financial and Cldministrative soundness appraisal Wd out bv reviewing financial management documents (analysis of operational account banking documents) provided during the survey and analyzing responses to key variables of the technical evaluation questionnaire

Operational account balance sheet analysis revealed that most models had a negative

Box 4

Delegation practices ~oowel1 refI~ctedbytheafjove analysis and the modelscores of this indicator (Table 32) In general theleVel of delegation Wis the same for all models except for MM2 Quality of delegation was characterized exceptblsome rare cases by an absence offormal contracts between partners QUality of delegationrangetlftpm average to poor among the models One major difficulty revealed in the practice ofdelegationwasmanagelllentof maintenanre contracts

The other variables accOuntilbilitycommunity--based mltlIlagement and competence score moderately

The models studied evElnthough they were amongsomeofthebest penorlllipg ones bull were not functioning optimum level in terms ofdelegation ooinmunity-basedmanagement and accountability

I 1 -13shy

balance sheet Tariffs never took into account

I the entire financial needs of the system Sometimes OampM costs were covered but in most situations this was not even the case

I Tariffs were flat and on a household basis and almost consistently under the level required for cost recovery The rate of revenue collection

I was low (less than 50 percent of revenue) in

I most cases owing to the failure to collect tariffs from water sales l Contributions for major repairs were not regularly paid and no

I provisions were usually made for expansion or replacement In the few cases of positive operational account balance sheet revenue collected from water sales was used by Development Associations or TDCs for

I

investment in activities not related to water In general there was a lack of a realistic financial policy

Administrative measures also lacked realism People were usually not disconnected for non payment of their water bills This was particularly true for local civil servants The study however found an interesting situation in Manfi-Kumase in Ghana where if a single member of the community failed to pay hisher monthly flat bill for water consumption his entire section of the community was cut off until they paid As indicated in Table 34 the scores for financial and administrative soundness sub-indicators are average

lt bull Box 5

I A$ouJ1ltifiJ1~nciatpolicy coupled with realistic administrative measuresjs~hqwe~centrp~a1l~~~()fproviding theL~u~middot(()rthesystem tomiddotbecome5elfsustainingT~isthe~seforJji~Mr4gWllllllllllitiescovered bytheStudyinMaU (Naras account deposit is worth some US $70oOO)Sdko (C8ted1V9ireand Manfi-Kumase (Ghana)

I I

Technical capacity The study assessed the technical capacity of management to ensure

I OampM and achieve sustainability Indicators considered included difficulty of access to technical assistance availability of spare parts

I availability of OampM tools existenc( of OampM manuals and lechniCJI competellce of the staff

I Model scores of sub-indicators of technical capacity are low except for MM2 This is consistent with field findings that revealed that

I issues related to technical assistance provisions of spare parts existence of OampM

I I I

bull

man uals were generally poorly dealt with by management The high score of MM2 may thus have been influenced by the CCAEP experience in Mali Models technical capacity was assessed through scores shown in Tahle 35

Overall management models scores for sustainability Overall sustainability cores for management models integrating the subshyindicators described above are shown in Table 3a below They indicate about average scores for all models except for MM2 that has a higher score

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I bull

-14shy

Table 3a Model Scores for Sustainability

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainability 565 665 530 550

Looking further into the impact of MM2 on sustainability Table 4a indicates that Nara Douenza and Tominian (MM2 models) with high scores for accountability competence and delegation score high in sustainability whereas the other MM2 communities with low scores in those variables score low in sustainabi I ity

Table 4a Accountability Competence and Delegation Scores for WUA-Managed High Sustainability Systems

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability

Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 5a shows that MMl and MM3 managed communities can also be sustainable though to a lesser extent provided that they are competent and benefit from good backstopping

Tab~ia MMl and MM3 Managed High Sustainability System Scores

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability

Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfi-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

Box 6

WUAs with high scores for accounfabilitycompetenceandqelegiltiohscore very high in sustainability MM1 and MM3 models also score high in sustainabi lity though at a lower level than WUAs

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-15shy

542 Delegation and Sustainability

Figure I below shows delegation versus sustainability scores on Pearson correlation It can be seen that delegation has reasonably good correlation with sustainability

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainlibility versus Delegation

180

~ ~ 100 f-----------H-------

s i080~~_~~~~--~~~--=r~~~~ ell

a 00 +--____ _ _~__ ___ __~_~_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient - 05341

543 Accountabi lity and Sust(linabi lity

A sustainability versus accountability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right corner of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confirmed by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were determined

P (l00)

in rather techn ical terms (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliabi lity of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were regularly held)

000 050 100

Accountability

I I

-16shy

I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

Sustainability versus Accountability

I I I I I

000 +-------~~--~f--- --j~~~

150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 00197 P = 0924

I 544 Community-Based Management and

I Sustainabi li)t

I A plot of sustainability versus communityshy on sustainability was basically assessed in based management scores shows dispersed terms of technical capacity (financial points thus indicating that models in the competence technical capacity technical communities studied probably did not have a results) which does not have simple linear simple linear correlation between relationship with the community-based

I sustainability and CBM As explained above management in project implementation this apparent lack of correlation may be owed Furthermore as was seen above with average to the fact that management ability to impact to poor scoring very few management models

I (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced Community-Based Management (Table 38)

I I I I bull

I I

-17shy

Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I I I I I I I I

545 Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated

communlty-b d

Pearson correlation coefficient = O 0192

P 0033

in Figure 4

I I I I i

i i c

I

I I I

~J(E~LL Susta i nabi I i ty versus Competence

-----~----- ----~ ------

Sustain ability versus Competency

1 00

160

140

120

1 00

080

060

040

020

000

000 050 100 150 200

Competncy

Pearson correlation coefficient = 08381

p = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-18shy

vanable and sijStaih of the models Pearson correlation correlatedt()~~stainability

Competence in management is achieved through adequate training experience and appropriate and sustained backstopping If training impacts equally on the different models studied (see good and homogenous scores for this variable in Table 40) backstopping seems to play an essential role in the sustainabi lity of the systems

55 Other Factors of Sustainability

551 Backstopping

The tasks to be performed by management for a sustainable piped water supply system are financial administrative and technical Someshytimes management also has to deal with policy matters In effect these are complex skills that are not easy to mobilize in any single village community Existing managenlOnt bodies are IIsLJally the best result ()f rainillg l11a1 was lim 1 time COP( and

quality and an organization that tried to take advantage of the best possible contingencies Therefore they all need to be strengthened in order to ensure a minimum level of cohesion competence and credibility The study has found that backstopping is a good means of achieving this

Table 41 shows sustainability sub-indicator scores for communities that benefit from good backstopping (communities in Mali villages of Saaba and Manfi-Kumase) and those that benefit from poor or no backstopping at all (communities in Benin village of Grabo) The ~cores include communities from models MMl (Saaba) MM2 (Mali) MM3 (ManfishyKumase) The table shows that whatever the model communities that benefit from good backstopping score higher in sub-indicators of sustainability and overall sustainability than those that do no

gt bullbullbull bull

middotmiddotmiddottmiddot~

tl[

WSSse

I -19shy

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Inmiddot11~liamiddotve~va$t~()tllltfybullbull Ill~~~~omfu~nitici~far~~~~~middot~ownsandcoll1fullhi~ti()ri~ters the Ei11th~mJ1ltnunitiespperate wit1i~centQ~plet~lY~lil~~nnetgtMost ofthe time

bullbull strictly ontbe goodwinofoncent()rafehperso~~tl1verylittleeducation The et deClt)nseilallx~ductions d~upotable(CCiEP)wll$Created by the Direction

Hydrauliqueetd~r~e(DNrEJtgsetvcentas a middotbackstoppingil1$titution to the existing

TIltdunctions of CGAEPwereto~ bull ensureeoirimunicationgtbetween theWUAs themselves bull train communities arid WUA members bull serve as a transmission belt betWeen WUAs and outside community setviceprovidelsbull monitor petformance and audlt activities ofWUAs

Inaltfew years the results of this policy paid off The first systems benefiting ffotri CCAEPs assistance became efficient (NaraDoueniaTominian)

InSaaba(~lrkinaFaso) backstopping wasadministered byasm~U religious group which hadheipoo cOl1structthcentsystem

-

rriSOk()(cat~d~rvoire)middotill)ltimiddotManfi-Kutrl~se(Ghana)backSto)pil1gs~as proVidedby middota private localproVtderdeSihatedltb the TDC orthe Develo mell1Associatioriofthe communi

Backstopping or technical assistance is bull audit performance of management and essential for managements capacity building take corrective action when needed To be relevant and efficient it should deal bull serve as an interface between manashywith the following issues gement and outside services

bull assist management in capitalizing on Strong backstopping has to be limited in time training received and ensuring that (2-3 years) during which it should ensure good refresher training is provided when needed transfer of skills to the management unit After

bull assist management achieve transparency this period its action can be limited to and efficiency by providing appropriate monitoring advising and auditing In order to management tools and ensuring that they avoid becoming a financial burden to are utilized management it has to have a light structure (1shy

bull monitor performance of management in 3 persons) and use limited space terms of CBM accountability competence and delegation and take corrective action A qualified person from the community (Manfishywhen needed Kumase Sokol or a competent private or

bull monitor performance of management in independent entity (communities of Mali terms of sustainability results (technical Saaba) is best positioned to best provides backshycapacity system physical conditions stopping As seen in cases in Benin and Cote management financial and administrative divoire government units are rather capacity consumer satisfaction) and take inefficient corrective action when needed

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

-12shy

backstopping tasks in some cases without any formal contract In about 15 percent of the cases WUAs and Water Boards produced duly executed contracts relating to the handing over of the system by government officials to the commun ities Delegation sometimes is coerced In Klikor (Model MM3) an eleven member team was formed to manage the system The following roles were assigned to individual members of the Committee Chairman Vice-Chairman Secretary Financial Secretary and Treasurer In practice the chief performs the roles of Chairman and Treasurer The Committee has engaged one of its own members (the Secretary) to operate the facility instead using an operations staff

Model Delegation Scores Delegation Scores have been derived by taking into account the two sub-indicators of level and quality of delegation Model delegation scores given in Table 31

54 Sustainability of Systems

541 Management models and sustainability

In this section we will assess the ability of each model to achieve sustainability by looking at the performanngt of tl1( lTlod(ls based on sub-indicators of sustainability physical conditions financial and admishynistrative soundness and technical capacity of systems

Physical conditions The physical condition of the system is a good measure of its ability to ensure sustainability Variables related to leakage possibility of contamination exisshytence of a treatment facility in working

cond ition etc have been used to measure the physical condition of the system

Leakage has been found in most of the systems particularly on the standposts in 81 percent of WSDB systems studied thus indicating that maintenance is not properly carried out

Treatment facility and risk of contamination Sixty-one percent of the systems studied were equipped with treatment facilities (chlorination) and are currently in working condition In spite of this risks of contamination were found to be high In Burkina Faso for example 100 percent of the systems presented a risk of contamination either at water source reservoir network or standposts

Scores of physical condition indicators are high for MMl and MM2 they are average for MM3 and MM4 (Table 33)

Financial and administrative soundness Good financial results attained through appropriate tariff structure good revenue collection and sound book-keeping coupled with good courageous administrative decisions are necessary for achieving sustainability Ass(ssment of financial and Cldministrative soundness appraisal Wd out bv reviewing financial management documents (analysis of operational account banking documents) provided during the survey and analyzing responses to key variables of the technical evaluation questionnaire

Operational account balance sheet analysis revealed that most models had a negative

Box 4

Delegation practices ~oowel1 refI~ctedbytheafjove analysis and the modelscores of this indicator (Table 32) In general theleVel of delegation Wis the same for all models except for MM2 Quality of delegation was characterized exceptblsome rare cases by an absence offormal contracts between partners QUality of delegationrangetlftpm average to poor among the models One major difficulty revealed in the practice ofdelegationwasmanagelllentof maintenanre contracts

The other variables accOuntilbilitycommunity--based mltlIlagement and competence score moderately

The models studied evElnthough they were amongsomeofthebest penorlllipg ones bull were not functioning optimum level in terms ofdelegation ooinmunity-basedmanagement and accountability

I 1 -13shy

balance sheet Tariffs never took into account

I the entire financial needs of the system Sometimes OampM costs were covered but in most situations this was not even the case

I Tariffs were flat and on a household basis and almost consistently under the level required for cost recovery The rate of revenue collection

I was low (less than 50 percent of revenue) in

I most cases owing to the failure to collect tariffs from water sales l Contributions for major repairs were not regularly paid and no

I provisions were usually made for expansion or replacement In the few cases of positive operational account balance sheet revenue collected from water sales was used by Development Associations or TDCs for

I

investment in activities not related to water In general there was a lack of a realistic financial policy

Administrative measures also lacked realism People were usually not disconnected for non payment of their water bills This was particularly true for local civil servants The study however found an interesting situation in Manfi-Kumase in Ghana where if a single member of the community failed to pay hisher monthly flat bill for water consumption his entire section of the community was cut off until they paid As indicated in Table 34 the scores for financial and administrative soundness sub-indicators are average

lt bull Box 5

I A$ouJ1ltifiJ1~nciatpolicy coupled with realistic administrative measuresjs~hqwe~centrp~a1l~~~()fproviding theL~u~middot(()rthesystem tomiddotbecome5elfsustainingT~isthe~seforJji~Mr4gWllllllllllitiescovered bytheStudyinMaU (Naras account deposit is worth some US $70oOO)Sdko (C8ted1V9ireand Manfi-Kumase (Ghana)

I I

Technical capacity The study assessed the technical capacity of management to ensure

I OampM and achieve sustainability Indicators considered included difficulty of access to technical assistance availability of spare parts

I availability of OampM tools existenc( of OampM manuals and lechniCJI competellce of the staff

I Model scores of sub-indicators of technical capacity are low except for MM2 This is consistent with field findings that revealed that

I issues related to technical assistance provisions of spare parts existence of OampM

I I I

bull

man uals were generally poorly dealt with by management The high score of MM2 may thus have been influenced by the CCAEP experience in Mali Models technical capacity was assessed through scores shown in Tahle 35

Overall management models scores for sustainability Overall sustainability cores for management models integrating the subshyindicators described above are shown in Table 3a below They indicate about average scores for all models except for MM2 that has a higher score

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I bull

-14shy

Table 3a Model Scores for Sustainability

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainability 565 665 530 550

Looking further into the impact of MM2 on sustainability Table 4a indicates that Nara Douenza and Tominian (MM2 models) with high scores for accountability competence and delegation score high in sustainability whereas the other MM2 communities with low scores in those variables score low in sustainabi I ity

Table 4a Accountability Competence and Delegation Scores for WUA-Managed High Sustainability Systems

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability

Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 5a shows that MMl and MM3 managed communities can also be sustainable though to a lesser extent provided that they are competent and benefit from good backstopping

Tab~ia MMl and MM3 Managed High Sustainability System Scores

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability

Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfi-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

Box 6

WUAs with high scores for accounfabilitycompetenceandqelegiltiohscore very high in sustainability MM1 and MM3 models also score high in sustainabi lity though at a lower level than WUAs

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-15shy

542 Delegation and Sustainability

Figure I below shows delegation versus sustainability scores on Pearson correlation It can be seen that delegation has reasonably good correlation with sustainability

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainlibility versus Delegation

180

~ ~ 100 f-----------H-------

s i080~~_~~~~--~~~--=r~~~~ ell

a 00 +--____ _ _~__ ___ __~_~_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient - 05341

543 Accountabi lity and Sust(linabi lity

A sustainability versus accountability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right corner of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confirmed by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were determined

P (l00)

in rather techn ical terms (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliabi lity of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were regularly held)

000 050 100

Accountability

I I

-16shy

I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

Sustainability versus Accountability

I I I I I

000 +-------~~--~f--- --j~~~

150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 00197 P = 0924

I 544 Community-Based Management and

I Sustainabi li)t

I A plot of sustainability versus communityshy on sustainability was basically assessed in based management scores shows dispersed terms of technical capacity (financial points thus indicating that models in the competence technical capacity technical communities studied probably did not have a results) which does not have simple linear simple linear correlation between relationship with the community-based

I sustainability and CBM As explained above management in project implementation this apparent lack of correlation may be owed Furthermore as was seen above with average to the fact that management ability to impact to poor scoring very few management models

I (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced Community-Based Management (Table 38)

I I I I bull

I I

-17shy

Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I I I I I I I I

545 Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated

communlty-b d

Pearson correlation coefficient = O 0192

P 0033

in Figure 4

I I I I i

i i c

I

I I I

~J(E~LL Susta i nabi I i ty versus Competence

-----~----- ----~ ------

Sustain ability versus Competency

1 00

160

140

120

1 00

080

060

040

020

000

000 050 100 150 200

Competncy

Pearson correlation coefficient = 08381

p = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-18shy

vanable and sijStaih of the models Pearson correlation correlatedt()~~stainability

Competence in management is achieved through adequate training experience and appropriate and sustained backstopping If training impacts equally on the different models studied (see good and homogenous scores for this variable in Table 40) backstopping seems to play an essential role in the sustainabi lity of the systems

55 Other Factors of Sustainability

551 Backstopping

The tasks to be performed by management for a sustainable piped water supply system are financial administrative and technical Someshytimes management also has to deal with policy matters In effect these are complex skills that are not easy to mobilize in any single village community Existing managenlOnt bodies are IIsLJally the best result ()f rainillg l11a1 was lim 1 time COP( and

quality and an organization that tried to take advantage of the best possible contingencies Therefore they all need to be strengthened in order to ensure a minimum level of cohesion competence and credibility The study has found that backstopping is a good means of achieving this

Table 41 shows sustainability sub-indicator scores for communities that benefit from good backstopping (communities in Mali villages of Saaba and Manfi-Kumase) and those that benefit from poor or no backstopping at all (communities in Benin village of Grabo) The ~cores include communities from models MMl (Saaba) MM2 (Mali) MM3 (ManfishyKumase) The table shows that whatever the model communities that benefit from good backstopping score higher in sub-indicators of sustainability and overall sustainability than those that do no

gt bullbullbull bull

middotmiddotmiddottmiddot~

tl[

WSSse

I -19shy

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Inmiddot11~liamiddotve~va$t~()tllltfybullbull Ill~~~~omfu~nitici~far~~~~~middot~ownsandcoll1fullhi~ti()ri~ters the Ei11th~mJ1ltnunitiespperate wit1i~centQ~plet~lY~lil~~nnetgtMost ofthe time

bullbull strictly ontbe goodwinofoncent()rafehperso~~tl1verylittleeducation The et deClt)nseilallx~ductions d~upotable(CCiEP)wll$Created by the Direction

Hydrauliqueetd~r~e(DNrEJtgsetvcentas a middotbackstoppingil1$titution to the existing

TIltdunctions of CGAEPwereto~ bull ensureeoirimunicationgtbetween theWUAs themselves bull train communities arid WUA members bull serve as a transmission belt betWeen WUAs and outside community setviceprovidelsbull monitor petformance and audlt activities ofWUAs

Inaltfew years the results of this policy paid off The first systems benefiting ffotri CCAEPs assistance became efficient (NaraDoueniaTominian)

InSaaba(~lrkinaFaso) backstopping wasadministered byasm~U religious group which hadheipoo cOl1structthcentsystem

-

rriSOk()(cat~d~rvoire)middotill)ltimiddotManfi-Kutrl~se(Ghana)backSto)pil1gs~as proVidedby middota private localproVtderdeSihatedltb the TDC orthe Develo mell1Associatioriofthe communi

Backstopping or technical assistance is bull audit performance of management and essential for managements capacity building take corrective action when needed To be relevant and efficient it should deal bull serve as an interface between manashywith the following issues gement and outside services

bull assist management in capitalizing on Strong backstopping has to be limited in time training received and ensuring that (2-3 years) during which it should ensure good refresher training is provided when needed transfer of skills to the management unit After

bull assist management achieve transparency this period its action can be limited to and efficiency by providing appropriate monitoring advising and auditing In order to management tools and ensuring that they avoid becoming a financial burden to are utilized management it has to have a light structure (1shy

bull monitor performance of management in 3 persons) and use limited space terms of CBM accountability competence and delegation and take corrective action A qualified person from the community (Manfishywhen needed Kumase Sokol or a competent private or

bull monitor performance of management in independent entity (communities of Mali terms of sustainability results (technical Saaba) is best positioned to best provides backshycapacity system physical conditions stopping As seen in cases in Benin and Cote management financial and administrative divoire government units are rather capacity consumer satisfaction) and take inefficient corrective action when needed

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

I 1 -13shy

balance sheet Tariffs never took into account

I the entire financial needs of the system Sometimes OampM costs were covered but in most situations this was not even the case

I Tariffs were flat and on a household basis and almost consistently under the level required for cost recovery The rate of revenue collection

I was low (less than 50 percent of revenue) in

I most cases owing to the failure to collect tariffs from water sales l Contributions for major repairs were not regularly paid and no

I provisions were usually made for expansion or replacement In the few cases of positive operational account balance sheet revenue collected from water sales was used by Development Associations or TDCs for

I

investment in activities not related to water In general there was a lack of a realistic financial policy

Administrative measures also lacked realism People were usually not disconnected for non payment of their water bills This was particularly true for local civil servants The study however found an interesting situation in Manfi-Kumase in Ghana where if a single member of the community failed to pay hisher monthly flat bill for water consumption his entire section of the community was cut off until they paid As indicated in Table 34 the scores for financial and administrative soundness sub-indicators are average

lt bull Box 5

I A$ouJ1ltifiJ1~nciatpolicy coupled with realistic administrative measuresjs~hqwe~centrp~a1l~~~()fproviding theL~u~middot(()rthesystem tomiddotbecome5elfsustainingT~isthe~seforJji~Mr4gWllllllllllitiescovered bytheStudyinMaU (Naras account deposit is worth some US $70oOO)Sdko (C8ted1V9ireand Manfi-Kumase (Ghana)

I I

Technical capacity The study assessed the technical capacity of management to ensure

I OampM and achieve sustainability Indicators considered included difficulty of access to technical assistance availability of spare parts

I availability of OampM tools existenc( of OampM manuals and lechniCJI competellce of the staff

I Model scores of sub-indicators of technical capacity are low except for MM2 This is consistent with field findings that revealed that

I issues related to technical assistance provisions of spare parts existence of OampM

I I I

bull

man uals were generally poorly dealt with by management The high score of MM2 may thus have been influenced by the CCAEP experience in Mali Models technical capacity was assessed through scores shown in Tahle 35

Overall management models scores for sustainability Overall sustainability cores for management models integrating the subshyindicators described above are shown in Table 3a below They indicate about average scores for all models except for MM2 that has a higher score

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I bull

-14shy

Table 3a Model Scores for Sustainability

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainability 565 665 530 550

Looking further into the impact of MM2 on sustainability Table 4a indicates that Nara Douenza and Tominian (MM2 models) with high scores for accountability competence and delegation score high in sustainability whereas the other MM2 communities with low scores in those variables score low in sustainabi I ity

Table 4a Accountability Competence and Delegation Scores for WUA-Managed High Sustainability Systems

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability

Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 5a shows that MMl and MM3 managed communities can also be sustainable though to a lesser extent provided that they are competent and benefit from good backstopping

Tab~ia MMl and MM3 Managed High Sustainability System Scores

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability

Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfi-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

Box 6

WUAs with high scores for accounfabilitycompetenceandqelegiltiohscore very high in sustainability MM1 and MM3 models also score high in sustainabi lity though at a lower level than WUAs

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-15shy

542 Delegation and Sustainability

Figure I below shows delegation versus sustainability scores on Pearson correlation It can be seen that delegation has reasonably good correlation with sustainability

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainlibility versus Delegation

180

~ ~ 100 f-----------H-------

s i080~~_~~~~--~~~--=r~~~~ ell

a 00 +--____ _ _~__ ___ __~_~_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient - 05341

543 Accountabi lity and Sust(linabi lity

A sustainability versus accountability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right corner of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confirmed by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were determined

P (l00)

in rather techn ical terms (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliabi lity of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were regularly held)

000 050 100

Accountability

I I

-16shy

I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

Sustainability versus Accountability

I I I I I

000 +-------~~--~f--- --j~~~

150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 00197 P = 0924

I 544 Community-Based Management and

I Sustainabi li)t

I A plot of sustainability versus communityshy on sustainability was basically assessed in based management scores shows dispersed terms of technical capacity (financial points thus indicating that models in the competence technical capacity technical communities studied probably did not have a results) which does not have simple linear simple linear correlation between relationship with the community-based

I sustainability and CBM As explained above management in project implementation this apparent lack of correlation may be owed Furthermore as was seen above with average to the fact that management ability to impact to poor scoring very few management models

I (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced Community-Based Management (Table 38)

I I I I bull

I I

-17shy

Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I I I I I I I I

545 Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated

communlty-b d

Pearson correlation coefficient = O 0192

P 0033

in Figure 4

I I I I i

i i c

I

I I I

~J(E~LL Susta i nabi I i ty versus Competence

-----~----- ----~ ------

Sustain ability versus Competency

1 00

160

140

120

1 00

080

060

040

020

000

000 050 100 150 200

Competncy

Pearson correlation coefficient = 08381

p = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-18shy

vanable and sijStaih of the models Pearson correlation correlatedt()~~stainability

Competence in management is achieved through adequate training experience and appropriate and sustained backstopping If training impacts equally on the different models studied (see good and homogenous scores for this variable in Table 40) backstopping seems to play an essential role in the sustainabi lity of the systems

55 Other Factors of Sustainability

551 Backstopping

The tasks to be performed by management for a sustainable piped water supply system are financial administrative and technical Someshytimes management also has to deal with policy matters In effect these are complex skills that are not easy to mobilize in any single village community Existing managenlOnt bodies are IIsLJally the best result ()f rainillg l11a1 was lim 1 time COP( and

quality and an organization that tried to take advantage of the best possible contingencies Therefore they all need to be strengthened in order to ensure a minimum level of cohesion competence and credibility The study has found that backstopping is a good means of achieving this

Table 41 shows sustainability sub-indicator scores for communities that benefit from good backstopping (communities in Mali villages of Saaba and Manfi-Kumase) and those that benefit from poor or no backstopping at all (communities in Benin village of Grabo) The ~cores include communities from models MMl (Saaba) MM2 (Mali) MM3 (ManfishyKumase) The table shows that whatever the model communities that benefit from good backstopping score higher in sub-indicators of sustainability and overall sustainability than those that do no

gt bullbullbull bull

middotmiddotmiddottmiddot~

tl[

WSSse

I -19shy

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Inmiddot11~liamiddotve~va$t~()tllltfybullbull Ill~~~~omfu~nitici~far~~~~~middot~ownsandcoll1fullhi~ti()ri~ters the Ei11th~mJ1ltnunitiespperate wit1i~centQ~plet~lY~lil~~nnetgtMost ofthe time

bullbull strictly ontbe goodwinofoncent()rafehperso~~tl1verylittleeducation The et deClt)nseilallx~ductions d~upotable(CCiEP)wll$Created by the Direction

Hydrauliqueetd~r~e(DNrEJtgsetvcentas a middotbackstoppingil1$titution to the existing

TIltdunctions of CGAEPwereto~ bull ensureeoirimunicationgtbetween theWUAs themselves bull train communities arid WUA members bull serve as a transmission belt betWeen WUAs and outside community setviceprovidelsbull monitor petformance and audlt activities ofWUAs

Inaltfew years the results of this policy paid off The first systems benefiting ffotri CCAEPs assistance became efficient (NaraDoueniaTominian)

InSaaba(~lrkinaFaso) backstopping wasadministered byasm~U religious group which hadheipoo cOl1structthcentsystem

-

rriSOk()(cat~d~rvoire)middotill)ltimiddotManfi-Kutrl~se(Ghana)backSto)pil1gs~as proVidedby middota private localproVtderdeSihatedltb the TDC orthe Develo mell1Associatioriofthe communi

Backstopping or technical assistance is bull audit performance of management and essential for managements capacity building take corrective action when needed To be relevant and efficient it should deal bull serve as an interface between manashywith the following issues gement and outside services

bull assist management in capitalizing on Strong backstopping has to be limited in time training received and ensuring that (2-3 years) during which it should ensure good refresher training is provided when needed transfer of skills to the management unit After

bull assist management achieve transparency this period its action can be limited to and efficiency by providing appropriate monitoring advising and auditing In order to management tools and ensuring that they avoid becoming a financial burden to are utilized management it has to have a light structure (1shy

bull monitor performance of management in 3 persons) and use limited space terms of CBM accountability competence and delegation and take corrective action A qualified person from the community (Manfishywhen needed Kumase Sokol or a competent private or

bull monitor performance of management in independent entity (communities of Mali terms of sustainability results (technical Saaba) is best positioned to best provides backshycapacity system physical conditions stopping As seen in cases in Benin and Cote management financial and administrative divoire government units are rather capacity consumer satisfaction) and take inefficient corrective action when needed

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I bull

-14shy

Table 3a Model Scores for Sustainability

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainability 565 665 530 550

Looking further into the impact of MM2 on sustainability Table 4a indicates that Nara Douenza and Tominian (MM2 models) with high scores for accountability competence and delegation score high in sustainability whereas the other MM2 communities with low scores in those variables score low in sustainabi I ity

Table 4a Accountability Competence and Delegation Scores for WUA-Managed High Sustainability Systems

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability

Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 5a shows that MMl and MM3 managed communities can also be sustainable though to a lesser extent provided that they are competent and benefit from good backstopping

Tab~ia MMl and MM3 Managed High Sustainability System Scores

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability

Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfi-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

Box 6

WUAs with high scores for accounfabilitycompetenceandqelegiltiohscore very high in sustainability MM1 and MM3 models also score high in sustainabi lity though at a lower level than WUAs

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-15shy

542 Delegation and Sustainability

Figure I below shows delegation versus sustainability scores on Pearson correlation It can be seen that delegation has reasonably good correlation with sustainability

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainlibility versus Delegation

180

~ ~ 100 f-----------H-------

s i080~~_~~~~--~~~--=r~~~~ ell

a 00 +--____ _ _~__ ___ __~_~_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient - 05341

543 Accountabi lity and Sust(linabi lity

A sustainability versus accountability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right corner of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confirmed by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were determined

P (l00)

in rather techn ical terms (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliabi lity of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were regularly held)

000 050 100

Accountability

I I

-16shy

I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

Sustainability versus Accountability

I I I I I

000 +-------~~--~f--- --j~~~

150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 00197 P = 0924

I 544 Community-Based Management and

I Sustainabi li)t

I A plot of sustainability versus communityshy on sustainability was basically assessed in based management scores shows dispersed terms of technical capacity (financial points thus indicating that models in the competence technical capacity technical communities studied probably did not have a results) which does not have simple linear simple linear correlation between relationship with the community-based

I sustainability and CBM As explained above management in project implementation this apparent lack of correlation may be owed Furthermore as was seen above with average to the fact that management ability to impact to poor scoring very few management models

I (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced Community-Based Management (Table 38)

I I I I bull

I I

-17shy

Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I I I I I I I I

545 Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated

communlty-b d

Pearson correlation coefficient = O 0192

P 0033

in Figure 4

I I I I i

i i c

I

I I I

~J(E~LL Susta i nabi I i ty versus Competence

-----~----- ----~ ------

Sustain ability versus Competency

1 00

160

140

120

1 00

080

060

040

020

000

000 050 100 150 200

Competncy

Pearson correlation coefficient = 08381

p = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-18shy

vanable and sijStaih of the models Pearson correlation correlatedt()~~stainability

Competence in management is achieved through adequate training experience and appropriate and sustained backstopping If training impacts equally on the different models studied (see good and homogenous scores for this variable in Table 40) backstopping seems to play an essential role in the sustainabi lity of the systems

55 Other Factors of Sustainability

551 Backstopping

The tasks to be performed by management for a sustainable piped water supply system are financial administrative and technical Someshytimes management also has to deal with policy matters In effect these are complex skills that are not easy to mobilize in any single village community Existing managenlOnt bodies are IIsLJally the best result ()f rainillg l11a1 was lim 1 time COP( and

quality and an organization that tried to take advantage of the best possible contingencies Therefore they all need to be strengthened in order to ensure a minimum level of cohesion competence and credibility The study has found that backstopping is a good means of achieving this

Table 41 shows sustainability sub-indicator scores for communities that benefit from good backstopping (communities in Mali villages of Saaba and Manfi-Kumase) and those that benefit from poor or no backstopping at all (communities in Benin village of Grabo) The ~cores include communities from models MMl (Saaba) MM2 (Mali) MM3 (ManfishyKumase) The table shows that whatever the model communities that benefit from good backstopping score higher in sub-indicators of sustainability and overall sustainability than those that do no

gt bullbullbull bull

middotmiddotmiddottmiddot~

tl[

WSSse

I -19shy

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Inmiddot11~liamiddotve~va$t~()tllltfybullbull Ill~~~~omfu~nitici~far~~~~~middot~ownsandcoll1fullhi~ti()ri~ters the Ei11th~mJ1ltnunitiespperate wit1i~centQ~plet~lY~lil~~nnetgtMost ofthe time

bullbull strictly ontbe goodwinofoncent()rafehperso~~tl1verylittleeducation The et deClt)nseilallx~ductions d~upotable(CCiEP)wll$Created by the Direction

Hydrauliqueetd~r~e(DNrEJtgsetvcentas a middotbackstoppingil1$titution to the existing

TIltdunctions of CGAEPwereto~ bull ensureeoirimunicationgtbetween theWUAs themselves bull train communities arid WUA members bull serve as a transmission belt betWeen WUAs and outside community setviceprovidelsbull monitor petformance and audlt activities ofWUAs

Inaltfew years the results of this policy paid off The first systems benefiting ffotri CCAEPs assistance became efficient (NaraDoueniaTominian)

InSaaba(~lrkinaFaso) backstopping wasadministered byasm~U religious group which hadheipoo cOl1structthcentsystem

-

rriSOk()(cat~d~rvoire)middotill)ltimiddotManfi-Kutrl~se(Ghana)backSto)pil1gs~as proVidedby middota private localproVtderdeSihatedltb the TDC orthe Develo mell1Associatioriofthe communi

Backstopping or technical assistance is bull audit performance of management and essential for managements capacity building take corrective action when needed To be relevant and efficient it should deal bull serve as an interface between manashywith the following issues gement and outside services

bull assist management in capitalizing on Strong backstopping has to be limited in time training received and ensuring that (2-3 years) during which it should ensure good refresher training is provided when needed transfer of skills to the management unit After

bull assist management achieve transparency this period its action can be limited to and efficiency by providing appropriate monitoring advising and auditing In order to management tools and ensuring that they avoid becoming a financial burden to are utilized management it has to have a light structure (1shy

bull monitor performance of management in 3 persons) and use limited space terms of CBM accountability competence and delegation and take corrective action A qualified person from the community (Manfishywhen needed Kumase Sokol or a competent private or

bull monitor performance of management in independent entity (communities of Mali terms of sustainability results (technical Saaba) is best positioned to best provides backshycapacity system physical conditions stopping As seen in cases in Benin and Cote management financial and administrative divoire government units are rather capacity consumer satisfaction) and take inefficient corrective action when needed

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-15shy

542 Delegation and Sustainability

Figure I below shows delegation versus sustainability scores on Pearson correlation It can be seen that delegation has reasonably good correlation with sustainability

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainlibility versus Delegation

180

~ ~ 100 f-----------H-------

s i080~~_~~~~--~~~--=r~~~~ ell

a 00 +--____ _ _~__ ___ __~_~_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient - 05341

543 Accountabi lity and Sust(linabi lity

A sustainability versus accountability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right corner of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confirmed by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were determined

P (l00)

in rather techn ical terms (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliabi lity of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were regularly held)

000 050 100

Accountability

I I

-16shy

I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

Sustainability versus Accountability

I I I I I

000 +-------~~--~f--- --j~~~

150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 00197 P = 0924

I 544 Community-Based Management and

I Sustainabi li)t

I A plot of sustainability versus communityshy on sustainability was basically assessed in based management scores shows dispersed terms of technical capacity (financial points thus indicating that models in the competence technical capacity technical communities studied probably did not have a results) which does not have simple linear simple linear correlation between relationship with the community-based

I sustainability and CBM As explained above management in project implementation this apparent lack of correlation may be owed Furthermore as was seen above with average to the fact that management ability to impact to poor scoring very few management models

I (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced Community-Based Management (Table 38)

I I I I bull

I I

-17shy

Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I I I I I I I I

545 Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated

communlty-b d

Pearson correlation coefficient = O 0192

P 0033

in Figure 4

I I I I i

i i c

I

I I I

~J(E~LL Susta i nabi I i ty versus Competence

-----~----- ----~ ------

Sustain ability versus Competency

1 00

160

140

120

1 00

080

060

040

020

000

000 050 100 150 200

Competncy

Pearson correlation coefficient = 08381

p = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-18shy

vanable and sijStaih of the models Pearson correlation correlatedt()~~stainability

Competence in management is achieved through adequate training experience and appropriate and sustained backstopping If training impacts equally on the different models studied (see good and homogenous scores for this variable in Table 40) backstopping seems to play an essential role in the sustainabi lity of the systems

55 Other Factors of Sustainability

551 Backstopping

The tasks to be performed by management for a sustainable piped water supply system are financial administrative and technical Someshytimes management also has to deal with policy matters In effect these are complex skills that are not easy to mobilize in any single village community Existing managenlOnt bodies are IIsLJally the best result ()f rainillg l11a1 was lim 1 time COP( and

quality and an organization that tried to take advantage of the best possible contingencies Therefore they all need to be strengthened in order to ensure a minimum level of cohesion competence and credibility The study has found that backstopping is a good means of achieving this

Table 41 shows sustainability sub-indicator scores for communities that benefit from good backstopping (communities in Mali villages of Saaba and Manfi-Kumase) and those that benefit from poor or no backstopping at all (communities in Benin village of Grabo) The ~cores include communities from models MMl (Saaba) MM2 (Mali) MM3 (ManfishyKumase) The table shows that whatever the model communities that benefit from good backstopping score higher in sub-indicators of sustainability and overall sustainability than those that do no

gt bullbullbull bull

middotmiddotmiddottmiddot~

tl[

WSSse

I -19shy

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Inmiddot11~liamiddotve~va$t~()tllltfybullbull Ill~~~~omfu~nitici~far~~~~~middot~ownsandcoll1fullhi~ti()ri~ters the Ei11th~mJ1ltnunitiespperate wit1i~centQ~plet~lY~lil~~nnetgtMost ofthe time

bullbull strictly ontbe goodwinofoncent()rafehperso~~tl1verylittleeducation The et deClt)nseilallx~ductions d~upotable(CCiEP)wll$Created by the Direction

Hydrauliqueetd~r~e(DNrEJtgsetvcentas a middotbackstoppingil1$titution to the existing

TIltdunctions of CGAEPwereto~ bull ensureeoirimunicationgtbetween theWUAs themselves bull train communities arid WUA members bull serve as a transmission belt betWeen WUAs and outside community setviceprovidelsbull monitor petformance and audlt activities ofWUAs

Inaltfew years the results of this policy paid off The first systems benefiting ffotri CCAEPs assistance became efficient (NaraDoueniaTominian)

InSaaba(~lrkinaFaso) backstopping wasadministered byasm~U religious group which hadheipoo cOl1structthcentsystem

-

rriSOk()(cat~d~rvoire)middotill)ltimiddotManfi-Kutrl~se(Ghana)backSto)pil1gs~as proVidedby middota private localproVtderdeSihatedltb the TDC orthe Develo mell1Associatioriofthe communi

Backstopping or technical assistance is bull audit performance of management and essential for managements capacity building take corrective action when needed To be relevant and efficient it should deal bull serve as an interface between manashywith the following issues gement and outside services

bull assist management in capitalizing on Strong backstopping has to be limited in time training received and ensuring that (2-3 years) during which it should ensure good refresher training is provided when needed transfer of skills to the management unit After

bull assist management achieve transparency this period its action can be limited to and efficiency by providing appropriate monitoring advising and auditing In order to management tools and ensuring that they avoid becoming a financial burden to are utilized management it has to have a light structure (1shy

bull monitor performance of management in 3 persons) and use limited space terms of CBM accountability competence and delegation and take corrective action A qualified person from the community (Manfishywhen needed Kumase Sokol or a competent private or

bull monitor performance of management in independent entity (communities of Mali terms of sustainability results (technical Saaba) is best positioned to best provides backshycapacity system physical conditions stopping As seen in cases in Benin and Cote management financial and administrative divoire government units are rather capacity consumer satisfaction) and take inefficient corrective action when needed

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

000 050 100

Accountability

I I

-16shy

I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

Sustainability versus Accountability

I I I I I

000 +-------~~--~f--- --j~~~

150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 00197 P = 0924

I 544 Community-Based Management and

I Sustainabi li)t

I A plot of sustainability versus communityshy on sustainability was basically assessed in based management scores shows dispersed terms of technical capacity (financial points thus indicating that models in the competence technical capacity technical communities studied probably did not have a results) which does not have simple linear simple linear correlation between relationship with the community-based

I sustainability and CBM As explained above management in project implementation this apparent lack of correlation may be owed Furthermore as was seen above with average to the fact that management ability to impact to poor scoring very few management models

I (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced Community-Based Management (Table 38)

I I I I bull

I I

-17shy

Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I I I I I I I I

545 Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated

communlty-b d

Pearson correlation coefficient = O 0192

P 0033

in Figure 4

I I I I i

i i c

I

I I I

~J(E~LL Susta i nabi I i ty versus Competence

-----~----- ----~ ------

Sustain ability versus Competency

1 00

160

140

120

1 00

080

060

040

020

000

000 050 100 150 200

Competncy

Pearson correlation coefficient = 08381

p = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-18shy

vanable and sijStaih of the models Pearson correlation correlatedt()~~stainability

Competence in management is achieved through adequate training experience and appropriate and sustained backstopping If training impacts equally on the different models studied (see good and homogenous scores for this variable in Table 40) backstopping seems to play an essential role in the sustainabi lity of the systems

55 Other Factors of Sustainability

551 Backstopping

The tasks to be performed by management for a sustainable piped water supply system are financial administrative and technical Someshytimes management also has to deal with policy matters In effect these are complex skills that are not easy to mobilize in any single village community Existing managenlOnt bodies are IIsLJally the best result ()f rainillg l11a1 was lim 1 time COP( and

quality and an organization that tried to take advantage of the best possible contingencies Therefore they all need to be strengthened in order to ensure a minimum level of cohesion competence and credibility The study has found that backstopping is a good means of achieving this

Table 41 shows sustainability sub-indicator scores for communities that benefit from good backstopping (communities in Mali villages of Saaba and Manfi-Kumase) and those that benefit from poor or no backstopping at all (communities in Benin village of Grabo) The ~cores include communities from models MMl (Saaba) MM2 (Mali) MM3 (ManfishyKumase) The table shows that whatever the model communities that benefit from good backstopping score higher in sub-indicators of sustainability and overall sustainability than those that do no

gt bullbullbull bull

middotmiddotmiddottmiddot~

tl[

WSSse

I -19shy

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Inmiddot11~liamiddotve~va$t~()tllltfybullbull Ill~~~~omfu~nitici~far~~~~~middot~ownsandcoll1fullhi~ti()ri~ters the Ei11th~mJ1ltnunitiespperate wit1i~centQ~plet~lY~lil~~nnetgtMost ofthe time

bullbull strictly ontbe goodwinofoncent()rafehperso~~tl1verylittleeducation The et deClt)nseilallx~ductions d~upotable(CCiEP)wll$Created by the Direction

Hydrauliqueetd~r~e(DNrEJtgsetvcentas a middotbackstoppingil1$titution to the existing

TIltdunctions of CGAEPwereto~ bull ensureeoirimunicationgtbetween theWUAs themselves bull train communities arid WUA members bull serve as a transmission belt betWeen WUAs and outside community setviceprovidelsbull monitor petformance and audlt activities ofWUAs

Inaltfew years the results of this policy paid off The first systems benefiting ffotri CCAEPs assistance became efficient (NaraDoueniaTominian)

InSaaba(~lrkinaFaso) backstopping wasadministered byasm~U religious group which hadheipoo cOl1structthcentsystem

-

rriSOk()(cat~d~rvoire)middotill)ltimiddotManfi-Kutrl~se(Ghana)backSto)pil1gs~as proVidedby middota private localproVtderdeSihatedltb the TDC orthe Develo mell1Associatioriofthe communi

Backstopping or technical assistance is bull audit performance of management and essential for managements capacity building take corrective action when needed To be relevant and efficient it should deal bull serve as an interface between manashywith the following issues gement and outside services

bull assist management in capitalizing on Strong backstopping has to be limited in time training received and ensuring that (2-3 years) during which it should ensure good refresher training is provided when needed transfer of skills to the management unit After

bull assist management achieve transparency this period its action can be limited to and efficiency by providing appropriate monitoring advising and auditing In order to management tools and ensuring that they avoid becoming a financial burden to are utilized management it has to have a light structure (1shy

bull monitor performance of management in 3 persons) and use limited space terms of CBM accountability competence and delegation and take corrective action A qualified person from the community (Manfishywhen needed Kumase Sokol or a competent private or

bull monitor performance of management in independent entity (communities of Mali terms of sustainability results (technical Saaba) is best positioned to best provides backshycapacity system physical conditions stopping As seen in cases in Benin and Cote management financial and administrative divoire government units are rather capacity consumer satisfaction) and take inefficient corrective action when needed

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

I I

-17shy

Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I I I I I I I I

545 Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated

communlty-b d

Pearson correlation coefficient = O 0192

P 0033

in Figure 4

I I I I i

i i c

I

I I I

~J(E~LL Susta i nabi I i ty versus Competence

-----~----- ----~ ------

Sustain ability versus Competency

1 00

160

140

120

1 00

080

060

040

020

000

000 050 100 150 200

Competncy

Pearson correlation coefficient = 08381

p = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-18shy

vanable and sijStaih of the models Pearson correlation correlatedt()~~stainability

Competence in management is achieved through adequate training experience and appropriate and sustained backstopping If training impacts equally on the different models studied (see good and homogenous scores for this variable in Table 40) backstopping seems to play an essential role in the sustainabi lity of the systems

55 Other Factors of Sustainability

551 Backstopping

The tasks to be performed by management for a sustainable piped water supply system are financial administrative and technical Someshytimes management also has to deal with policy matters In effect these are complex skills that are not easy to mobilize in any single village community Existing managenlOnt bodies are IIsLJally the best result ()f rainillg l11a1 was lim 1 time COP( and

quality and an organization that tried to take advantage of the best possible contingencies Therefore they all need to be strengthened in order to ensure a minimum level of cohesion competence and credibility The study has found that backstopping is a good means of achieving this

Table 41 shows sustainability sub-indicator scores for communities that benefit from good backstopping (communities in Mali villages of Saaba and Manfi-Kumase) and those that benefit from poor or no backstopping at all (communities in Benin village of Grabo) The ~cores include communities from models MMl (Saaba) MM2 (Mali) MM3 (ManfishyKumase) The table shows that whatever the model communities that benefit from good backstopping score higher in sub-indicators of sustainability and overall sustainability than those that do no

gt bullbullbull bull

middotmiddotmiddottmiddot~

tl[

WSSse

I -19shy

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Inmiddot11~liamiddotve~va$t~()tllltfybullbull Ill~~~~omfu~nitici~far~~~~~middot~ownsandcoll1fullhi~ti()ri~ters the Ei11th~mJ1ltnunitiespperate wit1i~centQ~plet~lY~lil~~nnetgtMost ofthe time

bullbull strictly ontbe goodwinofoncent()rafehperso~~tl1verylittleeducation The et deClt)nseilallx~ductions d~upotable(CCiEP)wll$Created by the Direction

Hydrauliqueetd~r~e(DNrEJtgsetvcentas a middotbackstoppingil1$titution to the existing

TIltdunctions of CGAEPwereto~ bull ensureeoirimunicationgtbetween theWUAs themselves bull train communities arid WUA members bull serve as a transmission belt betWeen WUAs and outside community setviceprovidelsbull monitor petformance and audlt activities ofWUAs

Inaltfew years the results of this policy paid off The first systems benefiting ffotri CCAEPs assistance became efficient (NaraDoueniaTominian)

InSaaba(~lrkinaFaso) backstopping wasadministered byasm~U religious group which hadheipoo cOl1structthcentsystem

-

rriSOk()(cat~d~rvoire)middotill)ltimiddotManfi-Kutrl~se(Ghana)backSto)pil1gs~as proVidedby middota private localproVtderdeSihatedltb the TDC orthe Develo mell1Associatioriofthe communi

Backstopping or technical assistance is bull audit performance of management and essential for managements capacity building take corrective action when needed To be relevant and efficient it should deal bull serve as an interface between manashywith the following issues gement and outside services

bull assist management in capitalizing on Strong backstopping has to be limited in time training received and ensuring that (2-3 years) during which it should ensure good refresher training is provided when needed transfer of skills to the management unit After

bull assist management achieve transparency this period its action can be limited to and efficiency by providing appropriate monitoring advising and auditing In order to management tools and ensuring that they avoid becoming a financial burden to are utilized management it has to have a light structure (1shy

bull monitor performance of management in 3 persons) and use limited space terms of CBM accountability competence and delegation and take corrective action A qualified person from the community (Manfishywhen needed Kumase Sokol or a competent private or

bull monitor performance of management in independent entity (communities of Mali terms of sustainability results (technical Saaba) is best positioned to best provides backshycapacity system physical conditions stopping As seen in cases in Benin and Cote management financial and administrative divoire government units are rather capacity consumer satisfaction) and take inefficient corrective action when needed

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-18shy

vanable and sijStaih of the models Pearson correlation correlatedt()~~stainability

Competence in management is achieved through adequate training experience and appropriate and sustained backstopping If training impacts equally on the different models studied (see good and homogenous scores for this variable in Table 40) backstopping seems to play an essential role in the sustainabi lity of the systems

55 Other Factors of Sustainability

551 Backstopping

The tasks to be performed by management for a sustainable piped water supply system are financial administrative and technical Someshytimes management also has to deal with policy matters In effect these are complex skills that are not easy to mobilize in any single village community Existing managenlOnt bodies are IIsLJally the best result ()f rainillg l11a1 was lim 1 time COP( and

quality and an organization that tried to take advantage of the best possible contingencies Therefore they all need to be strengthened in order to ensure a minimum level of cohesion competence and credibility The study has found that backstopping is a good means of achieving this

Table 41 shows sustainability sub-indicator scores for communities that benefit from good backstopping (communities in Mali villages of Saaba and Manfi-Kumase) and those that benefit from poor or no backstopping at all (communities in Benin village of Grabo) The ~cores include communities from models MMl (Saaba) MM2 (Mali) MM3 (ManfishyKumase) The table shows that whatever the model communities that benefit from good backstopping score higher in sub-indicators of sustainability and overall sustainability than those that do no

gt bullbullbull bull

middotmiddotmiddottmiddot~

tl[

WSSse

I -19shy

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Inmiddot11~liamiddotve~va$t~()tllltfybullbull Ill~~~~omfu~nitici~far~~~~~middot~ownsandcoll1fullhi~ti()ri~ters the Ei11th~mJ1ltnunitiespperate wit1i~centQ~plet~lY~lil~~nnetgtMost ofthe time

bullbull strictly ontbe goodwinofoncent()rafehperso~~tl1verylittleeducation The et deClt)nseilallx~ductions d~upotable(CCiEP)wll$Created by the Direction

Hydrauliqueetd~r~e(DNrEJtgsetvcentas a middotbackstoppingil1$titution to the existing

TIltdunctions of CGAEPwereto~ bull ensureeoirimunicationgtbetween theWUAs themselves bull train communities arid WUA members bull serve as a transmission belt betWeen WUAs and outside community setviceprovidelsbull monitor petformance and audlt activities ofWUAs

Inaltfew years the results of this policy paid off The first systems benefiting ffotri CCAEPs assistance became efficient (NaraDoueniaTominian)

InSaaba(~lrkinaFaso) backstopping wasadministered byasm~U religious group which hadheipoo cOl1structthcentsystem

-

rriSOk()(cat~d~rvoire)middotill)ltimiddotManfi-Kutrl~se(Ghana)backSto)pil1gs~as proVidedby middota private localproVtderdeSihatedltb the TDC orthe Develo mell1Associatioriofthe communi

Backstopping or technical assistance is bull audit performance of management and essential for managements capacity building take corrective action when needed To be relevant and efficient it should deal bull serve as an interface between manashywith the following issues gement and outside services

bull assist management in capitalizing on Strong backstopping has to be limited in time training received and ensuring that (2-3 years) during which it should ensure good refresher training is provided when needed transfer of skills to the management unit After

bull assist management achieve transparency this period its action can be limited to and efficiency by providing appropriate monitoring advising and auditing In order to management tools and ensuring that they avoid becoming a financial burden to are utilized management it has to have a light structure (1shy

bull monitor performance of management in 3 persons) and use limited space terms of CBM accountability competence and delegation and take corrective action A qualified person from the community (Manfishywhen needed Kumase Sokol or a competent private or

bull monitor performance of management in independent entity (communities of Mali terms of sustainability results (technical Saaba) is best positioned to best provides backshycapacity system physical conditions stopping As seen in cases in Benin and Cote management financial and administrative divoire government units are rather capacity consumer satisfaction) and take inefficient corrective action when needed

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

gt bullbullbull bull

middotmiddotmiddottmiddot~

tl[

WSSse

I -19shy

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Inmiddot11~liamiddotve~va$t~()tllltfybullbull Ill~~~~omfu~nitici~far~~~~~middot~ownsandcoll1fullhi~ti()ri~ters the Ei11th~mJ1ltnunitiespperate wit1i~centQ~plet~lY~lil~~nnetgtMost ofthe time

bullbull strictly ontbe goodwinofoncent()rafehperso~~tl1verylittleeducation The et deClt)nseilallx~ductions d~upotable(CCiEP)wll$Created by the Direction

Hydrauliqueetd~r~e(DNrEJtgsetvcentas a middotbackstoppingil1$titution to the existing

TIltdunctions of CGAEPwereto~ bull ensureeoirimunicationgtbetween theWUAs themselves bull train communities arid WUA members bull serve as a transmission belt betWeen WUAs and outside community setviceprovidelsbull monitor petformance and audlt activities ofWUAs

Inaltfew years the results of this policy paid off The first systems benefiting ffotri CCAEPs assistance became efficient (NaraDoueniaTominian)

InSaaba(~lrkinaFaso) backstopping wasadministered byasm~U religious group which hadheipoo cOl1structthcentsystem

-

rriSOk()(cat~d~rvoire)middotill)ltimiddotManfi-Kutrl~se(Ghana)backSto)pil1gs~as proVidedby middota private localproVtderdeSihatedltb the TDC orthe Develo mell1Associatioriofthe communi

Backstopping or technical assistance is bull audit performance of management and essential for managements capacity building take corrective action when needed To be relevant and efficient it should deal bull serve as an interface between manashywith the following issues gement and outside services

bull assist management in capitalizing on Strong backstopping has to be limited in time training received and ensuring that (2-3 years) during which it should ensure good refresher training is provided when needed transfer of skills to the management unit After

bull assist management achieve transparency this period its action can be limited to and efficiency by providing appropriate monitoring advising and auditing In order to management tools and ensuring that they avoid becoming a financial burden to are utilized management it has to have a light structure (1shy

bull monitor performance of management in 3 persons) and use limited space terms of CBM accountability competence and delegation and take corrective action A qualified person from the community (Manfishywhen needed Kumase Sokol or a competent private or

bull monitor performance of management in independent entity (communities of Mali terms of sustainability results (technical Saaba) is best positioned to best provides backshycapacity system physical conditions stopping As seen in cases in Benin and Cote management financial and administrative divoire government units are rather capacity consumer satisfaction) and take inefficient corrective action when needed

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I I

-20shy

I I I 552 Training

I Training is an important component of sustainable management The study has shown (Table 40) that all the models have good scores in training However this was not

I enough to foster sustainability The issue in training is concerned with its quality and adequacy Most of the training encountered in

I the study is related to OampM For piped water supply systems training has to go further and encompass all aspects of managerial skills

I including administrative financial and technical Training should be in the field as

I much as possible It should be administered by well-qualified trainers with practical expeshyrience in the ski lis referred to and not just by project engineers

I 553 Incentives

Management teams irrespective of models

I were reticent in discussing incentives N(vCrlll(I(~s 111( stlldy (oune 1)11 some

management teams which were provided with

I some form of incentives such as free access to

I the system water not subjected to communal work or just remunerated were among some of the best performing models and their personnel appeared to be better motivated (Nara Soko Manfi-Kumase)

I 554 Information Education and Commushynication

I The existing environment need to be favorable

I to a sustainable management To achieve this proper IEC should be made available to management as well as to the entire

I community One of the most important legacies left by CCAEP in Mali is the high level of IEC obtained within and among WUAs

I bull

middotI H

Bo~~)

middotmiddotmiddotrrimiddotmiddotft~~t~middot(e6f~I~~j~middot~~middot~~rimiddotle~~ bullbull ~~ri~[~~~~middoti~middotmiddotfl1~bullbull middotmiddot bullmiddot bull middotmiddotU~middotW~r~(t11~middotf~ltQicalstaff reported totneS1udyfeamweare supposeqtQgetassistallcelaDwecnondelEau Their assistarteeJasted the first2yearsafter the system had beep turned over to community management For the past 3years we havent seen anybody coming to us

6 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CBM models in terms of their demand responsiveness and level of delegation on the sustainability of community water supply systems The key study hypothesis was that CBM that delegates major functions and is demand responsive will be sustainable

The study has come out with two sets of findings

61 Factors of sustainability

The study has found that in order to achieve sustainability

bull Management by a WUA li)dt allows glldtll

delegation possesses high corTlpetence and is accountable to the community has a greater chance of ensuring sustainability

bull MM1 and MM3 models (WCs WATSANs) could also achieve improved levels of sustainability with a competent manashygement unit that is accountable and benefits from appropriate backstopping

Competence of Management is Crucial

bull Competence is strongly correlated to sustainability irrespective of management model

I -21shy

I Backstopping and Training are Essential

I I bull Backstopping is of prime importance to

sustainability because it en hances compeshytence accountability delegation and other management ski lis

I bull Training properly designed and adequately administered will foster competence and accountabi I ity and faci litate delegation

I Delegation is Necessary

I bull Delegation has a reasonably good

correlation with sustainability

I 62 Other findings

Besides the key findings above which are

I directly related to management and sustainability the study has also found that

I bull the large majority of households surveyed have shown an overall satisfaction with their system

I bull in spite of that overall satisfaction on Iy 40 percent of them regularly and exclusively use their system more than that proportion

I I (44 percent) have an a Iternative use wh iIe

the remaining 16 percent continue to use exclusively non-system water

I bull 90 percent of non-users did not wish to

respond to questions about the system and those who responded (10 percent) were willing to use it and pay for doing so

I bull reasons given by non-users for not using the system were varied and ranged from their own unwillingness to use it to social and

I technical considerations Money was not the major issue

I bull the study has also identified and validated

I four C8M models namely WCs WUAs WATSANs and WSD8 operating in the five countries covered by the study

I bull

7 LESSONS LEARNED

Some key lessons have emerged from the study in terms of what was successfully accomplished and what could have been done differently

Backstopping More emphasis should be put on backstopping in future design of community-based management in order to ensure competence accountability and delegation that would ensure sustainability of piped water supply systems

Delegation The study has found that delegation was not fully practiced by any of the MMs This probably was one reason why the correlation between delegation and sustainability was not so strong In future in designing C8M adequate attention should be paid to the issue of delegation and it should be ensured that all stakeholders including the government the community the management and other support bodies understand and effectively play their respective roles

Community-Based Management The imporshytance of community participation in water supply and sanitation has been stressed time and time again The recent community Water Supply and Sanitation Conference held in May 1998 in Washington DC has confirmed this urgent necessity The present study has shown that the communities involvement in the management process has not been optimized by any of the models This probably has had a negative impact on the performance of the models In designing C8M special attention should be paid to this important matter as a matter of priority

Accountability The issue of accountability needs to be addressed by a C8M that is concerned about the sustainability of its system and also taken into account in training and backstopping initiatives in an adequate and efficient manner

Training Training should be better designed to encompass not on Iy OampM but all aspects of management including administrative financial public relations as well as technical skills in order to achieve adequate capacity

middot1 I

-22shy

I building and ensure sustainability of piped water supply systems In particular the

1 concepts of accountability competence C8M and delegation should be specifically addressed in training initiatives

I Incentives Although management personnel have often shown their good will and unselfishness the study has found that in many

1 cases management teams seemed to be more dedicated to their activities when they received sufficient remuneration as an incentive in kind or in cash In designing C8M projects should include adequate means

I of motivating the management team

Maintenance One major weakness of a

supply systems are concerned this is not just a matter of spare parts but an issue that should be addressed at the national leve through a national policy that takes into account problems related to spare parts as well as logistics and the competence of the maintenance contractor Future design of maintenance should pay particular attention to this issue

Information Education and Communication In order to heighten the communitys interest in using the system efficiently the community must be informed and educated and commushynication maintained therewith even after project implementation One major objective of this campaign will be to improve the ratio of system usersI sustainable C8M is

delegated maintenance

I I I I I I I I I I I bull

the inefficiency of As far as piped water

I I

SPECIFIC LESSONS LEARNED FROM EACH COUNTRY

I I Based on the key findings and

conclusions of the case study the

I following lessons learned from each

I country appear pertinent for improved sustainability of piped water supply systems

I BENIN

I Water Users Association (WUA) Management

bull The inefficiency of the administration acting as a

I backstopping agent has been proven in this country

bull There is a tremendous need for

I information education and communication with the WUAs and with respect to members of the

I community before and during project implementation

I bull IEC can be achieved through

sensitization initiatives in the community and annual national semillars for the WUAs

I bull More classic communication media

I can be used to achieve this end (radio TV newspaper local means J

bull Designate among WUA members a person to be responsible for I

I bull Show transparency in the selection

I and remuneration of vendors at the standpost and provide appropriate remuneration

bull Show transparency in the selection

I and remuneration of WUA members and provide appropriate incentives

bull The system must be technically

I feasible to ensure the confidence of the community

bull Delegated maintenance should be better organized and made more efficient

I bull During project implementation ensure there is proper

bull

synchron ization between techn ology choice and management options

bull During project implementation develop appropriate understanding

bull among community members of the future possible uses of money earned from running the system

bull WUAs must show strong accountability to the community

bull WUAs must report on their operational and financial activities at planned annual general assemblies or water fora

bull The communities should be in charge of short to medium term amortization (pump generator) long term amortization should be an obligation of the government (network well reservoir)

BURKINA FASO

Water Committee Managenwnt

bull Define a clear institutiollal framework drawn from a clearly defined national policy

bull Ensure that the system is designed so as to take into account the use to be made of it (not too large or too small)

bull The system must be feasible bull During project implementation

ensure that DRA is applied bull Make sure training of committee

members is appropriate bull Ensure the community itself is

involved to some extent in the training activity

bull Ensure delegation accountability and backstopping have been addressed during training

bull Ensure that backstopping is effective bull Ensure that IEC is carried out as long

as necessary

I I

COTE DIVOIRE bull incentives should be given to WSDB

I for its activities Water Committee Management (WCM) bull WSDB must explore more ways of

I bull WCM should ensure appropriate and efficient training of the Water Committee

I bull Government backstopping teams

I must be provided with adequate means (adequate and regular budgetary funds) if they are to continue to assist the committees

I bull Backstopping should be delegated

to a professionally qualified nonshygovernment body

I bull Membership of the Water

Committee should be stable in order to ensure quality and competence

I bull The price of water should be set at

level that is efficient and sustainable Assistance should be given to the

I Committees in setting the price of water

bull the financial performance of the

I system should be improved in order to ensure sustainability

bull Good and efficient backstopping is necessary for the Committee to ensure sustainability

I bull The need for a Small Scale Private Service ProvideS (SSr)SP) is not necessarily a better answer for

I services delivery An efficient Water Committee that benefits from adequate backstopping will be better

I adapted to the needs of the populations and ensure sustainability for the system

I bull Provide adequate incentives (possibly remuneration) for Water Committee members

I GHANA

I Water and Sanitation Development Board Management (WSDB)

I bull The need for more transparency in its operation and use of money

I bull District Assembly must play its monitoring role more efficiently

bull

lobbing the District Assembly by making use of WSDB members in the DA to obtain funding from DA

bull refresher training should be planned in technical and finance and admin istrative areas

bull WSDB must report on its operational and financial activities at planned annual general assemblies or water fora

bull appropriate remuneration should be given to operating staff

bull WSDB must ensure that all outstanding contributions to the Reserve Fund are mobilized and paid

Water and Sanitation Committee (WATSAN) Management

bull WATSAN members shou Id receive some incentives

bull They should operate without interference of the village chief

bull WASAN should benefit from assistance in drawing up plans for expansion of the existing system

bull and find more efficient ways of providing funds for replacement

MALI

Water Users Association Management

bull The network should be extended to permit private connections whenever necessary

bull Management tools should be available to the WUA and OampM tools and spare parts to the technical staff

bull When cash flow is significant accounting services should be delegated to professionals

bull The price of water shou Id cover at least OampM costs

bull The communities are confident only in a system that is feasible

I I

bull Ensure that the system is free from

I any contamination risks by installing chlorination equipment

bull Provide the techn ical staff with

I appropriate remuneration bull Maintenance shou Id be more

efficient

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

bull Backstopped WUAs and technical staff are more efficient other staff

bull Training should be administered by professionals with the requisite experience and background and not by technical consultant firms

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

COMMUNITY- BASED MANAGEMENT OF PIPED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS CASE STUDY IN FIVE WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES

ANNEXES

I I I I I I I I I I ANNEX I

I I I I I I I

I I bull

DEFINITIONS

I I Annex 1

Page 1 of2

I Definition of Terms

I I

Village a settlement usually larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town A territorial

I area having the status of a village especially as a unit of local government For the purpose of this study villages are selected with population ranging from 1000 to 5000 inhabitants In some cases this upper limit

I was raised to 15000

Community an interacting population of

I individuals in a common location Includes residents who are served and not served by the system

I Water system user or consumer a community member who uses the water

I supply system The user is aware of his or her

I obligations (responsibility duty and payments ) in exchange for using the water supply system

I Water Users Association (WUA) association of all water system users

I Water Committee (WC) body of persons

I that represent the interest of the community and lor Water Users Association and to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Committee is directly accountable to the

I community or to the Water Users Association of the village

I Water and Sanitation Committee (W A TSAN) body of persons that represents the interest of the community and to which

I has been delegated the management of the water and sanitation systems in the village

I Unlike the Water Committee the WATSAN is accountable to the Infrastructure Board of the District Assembly

bull I Water Board body of persons that

represents the interest of the community and

to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Board is larger than W ATSAN and is responsible for the management of larger systems The Water Board is accountable to the community the District Assembly and the national Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC)

Water supply system for the purpose of this study it consists of a non- manually pumped water system usually piped that includes at least one storage tank The water source should be groundwater and the system may or may not contain a distribution network with either public standposts andlor house connections

Water system operational functions the act of administrating (including administrative as well as financial functions) operating maintaining expanding and replacing a water supply system to promote and slIslamable water serVlC0S that meet COIlSUlllel

demand

Demand the quantity of water consumed at a given price by the water user

Demand Responsiveness the ability of the water supply management to adjust as and when required to meet consumer demand

Community-Based Management a management system whereby the community has the responsibility authority and control of overall water system management (McCommon et al) In this study we are concerned with the existence and clarity of objectives and rules that guide the delegation of water system operational functions to different stakeholders community members water system users the WC and agencies

I I I I

both private and public external to the community

I Sustainability of water supply services the delivery of an acceptable level of water

I supply services Acceptability will be measured in terms of consumer perception of quality quantity reliability and coverage

I Delegation to empower an individual or entity to act on behalf of another person or entity

I Level of delegation the number of functions one delegates to someone else

I Quality of delegation how well delegation is made in terms of clearly defined rules ie whether contracts exist or are well executed

I I

Model is a representation of something as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations In this study the

I I I I I I I I bull

Annex 1 Page 2 of 2

model is a body of management defined through bylaws or common agreements of the community expected to fulfill some functions of management in relation to different partners of the water system This relationship may alter the conduct of the model

Development Association (DA) an association comprising all or some of the members of a community the objective of which is to coordinate and promote activities devoted to the social and economic development of the community

Water technology refers to the pumping system associated with the energy used (eg pumping by solar energy thermal energy electrical energy etc representing different types of water technology

Operation and Maintenance Staff is a body of 2-3 persons generally within the community directly responsible for the operation and maintenance tasks of the system

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

middot1 I

-22shy

I building and ensure sustainability of piped water supply systems In particular the

1 concepts of accountability competence C8M and delegation should be specifically addressed in training initiatives

I Incentives Although management personnel have often shown their good will and unselfishness the study has found that in many

1 cases management teams seemed to be more dedicated to their activities when they received sufficient remuneration as an incentive in kind or in cash In designing C8M projects should include adequate means

I of motivating the management team

Maintenance One major weakness of a

supply systems are concerned this is not just a matter of spare parts but an issue that should be addressed at the national leve through a national policy that takes into account problems related to spare parts as well as logistics and the competence of the maintenance contractor Future design of maintenance should pay particular attention to this issue

Information Education and Communication In order to heighten the communitys interest in using the system efficiently the community must be informed and educated and commushynication maintained therewith even after project implementation One major objective of this campaign will be to improve the ratio of system usersI sustainable C8M is

delegated maintenance

I I I I I I I I I I I bull

the inefficiency of As far as piped water

I I

SPECIFIC LESSONS LEARNED FROM EACH COUNTRY

I I Based on the key findings and

conclusions of the case study the

I following lessons learned from each

I country appear pertinent for improved sustainability of piped water supply systems

I BENIN

I Water Users Association (WUA) Management

bull The inefficiency of the administration acting as a

I backstopping agent has been proven in this country

bull There is a tremendous need for

I information education and communication with the WUAs and with respect to members of the

I community before and during project implementation

I bull IEC can be achieved through

sensitization initiatives in the community and annual national semillars for the WUAs

I bull More classic communication media

I can be used to achieve this end (radio TV newspaper local means J

bull Designate among WUA members a person to be responsible for I

I bull Show transparency in the selection

I and remuneration of vendors at the standpost and provide appropriate remuneration

bull Show transparency in the selection

I and remuneration of WUA members and provide appropriate incentives

bull The system must be technically

I feasible to ensure the confidence of the community

bull Delegated maintenance should be better organized and made more efficient

I bull During project implementation ensure there is proper

bull

synchron ization between techn ology choice and management options

bull During project implementation develop appropriate understanding

bull among community members of the future possible uses of money earned from running the system

bull WUAs must show strong accountability to the community

bull WUAs must report on their operational and financial activities at planned annual general assemblies or water fora

bull The communities should be in charge of short to medium term amortization (pump generator) long term amortization should be an obligation of the government (network well reservoir)

BURKINA FASO

Water Committee Managenwnt

bull Define a clear institutiollal framework drawn from a clearly defined national policy

bull Ensure that the system is designed so as to take into account the use to be made of it (not too large or too small)

bull The system must be feasible bull During project implementation

ensure that DRA is applied bull Make sure training of committee

members is appropriate bull Ensure the community itself is

involved to some extent in the training activity

bull Ensure delegation accountability and backstopping have been addressed during training

bull Ensure that backstopping is effective bull Ensure that IEC is carried out as long

as necessary

I I

COTE DIVOIRE bull incentives should be given to WSDB

I for its activities Water Committee Management (WCM) bull WSDB must explore more ways of

I bull WCM should ensure appropriate and efficient training of the Water Committee

I bull Government backstopping teams

I must be provided with adequate means (adequate and regular budgetary funds) if they are to continue to assist the committees

I bull Backstopping should be delegated

to a professionally qualified nonshygovernment body

I bull Membership of the Water

Committee should be stable in order to ensure quality and competence

I bull The price of water should be set at

level that is efficient and sustainable Assistance should be given to the

I Committees in setting the price of water

bull the financial performance of the

I system should be improved in order to ensure sustainability

bull Good and efficient backstopping is necessary for the Committee to ensure sustainability

I bull The need for a Small Scale Private Service ProvideS (SSr)SP) is not necessarily a better answer for

I services delivery An efficient Water Committee that benefits from adequate backstopping will be better

I adapted to the needs of the populations and ensure sustainability for the system

I bull Provide adequate incentives (possibly remuneration) for Water Committee members

I GHANA

I Water and Sanitation Development Board Management (WSDB)

I bull The need for more transparency in its operation and use of money

I bull District Assembly must play its monitoring role more efficiently

bull

lobbing the District Assembly by making use of WSDB members in the DA to obtain funding from DA

bull refresher training should be planned in technical and finance and admin istrative areas

bull WSDB must report on its operational and financial activities at planned annual general assemblies or water fora

bull appropriate remuneration should be given to operating staff

bull WSDB must ensure that all outstanding contributions to the Reserve Fund are mobilized and paid

Water and Sanitation Committee (WATSAN) Management

bull WATSAN members shou Id receive some incentives

bull They should operate without interference of the village chief

bull WASAN should benefit from assistance in drawing up plans for expansion of the existing system

bull and find more efficient ways of providing funds for replacement

MALI

Water Users Association Management

bull The network should be extended to permit private connections whenever necessary

bull Management tools should be available to the WUA and OampM tools and spare parts to the technical staff

bull When cash flow is significant accounting services should be delegated to professionals

bull The price of water shou Id cover at least OampM costs

bull The communities are confident only in a system that is feasible

I I

bull Ensure that the system is free from

I any contamination risks by installing chlorination equipment

bull Provide the techn ical staff with

I appropriate remuneration bull Maintenance shou Id be more

efficient

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

bull Backstopped WUAs and technical staff are more efficient other staff

bull Training should be administered by professionals with the requisite experience and background and not by technical consultant firms

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

COMMUNITY- BASED MANAGEMENT OF PIPED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS CASE STUDY IN FIVE WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES

ANNEXES

I I I I I I I I I I ANNEX I

I I I I I I I

I I bull

DEFINITIONS

I I Annex 1

Page 1 of2

I Definition of Terms

I I

Village a settlement usually larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town A territorial

I area having the status of a village especially as a unit of local government For the purpose of this study villages are selected with population ranging from 1000 to 5000 inhabitants In some cases this upper limit

I was raised to 15000

Community an interacting population of

I individuals in a common location Includes residents who are served and not served by the system

I Water system user or consumer a community member who uses the water

I supply system The user is aware of his or her

I obligations (responsibility duty and payments ) in exchange for using the water supply system

I Water Users Association (WUA) association of all water system users

I Water Committee (WC) body of persons

I that represent the interest of the community and lor Water Users Association and to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Committee is directly accountable to the

I community or to the Water Users Association of the village

I Water and Sanitation Committee (W A TSAN) body of persons that represents the interest of the community and to which

I has been delegated the management of the water and sanitation systems in the village

I Unlike the Water Committee the WATSAN is accountable to the Infrastructure Board of the District Assembly

bull I Water Board body of persons that

represents the interest of the community and

to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Board is larger than W ATSAN and is responsible for the management of larger systems The Water Board is accountable to the community the District Assembly and the national Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC)

Water supply system for the purpose of this study it consists of a non- manually pumped water system usually piped that includes at least one storage tank The water source should be groundwater and the system may or may not contain a distribution network with either public standposts andlor house connections

Water system operational functions the act of administrating (including administrative as well as financial functions) operating maintaining expanding and replacing a water supply system to promote and slIslamable water serVlC0S that meet COIlSUlllel

demand

Demand the quantity of water consumed at a given price by the water user

Demand Responsiveness the ability of the water supply management to adjust as and when required to meet consumer demand

Community-Based Management a management system whereby the community has the responsibility authority and control of overall water system management (McCommon et al) In this study we are concerned with the existence and clarity of objectives and rules that guide the delegation of water system operational functions to different stakeholders community members water system users the WC and agencies

I I I I

both private and public external to the community

I Sustainability of water supply services the delivery of an acceptable level of water

I supply services Acceptability will be measured in terms of consumer perception of quality quantity reliability and coverage

I Delegation to empower an individual or entity to act on behalf of another person or entity

I Level of delegation the number of functions one delegates to someone else

I Quality of delegation how well delegation is made in terms of clearly defined rules ie whether contracts exist or are well executed

I I

Model is a representation of something as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations In this study the

I I I I I I I I bull

Annex 1 Page 2 of 2

model is a body of management defined through bylaws or common agreements of the community expected to fulfill some functions of management in relation to different partners of the water system This relationship may alter the conduct of the model

Development Association (DA) an association comprising all or some of the members of a community the objective of which is to coordinate and promote activities devoted to the social and economic development of the community

Water technology refers to the pumping system associated with the energy used (eg pumping by solar energy thermal energy electrical energy etc representing different types of water technology

Operation and Maintenance Staff is a body of 2-3 persons generally within the community directly responsible for the operation and maintenance tasks of the system

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I

SPECIFIC LESSONS LEARNED FROM EACH COUNTRY

I I Based on the key findings and

conclusions of the case study the

I following lessons learned from each

I country appear pertinent for improved sustainability of piped water supply systems

I BENIN

I Water Users Association (WUA) Management

bull The inefficiency of the administration acting as a

I backstopping agent has been proven in this country

bull There is a tremendous need for

I information education and communication with the WUAs and with respect to members of the

I community before and during project implementation

I bull IEC can be achieved through

sensitization initiatives in the community and annual national semillars for the WUAs

I bull More classic communication media

I can be used to achieve this end (radio TV newspaper local means J

bull Designate among WUA members a person to be responsible for I

I bull Show transparency in the selection

I and remuneration of vendors at the standpost and provide appropriate remuneration

bull Show transparency in the selection

I and remuneration of WUA members and provide appropriate incentives

bull The system must be technically

I feasible to ensure the confidence of the community

bull Delegated maintenance should be better organized and made more efficient

I bull During project implementation ensure there is proper

bull

synchron ization between techn ology choice and management options

bull During project implementation develop appropriate understanding

bull among community members of the future possible uses of money earned from running the system

bull WUAs must show strong accountability to the community

bull WUAs must report on their operational and financial activities at planned annual general assemblies or water fora

bull The communities should be in charge of short to medium term amortization (pump generator) long term amortization should be an obligation of the government (network well reservoir)

BURKINA FASO

Water Committee Managenwnt

bull Define a clear institutiollal framework drawn from a clearly defined national policy

bull Ensure that the system is designed so as to take into account the use to be made of it (not too large or too small)

bull The system must be feasible bull During project implementation

ensure that DRA is applied bull Make sure training of committee

members is appropriate bull Ensure the community itself is

involved to some extent in the training activity

bull Ensure delegation accountability and backstopping have been addressed during training

bull Ensure that backstopping is effective bull Ensure that IEC is carried out as long

as necessary

I I

COTE DIVOIRE bull incentives should be given to WSDB

I for its activities Water Committee Management (WCM) bull WSDB must explore more ways of

I bull WCM should ensure appropriate and efficient training of the Water Committee

I bull Government backstopping teams

I must be provided with adequate means (adequate and regular budgetary funds) if they are to continue to assist the committees

I bull Backstopping should be delegated

to a professionally qualified nonshygovernment body

I bull Membership of the Water

Committee should be stable in order to ensure quality and competence

I bull The price of water should be set at

level that is efficient and sustainable Assistance should be given to the

I Committees in setting the price of water

bull the financial performance of the

I system should be improved in order to ensure sustainability

bull Good and efficient backstopping is necessary for the Committee to ensure sustainability

I bull The need for a Small Scale Private Service ProvideS (SSr)SP) is not necessarily a better answer for

I services delivery An efficient Water Committee that benefits from adequate backstopping will be better

I adapted to the needs of the populations and ensure sustainability for the system

I bull Provide adequate incentives (possibly remuneration) for Water Committee members

I GHANA

I Water and Sanitation Development Board Management (WSDB)

I bull The need for more transparency in its operation and use of money

I bull District Assembly must play its monitoring role more efficiently

bull

lobbing the District Assembly by making use of WSDB members in the DA to obtain funding from DA

bull refresher training should be planned in technical and finance and admin istrative areas

bull WSDB must report on its operational and financial activities at planned annual general assemblies or water fora

bull appropriate remuneration should be given to operating staff

bull WSDB must ensure that all outstanding contributions to the Reserve Fund are mobilized and paid

Water and Sanitation Committee (WATSAN) Management

bull WATSAN members shou Id receive some incentives

bull They should operate without interference of the village chief

bull WASAN should benefit from assistance in drawing up plans for expansion of the existing system

bull and find more efficient ways of providing funds for replacement

MALI

Water Users Association Management

bull The network should be extended to permit private connections whenever necessary

bull Management tools should be available to the WUA and OampM tools and spare parts to the technical staff

bull When cash flow is significant accounting services should be delegated to professionals

bull The price of water shou Id cover at least OampM costs

bull The communities are confident only in a system that is feasible

I I

bull Ensure that the system is free from

I any contamination risks by installing chlorination equipment

bull Provide the techn ical staff with

I appropriate remuneration bull Maintenance shou Id be more

efficient

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

bull Backstopped WUAs and technical staff are more efficient other staff

bull Training should be administered by professionals with the requisite experience and background and not by technical consultant firms

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

COMMUNITY- BASED MANAGEMENT OF PIPED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS CASE STUDY IN FIVE WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES

ANNEXES

I I I I I I I I I I ANNEX I

I I I I I I I

I I bull

DEFINITIONS

I I Annex 1

Page 1 of2

I Definition of Terms

I I

Village a settlement usually larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town A territorial

I area having the status of a village especially as a unit of local government For the purpose of this study villages are selected with population ranging from 1000 to 5000 inhabitants In some cases this upper limit

I was raised to 15000

Community an interacting population of

I individuals in a common location Includes residents who are served and not served by the system

I Water system user or consumer a community member who uses the water

I supply system The user is aware of his or her

I obligations (responsibility duty and payments ) in exchange for using the water supply system

I Water Users Association (WUA) association of all water system users

I Water Committee (WC) body of persons

I that represent the interest of the community and lor Water Users Association and to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Committee is directly accountable to the

I community or to the Water Users Association of the village

I Water and Sanitation Committee (W A TSAN) body of persons that represents the interest of the community and to which

I has been delegated the management of the water and sanitation systems in the village

I Unlike the Water Committee the WATSAN is accountable to the Infrastructure Board of the District Assembly

bull I Water Board body of persons that

represents the interest of the community and

to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Board is larger than W ATSAN and is responsible for the management of larger systems The Water Board is accountable to the community the District Assembly and the national Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC)

Water supply system for the purpose of this study it consists of a non- manually pumped water system usually piped that includes at least one storage tank The water source should be groundwater and the system may or may not contain a distribution network with either public standposts andlor house connections

Water system operational functions the act of administrating (including administrative as well as financial functions) operating maintaining expanding and replacing a water supply system to promote and slIslamable water serVlC0S that meet COIlSUlllel

demand

Demand the quantity of water consumed at a given price by the water user

Demand Responsiveness the ability of the water supply management to adjust as and when required to meet consumer demand

Community-Based Management a management system whereby the community has the responsibility authority and control of overall water system management (McCommon et al) In this study we are concerned with the existence and clarity of objectives and rules that guide the delegation of water system operational functions to different stakeholders community members water system users the WC and agencies

I I I I

both private and public external to the community

I Sustainability of water supply services the delivery of an acceptable level of water

I supply services Acceptability will be measured in terms of consumer perception of quality quantity reliability and coverage

I Delegation to empower an individual or entity to act on behalf of another person or entity

I Level of delegation the number of functions one delegates to someone else

I Quality of delegation how well delegation is made in terms of clearly defined rules ie whether contracts exist or are well executed

I I

Model is a representation of something as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations In this study the

I I I I I I I I bull

Annex 1 Page 2 of 2

model is a body of management defined through bylaws or common agreements of the community expected to fulfill some functions of management in relation to different partners of the water system This relationship may alter the conduct of the model

Development Association (DA) an association comprising all or some of the members of a community the objective of which is to coordinate and promote activities devoted to the social and economic development of the community

Water technology refers to the pumping system associated with the energy used (eg pumping by solar energy thermal energy electrical energy etc representing different types of water technology

Operation and Maintenance Staff is a body of 2-3 persons generally within the community directly responsible for the operation and maintenance tasks of the system

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I

COTE DIVOIRE bull incentives should be given to WSDB

I for its activities Water Committee Management (WCM) bull WSDB must explore more ways of

I bull WCM should ensure appropriate and efficient training of the Water Committee

I bull Government backstopping teams

I must be provided with adequate means (adequate and regular budgetary funds) if they are to continue to assist the committees

I bull Backstopping should be delegated

to a professionally qualified nonshygovernment body

I bull Membership of the Water

Committee should be stable in order to ensure quality and competence

I bull The price of water should be set at

level that is efficient and sustainable Assistance should be given to the

I Committees in setting the price of water

bull the financial performance of the

I system should be improved in order to ensure sustainability

bull Good and efficient backstopping is necessary for the Committee to ensure sustainability

I bull The need for a Small Scale Private Service ProvideS (SSr)SP) is not necessarily a better answer for

I services delivery An efficient Water Committee that benefits from adequate backstopping will be better

I adapted to the needs of the populations and ensure sustainability for the system

I bull Provide adequate incentives (possibly remuneration) for Water Committee members

I GHANA

I Water and Sanitation Development Board Management (WSDB)

I bull The need for more transparency in its operation and use of money

I bull District Assembly must play its monitoring role more efficiently

bull

lobbing the District Assembly by making use of WSDB members in the DA to obtain funding from DA

bull refresher training should be planned in technical and finance and admin istrative areas

bull WSDB must report on its operational and financial activities at planned annual general assemblies or water fora

bull appropriate remuneration should be given to operating staff

bull WSDB must ensure that all outstanding contributions to the Reserve Fund are mobilized and paid

Water and Sanitation Committee (WATSAN) Management

bull WATSAN members shou Id receive some incentives

bull They should operate without interference of the village chief

bull WASAN should benefit from assistance in drawing up plans for expansion of the existing system

bull and find more efficient ways of providing funds for replacement

MALI

Water Users Association Management

bull The network should be extended to permit private connections whenever necessary

bull Management tools should be available to the WUA and OampM tools and spare parts to the technical staff

bull When cash flow is significant accounting services should be delegated to professionals

bull The price of water shou Id cover at least OampM costs

bull The communities are confident only in a system that is feasible

I I

bull Ensure that the system is free from

I any contamination risks by installing chlorination equipment

bull Provide the techn ical staff with

I appropriate remuneration bull Maintenance shou Id be more

efficient

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

bull Backstopped WUAs and technical staff are more efficient other staff

bull Training should be administered by professionals with the requisite experience and background and not by technical consultant firms

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

COMMUNITY- BASED MANAGEMENT OF PIPED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS CASE STUDY IN FIVE WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES

ANNEXES

I I I I I I I I I I ANNEX I

I I I I I I I

I I bull

DEFINITIONS

I I Annex 1

Page 1 of2

I Definition of Terms

I I

Village a settlement usually larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town A territorial

I area having the status of a village especially as a unit of local government For the purpose of this study villages are selected with population ranging from 1000 to 5000 inhabitants In some cases this upper limit

I was raised to 15000

Community an interacting population of

I individuals in a common location Includes residents who are served and not served by the system

I Water system user or consumer a community member who uses the water

I supply system The user is aware of his or her

I obligations (responsibility duty and payments ) in exchange for using the water supply system

I Water Users Association (WUA) association of all water system users

I Water Committee (WC) body of persons

I that represent the interest of the community and lor Water Users Association and to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Committee is directly accountable to the

I community or to the Water Users Association of the village

I Water and Sanitation Committee (W A TSAN) body of persons that represents the interest of the community and to which

I has been delegated the management of the water and sanitation systems in the village

I Unlike the Water Committee the WATSAN is accountable to the Infrastructure Board of the District Assembly

bull I Water Board body of persons that

represents the interest of the community and

to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Board is larger than W ATSAN and is responsible for the management of larger systems The Water Board is accountable to the community the District Assembly and the national Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC)

Water supply system for the purpose of this study it consists of a non- manually pumped water system usually piped that includes at least one storage tank The water source should be groundwater and the system may or may not contain a distribution network with either public standposts andlor house connections

Water system operational functions the act of administrating (including administrative as well as financial functions) operating maintaining expanding and replacing a water supply system to promote and slIslamable water serVlC0S that meet COIlSUlllel

demand

Demand the quantity of water consumed at a given price by the water user

Demand Responsiveness the ability of the water supply management to adjust as and when required to meet consumer demand

Community-Based Management a management system whereby the community has the responsibility authority and control of overall water system management (McCommon et al) In this study we are concerned with the existence and clarity of objectives and rules that guide the delegation of water system operational functions to different stakeholders community members water system users the WC and agencies

I I I I

both private and public external to the community

I Sustainability of water supply services the delivery of an acceptable level of water

I supply services Acceptability will be measured in terms of consumer perception of quality quantity reliability and coverage

I Delegation to empower an individual or entity to act on behalf of another person or entity

I Level of delegation the number of functions one delegates to someone else

I Quality of delegation how well delegation is made in terms of clearly defined rules ie whether contracts exist or are well executed

I I

Model is a representation of something as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations In this study the

I I I I I I I I bull

Annex 1 Page 2 of 2

model is a body of management defined through bylaws or common agreements of the community expected to fulfill some functions of management in relation to different partners of the water system This relationship may alter the conduct of the model

Development Association (DA) an association comprising all or some of the members of a community the objective of which is to coordinate and promote activities devoted to the social and economic development of the community

Water technology refers to the pumping system associated with the energy used (eg pumping by solar energy thermal energy electrical energy etc representing different types of water technology

Operation and Maintenance Staff is a body of 2-3 persons generally within the community directly responsible for the operation and maintenance tasks of the system

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I

bull Ensure that the system is free from

I any contamination risks by installing chlorination equipment

bull Provide the techn ical staff with

I appropriate remuneration bull Maintenance shou Id be more

efficient

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

bull Backstopped WUAs and technical staff are more efficient other staff

bull Training should be administered by professionals with the requisite experience and background and not by technical consultant firms

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

COMMUNITY- BASED MANAGEMENT OF PIPED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS CASE STUDY IN FIVE WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES

ANNEXES

I I I I I I I I I I ANNEX I

I I I I I I I

I I bull

DEFINITIONS

I I Annex 1

Page 1 of2

I Definition of Terms

I I

Village a settlement usually larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town A territorial

I area having the status of a village especially as a unit of local government For the purpose of this study villages are selected with population ranging from 1000 to 5000 inhabitants In some cases this upper limit

I was raised to 15000

Community an interacting population of

I individuals in a common location Includes residents who are served and not served by the system

I Water system user or consumer a community member who uses the water

I supply system The user is aware of his or her

I obligations (responsibility duty and payments ) in exchange for using the water supply system

I Water Users Association (WUA) association of all water system users

I Water Committee (WC) body of persons

I that represent the interest of the community and lor Water Users Association and to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Committee is directly accountable to the

I community or to the Water Users Association of the village

I Water and Sanitation Committee (W A TSAN) body of persons that represents the interest of the community and to which

I has been delegated the management of the water and sanitation systems in the village

I Unlike the Water Committee the WATSAN is accountable to the Infrastructure Board of the District Assembly

bull I Water Board body of persons that

represents the interest of the community and

to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Board is larger than W ATSAN and is responsible for the management of larger systems The Water Board is accountable to the community the District Assembly and the national Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC)

Water supply system for the purpose of this study it consists of a non- manually pumped water system usually piped that includes at least one storage tank The water source should be groundwater and the system may or may not contain a distribution network with either public standposts andlor house connections

Water system operational functions the act of administrating (including administrative as well as financial functions) operating maintaining expanding and replacing a water supply system to promote and slIslamable water serVlC0S that meet COIlSUlllel

demand

Demand the quantity of water consumed at a given price by the water user

Demand Responsiveness the ability of the water supply management to adjust as and when required to meet consumer demand

Community-Based Management a management system whereby the community has the responsibility authority and control of overall water system management (McCommon et al) In this study we are concerned with the existence and clarity of objectives and rules that guide the delegation of water system operational functions to different stakeholders community members water system users the WC and agencies

I I I I

both private and public external to the community

I Sustainability of water supply services the delivery of an acceptable level of water

I supply services Acceptability will be measured in terms of consumer perception of quality quantity reliability and coverage

I Delegation to empower an individual or entity to act on behalf of another person or entity

I Level of delegation the number of functions one delegates to someone else

I Quality of delegation how well delegation is made in terms of clearly defined rules ie whether contracts exist or are well executed

I I

Model is a representation of something as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations In this study the

I I I I I I I I bull

Annex 1 Page 2 of 2

model is a body of management defined through bylaws or common agreements of the community expected to fulfill some functions of management in relation to different partners of the water system This relationship may alter the conduct of the model

Development Association (DA) an association comprising all or some of the members of a community the objective of which is to coordinate and promote activities devoted to the social and economic development of the community

Water technology refers to the pumping system associated with the energy used (eg pumping by solar energy thermal energy electrical energy etc representing different types of water technology

Operation and Maintenance Staff is a body of 2-3 persons generally within the community directly responsible for the operation and maintenance tasks of the system

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

COMMUNITY- BASED MANAGEMENT OF PIPED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS CASE STUDY IN FIVE WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES

ANNEXES

I I I I I I I I I I ANNEX I

I I I I I I I

I I bull

DEFINITIONS

I I Annex 1

Page 1 of2

I Definition of Terms

I I

Village a settlement usually larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town A territorial

I area having the status of a village especially as a unit of local government For the purpose of this study villages are selected with population ranging from 1000 to 5000 inhabitants In some cases this upper limit

I was raised to 15000

Community an interacting population of

I individuals in a common location Includes residents who are served and not served by the system

I Water system user or consumer a community member who uses the water

I supply system The user is aware of his or her

I obligations (responsibility duty and payments ) in exchange for using the water supply system

I Water Users Association (WUA) association of all water system users

I Water Committee (WC) body of persons

I that represent the interest of the community and lor Water Users Association and to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Committee is directly accountable to the

I community or to the Water Users Association of the village

I Water and Sanitation Committee (W A TSAN) body of persons that represents the interest of the community and to which

I has been delegated the management of the water and sanitation systems in the village

I Unlike the Water Committee the WATSAN is accountable to the Infrastructure Board of the District Assembly

bull I Water Board body of persons that

represents the interest of the community and

to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Board is larger than W ATSAN and is responsible for the management of larger systems The Water Board is accountable to the community the District Assembly and the national Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC)

Water supply system for the purpose of this study it consists of a non- manually pumped water system usually piped that includes at least one storage tank The water source should be groundwater and the system may or may not contain a distribution network with either public standposts andlor house connections

Water system operational functions the act of administrating (including administrative as well as financial functions) operating maintaining expanding and replacing a water supply system to promote and slIslamable water serVlC0S that meet COIlSUlllel

demand

Demand the quantity of water consumed at a given price by the water user

Demand Responsiveness the ability of the water supply management to adjust as and when required to meet consumer demand

Community-Based Management a management system whereby the community has the responsibility authority and control of overall water system management (McCommon et al) In this study we are concerned with the existence and clarity of objectives and rules that guide the delegation of water system operational functions to different stakeholders community members water system users the WC and agencies

I I I I

both private and public external to the community

I Sustainability of water supply services the delivery of an acceptable level of water

I supply services Acceptability will be measured in terms of consumer perception of quality quantity reliability and coverage

I Delegation to empower an individual or entity to act on behalf of another person or entity

I Level of delegation the number of functions one delegates to someone else

I Quality of delegation how well delegation is made in terms of clearly defined rules ie whether contracts exist or are well executed

I I

Model is a representation of something as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations In this study the

I I I I I I I I bull

Annex 1 Page 2 of 2

model is a body of management defined through bylaws or common agreements of the community expected to fulfill some functions of management in relation to different partners of the water system This relationship may alter the conduct of the model

Development Association (DA) an association comprising all or some of the members of a community the objective of which is to coordinate and promote activities devoted to the social and economic development of the community

Water technology refers to the pumping system associated with the energy used (eg pumping by solar energy thermal energy electrical energy etc representing different types of water technology

Operation and Maintenance Staff is a body of 2-3 persons generally within the community directly responsible for the operation and maintenance tasks of the system

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I I I I I I I I I ANNEX I

I I I I I I I

I I bull

DEFINITIONS

I I Annex 1

Page 1 of2

I Definition of Terms

I I

Village a settlement usually larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town A territorial

I area having the status of a village especially as a unit of local government For the purpose of this study villages are selected with population ranging from 1000 to 5000 inhabitants In some cases this upper limit

I was raised to 15000

Community an interacting population of

I individuals in a common location Includes residents who are served and not served by the system

I Water system user or consumer a community member who uses the water

I supply system The user is aware of his or her

I obligations (responsibility duty and payments ) in exchange for using the water supply system

I Water Users Association (WUA) association of all water system users

I Water Committee (WC) body of persons

I that represent the interest of the community and lor Water Users Association and to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Committee is directly accountable to the

I community or to the Water Users Association of the village

I Water and Sanitation Committee (W A TSAN) body of persons that represents the interest of the community and to which

I has been delegated the management of the water and sanitation systems in the village

I Unlike the Water Committee the WATSAN is accountable to the Infrastructure Board of the District Assembly

bull I Water Board body of persons that

represents the interest of the community and

to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Board is larger than W ATSAN and is responsible for the management of larger systems The Water Board is accountable to the community the District Assembly and the national Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC)

Water supply system for the purpose of this study it consists of a non- manually pumped water system usually piped that includes at least one storage tank The water source should be groundwater and the system may or may not contain a distribution network with either public standposts andlor house connections

Water system operational functions the act of administrating (including administrative as well as financial functions) operating maintaining expanding and replacing a water supply system to promote and slIslamable water serVlC0S that meet COIlSUlllel

demand

Demand the quantity of water consumed at a given price by the water user

Demand Responsiveness the ability of the water supply management to adjust as and when required to meet consumer demand

Community-Based Management a management system whereby the community has the responsibility authority and control of overall water system management (McCommon et al) In this study we are concerned with the existence and clarity of objectives and rules that guide the delegation of water system operational functions to different stakeholders community members water system users the WC and agencies

I I I I

both private and public external to the community

I Sustainability of water supply services the delivery of an acceptable level of water

I supply services Acceptability will be measured in terms of consumer perception of quality quantity reliability and coverage

I Delegation to empower an individual or entity to act on behalf of another person or entity

I Level of delegation the number of functions one delegates to someone else

I Quality of delegation how well delegation is made in terms of clearly defined rules ie whether contracts exist or are well executed

I I

Model is a representation of something as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations In this study the

I I I I I I I I bull

Annex 1 Page 2 of 2

model is a body of management defined through bylaws or common agreements of the community expected to fulfill some functions of management in relation to different partners of the water system This relationship may alter the conduct of the model

Development Association (DA) an association comprising all or some of the members of a community the objective of which is to coordinate and promote activities devoted to the social and economic development of the community

Water technology refers to the pumping system associated with the energy used (eg pumping by solar energy thermal energy electrical energy etc representing different types of water technology

Operation and Maintenance Staff is a body of 2-3 persons generally within the community directly responsible for the operation and maintenance tasks of the system

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 1

Page 1 of2

I Definition of Terms

I I

Village a settlement usually larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town A territorial

I area having the status of a village especially as a unit of local government For the purpose of this study villages are selected with population ranging from 1000 to 5000 inhabitants In some cases this upper limit

I was raised to 15000

Community an interacting population of

I individuals in a common location Includes residents who are served and not served by the system

I Water system user or consumer a community member who uses the water

I supply system The user is aware of his or her

I obligations (responsibility duty and payments ) in exchange for using the water supply system

I Water Users Association (WUA) association of all water system users

I Water Committee (WC) body of persons

I that represent the interest of the community and lor Water Users Association and to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Committee is directly accountable to the

I community or to the Water Users Association of the village

I Water and Sanitation Committee (W A TSAN) body of persons that represents the interest of the community and to which

I has been delegated the management of the water and sanitation systems in the village

I Unlike the Water Committee the WATSAN is accountable to the Infrastructure Board of the District Assembly

bull I Water Board body of persons that

represents the interest of the community and

to which has been delegated the management of the water supply system The Water Board is larger than W ATSAN and is responsible for the management of larger systems The Water Board is accountable to the community the District Assembly and the national Water and Sewerage Corporation (GWSC)

Water supply system for the purpose of this study it consists of a non- manually pumped water system usually piped that includes at least one storage tank The water source should be groundwater and the system may or may not contain a distribution network with either public standposts andlor house connections

Water system operational functions the act of administrating (including administrative as well as financial functions) operating maintaining expanding and replacing a water supply system to promote and slIslamable water serVlC0S that meet COIlSUlllel

demand

Demand the quantity of water consumed at a given price by the water user

Demand Responsiveness the ability of the water supply management to adjust as and when required to meet consumer demand

Community-Based Management a management system whereby the community has the responsibility authority and control of overall water system management (McCommon et al) In this study we are concerned with the existence and clarity of objectives and rules that guide the delegation of water system operational functions to different stakeholders community members water system users the WC and agencies

I I I I

both private and public external to the community

I Sustainability of water supply services the delivery of an acceptable level of water

I supply services Acceptability will be measured in terms of consumer perception of quality quantity reliability and coverage

I Delegation to empower an individual or entity to act on behalf of another person or entity

I Level of delegation the number of functions one delegates to someone else

I Quality of delegation how well delegation is made in terms of clearly defined rules ie whether contracts exist or are well executed

I I

Model is a representation of something as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations In this study the

I I I I I I I I bull

Annex 1 Page 2 of 2

model is a body of management defined through bylaws or common agreements of the community expected to fulfill some functions of management in relation to different partners of the water system This relationship may alter the conduct of the model

Development Association (DA) an association comprising all or some of the members of a community the objective of which is to coordinate and promote activities devoted to the social and economic development of the community

Water technology refers to the pumping system associated with the energy used (eg pumping by solar energy thermal energy electrical energy etc representing different types of water technology

Operation and Maintenance Staff is a body of 2-3 persons generally within the community directly responsible for the operation and maintenance tasks of the system

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I I I

both private and public external to the community

I Sustainability of water supply services the delivery of an acceptable level of water

I supply services Acceptability will be measured in terms of consumer perception of quality quantity reliability and coverage

I Delegation to empower an individual or entity to act on behalf of another person or entity

I Level of delegation the number of functions one delegates to someone else

I Quality of delegation how well delegation is made in terms of clearly defined rules ie whether contracts exist or are well executed

I I

Model is a representation of something as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations In this study the

I I I I I I I I bull

Annex 1 Page 2 of 2

model is a body of management defined through bylaws or common agreements of the community expected to fulfill some functions of management in relation to different partners of the water system This relationship may alter the conduct of the model

Development Association (DA) an association comprising all or some of the members of a community the objective of which is to coordinate and promote activities devoted to the social and economic development of the community

Water technology refers to the pumping system associated with the energy used (eg pumping by solar energy thermal energy electrical energy etc representing different types of water technology

Operation and Maintenance Staff is a body of 2-3 persons generally within the community directly responsible for the operation and maintenance tasks of the system

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I I I I I I I ANNEX II TABLES

I I I I I

I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

I list of Tables

I Table la Community Characteristics 3

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems Q

Table 3 Description of Respondents 0 Table 4 Most educated person in the household 1 Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household 1 Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household l Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high 1 Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system 2 Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water 2 Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system 2

I Table II Is the waiting time at and the distance to the water point long 2

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service 3 Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service 3 Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction 3 Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use it 3 Table 16 Management Models 4 Table 17 Who made the fmal decision and were you satisfied with itL 4

I Table 18 Do you know about external contribution to the project 4

I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33) gt4 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the project 5 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM 5 Table 22 Were you explained what the price of water was for 5 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash 5 Table 24 Did you participate in kind 6

I Table 25 To whom does the system belong 6

I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task) 6 Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of perfornung the task) Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function) 7

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makcs the decision to perform the financial task 8 Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the naturc of the contract) l Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation 9 Table 32 Leakage in the system 9 Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-illdicators 9 Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of Financial and Administrative Soundness 9

I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator 9

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score 9 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management 10 Table 38 Model Scores for Accountability 10 Table 39 Model Scores for Competence 10 Table 40 Training Scores for the Models 10 Table 41 Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from Backstopping 1 (J

I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community 1L

I Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores 11 Table 44 Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability 11 DELEGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 12

I ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINABlLITY 12 COMMUNITy-BASED MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILlTY 1 COMPETENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1

I

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

Page 1

I I Table 1a Community Characteristics

I I I I I

1 I I I

1 I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I I I I I Benin

I Burkina

Faso

I Cote

divoire

Ghana

I Mali

I I

Table 2a Description of Systems

New system rehabi I itated2-7

tem New system rehabilitated1-9

stem

New system3-5

New system Rehabilitated3-10

m lew system

2-5 Rehabilitated m

Table 3

Respondent~~~nder

Well borehole

Well borehole

Well borehole Surface 2 Well 4

Well borehole

Electric thermal solar

Solar thermal

Electric

Electric thermal

Thermal solar

Description of Respondents

Standposts private

connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection Standposts

private connection

Annex 2 Pagel

yes 3 no 2

yes 4 no 1

No

yes 2 no 4

yes 3 no 2

I u__ _______bull u

Male

I Female Description of respondent Head of household

I Not head of household

I I Average age

Respondents empfoyment middotmiddotmiddotmiddotrmiddot

I Agriculture Trade Civil servant Retired civil servant Private sector

I Craftsman More than one employment non employed and Others

I bull RespQndentlsle~elofeddcentation Attended primary school

I Attended secondary school Attended university Koranic education Did not o to school

Number Perlt~l)fiS~__ ()O463

316 40 bull I

69535 244 31

45

bull

I ltmiddot

45 i337 11 80

35226 075

34 45 24 32

101 136 232 31

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotttrbullbullmiddot ~i~~trbullbull middotbull 53358

178 265 428 749

15119

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I I

Annex 2 Pagel

I Table 4 Most educated person in the household

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

Most Educated Person

Son 70

Son 45

Son 51

Father 36

Son 56

I Table 5 Highest level of education of members of household

I I I I Table 6 Highest level of education of the head of household

I

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Secondary 36 University 3

Primary 39 University 1

Secondary 43 University 5

Secondary 31 University 1

primary 27 secondary 20 university 2

I I I Table 7 Do you think that your daily water bill is too high

Country Benin Burkina Faso Cote divoire Ghana Mali

Level of Education

Primary 54 Secondary

Primary 12 Koranic 75

Pri mary 45 Secondary

Primary 30 Secondary

Pri mary 29 Secondary

I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Cote Ghana Mali Mean Faso divoire 17 33 38 5 20

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

Page 4

I I Table 8 Do you use more water since the construction of the new system

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 72 37 64 73 41 57

I I Table 9 Do you think that the new system provides you with enough water

I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 83 69 35 32 40 52I I I Table 10 Are there many distribution interruptions in the system

I I

Country Benin Burkina Fas)-----------t----- _-+-shy

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali

I I Table 11 Is the waiting time dt and the distance to the water point long

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes time long 72 46 51 53 23 49 Distance not long 66 59 75 63 79 68

bull I

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I Annex 2

PageS

I Table 12 Are you satisfied with hours daily service

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Hours 77 63 59 67 85 70

Daily service 79 66 56 52 92 69

Table 13 Are you satisfied with the level of service

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

No 92 87 79 76 42 76

I I Table 14 Model Score for Consumer Satisfaction

I Models MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 658 672 617 652

I I

Table 15 Would you like to use the water system pay for using it and do you know what to do to use in

I I I I bull

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Valid mean

Yes I would use

it 7 19 5 8 3 88

Yes I would pay

for 5 15 3 8 3 78

No answer 93 81 95 88 95 90 I do not know 93 99 99 98 99 98

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I

I I Annex 2

Page 6

I I Table 16 Management Models

I I I Table 17 Who made the final decision and were you satisfied with it

Models WUA (Ml)

Water Committee (M2)

Water Boards (M3)

WATSAN (M4)

Countries Benin - Mali C6te divoire- BF Ghana Ghana Proportions 10 (38) 10 (38) 3 (12) 3 (12)

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Community 89 46 41 47 49 54

Yes satisfied 97 97 97 90 93 95

Table 18 Do you knoVl about external contribution to the project

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 20 80 60 67 100 65

I I Table 19 Were their prerequisites for the project (M33)

I Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 30 50 40 61 49 46 I I

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

1

I 1 Annex 2

Page 7

I 1 Table 20 Were you informed about the cost of the different technological options of the

project

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 3 13 3 14 14 91 1 1 Table 21 Were you informed of the cost and your responsibility for OampM

1 1 1

1 1

Country Benin

I

Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Responsibility 28 34 42 63 55 44

Yes cost 1 15 3 29 12 12

1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 52 70 65 73 67 65

1 1 Table 23 Did you contribute in cash

1 1 1

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 47 58 35 8 15 33

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

PageS

I I Table 24 Did you participate in kind

I I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes 56 40 71 27 54

No 44 24 60 26 71 46

Table 25 To whom does the system belong

I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

Yes Community 91 61 67 65 65 70

I I Table 26 Delegation of tasks (who performs the task)

I I I I I I

Description of Activity

WUA WSDB WATSAN Water i Private Committee provider from

community

Private provider from

outside community

Admin CBO PO

OampM 3 (1) 3 20 i IMonitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 3 10 13 Major repairs

26

Preventive maintenance

26

System expansion

22

New connections

5 16 5

System replacement

26

Training 21 Technical assistance

16

I

() Numbers m first column mdlcate the number of commumtles under thIS Management Model (1) Figures in parenthesis indicate the number ofcommunities performing the task

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

Page 9

I Table 27 Delegation of decision making (who makes the decision of performing the task)

I I I I I I I

i

I

Activities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private Private Committee provider from provider from

community outside community

OampM 3 7 16 Monitoring 3 3 10 10

Minor repairs 26 Major 10 3 3 10 repairs

Preventive 26 maintenance

System 10 3 3 expansion

New 10 3 3 10 connections

System replacement

Training 3 3 Technical assistance

Admin CBO

PO

10

20

20 26

I Table 28 Delegation of financial functions (who performs the financial function)

I I I I I I I I

------shyActivities WUA WSDB WATSAN Water Private I Private

Committee provider from provider community from

outside rariff setting 10 3 3 10

Setting 10 3 3 10 contribution

BiIIiOl~ 3 10 13 Water selling 25 Meter reading 2 10 14

Revenue 10 3 10 13 (3)

collection Opening bank 10 3 10 3

account Accounting 10 3 10 3

(2) In these cases decision was taken jointly with the administration (3) Private provider does revenue collection from the community (technical staff) in charge of OampM in WSDB management In WU A management revenue collection is also done by WUA members

--Admin CRO PO

20 (2)

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I

Annex 2

I Page 10

I Table 29 Delegation of financial decisions (who makes the decision to perform the financial task

I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

Private provider from

community

Private provider outside

Admin CBb

PO Tariff seHing 10 3 3 10

Setting contribution

10 3 3 10 20 (2)

Billing 10 3 3 Water selling 10 3 3 f Meter readi ng 2 10 14

Revenue collection

10 3 3 10

Opening bank account

10 3 3 10

Accounting 5 3 3 10 5

I Note Financial decisions are basically the prerogatives of management

I Table 30 Quality of Delegation (what is the nature of the contract)

I I I I I I I I

Activities WUA WSOB WATSAN Water Committee

OampM ICflC LCflC 13 310

Monitoring

Mi nor repairs Major repairs

Preventive maintenance

System expansion

New connections

system Replacement

Training

Technical assistance

(4) IC Informal contract (5) LC Legal contract (can be tender bids maintenance contracts ) (6) NC No contract

Other numbers indicate communities in which such contract was found

Private provider from

community

--IC (4)

22

IC 20 IC

IC

Private provider

from outside

LC (5) 9

LC 22 LC

1 LC

2 LC

1

Admin CBO

PO

NC 12

NC (6) 19

I

I As can be seen some communities did not have any contract for some activities

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I

Annex 2

I Page 11

Table 31 Model Scores for Delegation

I I I

Models MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Scores 455 548 558 523

Table 32 Leakage in the system

I I I

Country Benin Burkina Faso

Cote divoire

Ghana Mali Mean

leakage network 60 60 20 67 60 53 leakage

standposts 80 100 60 83 80 81

I Table 33 Model Score for Physical Conditions Sub-indicators

I MM3 MM4

I 532 502

I Table 34 Model Scores of Sub-indicators of financial and Administrative Soundness

I I I Table 35 Model Scores for Technical Capacity Sub-Indicator

I I

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 302Score 396 637 335

I Table 36 Overall Sustainability Score

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 550 524 682 473

Model MM1 MM2 I MM3 MM4

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

Page 12

1 Table 37 Model Scores for Community-Based Management

I Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 418 446 528 568I

I Table 38

I I

Table 39

I I

MM 1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Scar 535 712 445 535

I Table 40

Model Scores for Accountability

Model MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 Score 602 695 648 505

Model Scores for Competence

Training Scores for the Models

I MM2 MM1 MM4 Gne ()71 69)_j

I Table 41

I I I I I I

Sustainability Sub-indicator Scores for Systems Benefiting or not Benefiting from

Community Sub-

indicator

SPC SFAS SCS STC

Sustainashybility

With

Mali

MM2

707 572 743 749

691

Backstopping

good backstopping

Saaba

MMl

585 735 690 590

650

-

Manfe-Kumase

MM3

780 610 740 725

715

Without good backstopping

Benin Grabo

MM2 MMl

632 475 601 524

574 310 490 398

558 444

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Annex 2

Page 13

1 I Table 42 Scores for WUA Managed High Sustainability Community

I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Nara Douenza Tominian

825 770 760

860 905 865

1000 590 480

885 800 775

Table 43 MMI and MM3 managed high sustainability community scores

I I I I Table 44

I I I I I I I I

Communities Accountability Competence Delegation Sustainability Saaba (MM1) Soko (MM1) Manfe-Kumase (MM3)

710 625 590

675 650 710

590 230 730

650 645 715

MMl MM2 MM3 MM4 Accountability 680 695 715 650 Competence 535 710 445 535 Delegation 455 660 395 305 CBM 418 446 528 568

Sustainabil ity 565 665 530 550

Model Sub-indicator Scores for Sustainability

1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Delegation and Sustain ability

Figure I below shows a plot of delegation versus sustainability scores and Pearson correlation characteristics It can be seen

Figure I Sustainability versus Delegation

Sustainability versus Delegation

180

000 +---____+--__~~+--_

000 050 100 150 200

Delegation

Pearson correlation coefficient = 05341

Accountability and Sustainability

A plot of sustainability versus accounshytability scores shows dispersed points regrouped in the upper right comer of the graph indicating that scores of accountability are generally good even though as is confinned by poor Pearson correlation coefficients indicated in Figure 2 below there does not seem to exist any good correlation between sustainability and accountability The absence of good correlation between sustainability and accountability should not be a surprise because sustainability scores were

that delegation has reasonably good correlation characteristics with respect to sustainability

P = 0005

determined in rather technical tenns (physical conditions of the system technical capacity of management reliability of the system technical results financial results) whereas in the systems studied accountability was more of an internal working relationship between management and the immediate hierarchy As was seen earlier accountability to the community which could impact on sustainability was not always practiced (neither general assemblies nor water fora were not regularly held)

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Figure 2 Sustainability versus Accountability

I Sustainability versus Accountability

I I f 100 +-------=~-c+----~~---~~~~~~~~____l

to

I c

~ 060 r-E=---~t~--tTTI~~N~~S2jII)

I I

000 ~~~_--+~_~_~~----~--+~~~~

150 200

I Pearson correlation

000 050 100

Accountability

coefficient

I P

I Community-Based Management and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainabil ity versus community-based management scores

I shows dispersed points thus indicating that that models in the communities

I studied probably did not have a simple linear correlation between sustainability and CBM As explained above this apparent lack of correlation may be owed to the fact that management ability

I to impact on sustainability was basically assessed in terms of technical capacity

I I I I

= O 0197 0924

(financial competence technical capacity technical results) which is not in simple linear relationship with the community characteristics of project implementation approach Furthermore as was seen above through average to poor model scoring for CBM very few management bodies (irrespective of models) efficiently practiced CBM (Table 38 Annex 2)

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I Figure 3 Sustainability versus Community-Based Management Characteristics

I Suatainability veraU Communi1yb bullbullad

180

I I I I 020040 060 080 100 120 10 160 180

Commvnty-i d

I Pearson correlation coefficient O 0192

P = 0033

I Competence and Sustainability

I A plot of sustainability versus competence scores indicates a good linear correlation between the two variables This is confirmed by strong correlation coefficients as indicated in Figure 4

I I Figure 4 Sustainability versus Competence

I Sustainability versus competency

1 80

1 60

I 1 40

1 20

1 00 ~ t o eovI ~

I ~

o 60

040

020

000

000 150 200

I I Pearson correlation

coefficient = 08381

1

050 100

Competency

P = 0001

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bull