Available at: <http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/esspwp32.pdf> [Accessed 16 January 2011]

In recent years access to safe and reliable water supplies has received increased government attention in Ethiopia. As a result, the national coverage rate for this service has gradually improved. Yet millions of people in rural areas still do not get drinking water from an improved water source. While expanding improved water source schemes is generally essential, it is equally important to ensure that the schemes have increased users’ satisfaction with water quality and availability for everyday use. Using household survey data and employing univariate and bivariate probit models, this paper attempts to investigate the effect of access to an improved water source on users’ satisfaction with both quality and availability of water. The study findings suggest that access to an improved water source significantly raised household satisfaction with both quality and availability of water. However, the effect of the improved water source on users’ satisfaction was slightly lower for water availability than for water quality. (author abstract)

Documenting change is a vitally important activity for learning from and improving upon the work carried out in development initiatives. While collecting information and analysing key activities and outcomes of a project do provide initial insights, documenting how a change process unfolds (and not just their outcomes) can provide strong (and new) insights for practice and learning. This is achieved by highlighting factors that lead to an initiative’s outcomes.

In this Occasional Paper, IRC consolidates lessons learned across a range of IRC projects and describes the resultant and emerging understanding of how process documentation can promote learning and action through joint reflection and analysis. This Occasional Paper also offers tools for collecting and presenting observations that stimulate reflection, learning and sharing.

The lessons, concepts and tools presented in this paper are relevant for project designers, managers and field staff members involved in conducting monitoring and communications tasks. This paper may also be of interest for donors as it provides an example of enhanced forms of documentation that enables more effective monitoring, evaluation and sharing of lessons.

Web site: www.huffingtonpost.com/news/clean-water

This joint WASHCost and Triple-S paper is about the costs of providing direct and indirect support to rural water service provision. It provides an overview of the features such support entails, how those features can be organised, what they cost and how they can be financed. It also provides recommendations to countries for strengthening support. The paper is based on a desk review of existing literature from seven countries and an analysis of primary cost data collected by the WASHCost project in Andhra Pradesh (India), Mozambique and Ghana in 2010 and 2011.

Support to service providers in the form of monitoring, technical assistance and (re)training of service providers is called direct support. Indirect support refers to aspects such as macro-level planning and policy making. Direct support can be provided in different forms: by specialised agencies, by local government or even by an association of service providers. However, the nature, scope and frequency of such support are often not sufficiently defined. There is, therefore, still little quantitative evidence that supports the premise that direct support has a positive impact on the quality and sustainability of services.

Successful cases of organising direct support are found in (lower) middle income countries in Latin America and Southern Africa. Though data needs to be interpreted with caution, an expenditure of some US$ 3 per person per year seems to be effective in those countries. Other countries, particularly those in Africa, were found to have levels of expenditure of less than US$ 1 per person per year, and this is considered too low to be effective.

No conclusions can be drawn on the most effective direct support mechanism, though the most successful support so far seems to come from dedicated agencies rather than local government. Since the costs of direct support are significant, it is likely that it cannot be financed through user tariffs alone, though users may provide co-financing.

This working paper introduces the concept of service levels, grouped as sequential rungs on a ladder, as a way of differentiating between broad and recognisable types (levels) of service. By developing this metaphor, a structure is provided to analyse the data being collected in different countries and settings, not just in terms of the technologies being used, but in terms of the domestic water services being received. The paper introduces water service levels and explains how these can be used as integral components of an analytical tool for applied research or benchmarking. It is best read together with Working Paper 3: Assessing sanitation service levels. Both papers are aimed at providing a framework for data analysis of life-cycle costs. This second edition reflects the experiences of applying this methodology in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mozambique and India (Andhra Pradesh).

This briefing note describes the life-cycle costs approach and why it was developed. It explains the main cost components for water and sanitation in rural and peri-urban areas. Detailed cost breakdowns are presented in the annexes. Different types of analysis can be made with disaggregated cost information: comparing costs of infrastructure components, comparing the cost of services delivered or comparing the costs of difference service delivery models. The briefing note explains the building blocks used in the life-cycle costs approach for all these types of analysis and explores how these fit with different accounting practices. It explains why the WASHCost Project has adopted a regulatory accounting approach to calculate aggregated total expenditure costs and  provides a step-by-step approach to comparing and reporting costs.

Conventional sanitation ladders rank sanitation in increasing complexity of technological options. However, sanitation improvement is not as straightforward as the concept of “a ladder” with incremental improvements, might suggest. For example, from the user perspective, a VIP toilet may in some circumstances be a better option than a septic tank system. There is a wide gap between technologies and service provision, especially when O&M considerations are taken into account. This working paper from IRC’s WASHCost project sets out a common framework to analyse and compare sanitation cost data being collected across different country contexts (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mozambique, India) with different service delivery norms and standards. It represents a fundamental shift away from the focus on capital investment costs, to the costs of sustainable sanitation services.

In the second edition of this paper, indicators found to be more useful than others have been added, data that required too much time and financial resources for collection were eliminated, as well as data that were found to have resulted in unreliable information. Although critical to both water and sanitation services, hygiene-related indicators such as hand washing are now assessed separately, and as part of hygiene cost-effectiveness studies.

Following an outline of the scope of the paper, the second section reviews sanitation levels in current use and proposes indicators of a sustainable sanitation service as a basis for the WASHCost sanitation levels. Section three presents sanitation service level norms and criteria in WASHCost countries. Section four sets out the proposed WASHCost sanitation service levels. Section five summarises the steps towards the general sanitation levels and outlines the next steps for testing and refining country based sanitation ladders. Section six discusses the importance of hygiene services and makes suggestions for the development of a hygiene service assessment ladder. Appendices A & B contain tentative outline ladders for solid waste and for greywater.

Order online  / Look inside (free online preview)
Price: €25 | $35 | £22 | ¥3200 | MXN450

This report provides an overview of key issues related to financing the water and sanitation sector in both developed and developing countries (part 1), and presents tools and approaches developed by OECD for both policy makers and practitioners (part 2).

Part 1 is organised in three chapters. Chapter 1 identifies the investments required to build, operate and maintain the infrastructure for providing sustainable water and sanitation services. It then examines the health, economic and environmental benefits of water supply and sanitation (WSS).

Chapter 2 assesses the current state of WSS and examines investment needs, identifies the financing sources, and estimates the financing gaps to reach internationally agreed targets.

Chapter 3 examines where the money is going to come from, including from a combination of efficiency gains, adjusted targets and additional financial resources; the “3Ts” – tariffs, taxes and transfers; and repayable financing.

In part  2, chapter 4 begins by introducing the tools developed by OECD to address the key financing issues described in part 1.

Chapters 5 to 10 include brief descriptions of the following tools:

• Strategic Financial Planning for WSS at national or regional level – the FEASIBLE tool
• Financial planning tool for water utilities
• Multi-year investment planning tool for municipalities
• Guidelines for performance-based contracts
• Water Utility Performance Indicators (IBNET)
• Private sector participation in water infrastructure – checklist for public action

Based on experiences from three continents, this publication provides practical guidelines for water sector practitioners, policy-makers and donors on Community-Based Water Resource Management (CBWRM).

Chapter 1 introduces CBWRM as practical alternative to the state-controlled Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) model.

In Chapters 2 and 4, various alternative options for water resource management are presented and explored, using experiences from Ghana and Sierra Leone to demonstrate that the implementation of a successful strategy is achievable in low-income countries. These chapters examine the role that grassroots practitioners can play in local level water resource management, through CBWRM.

Chapter 3 outlines how governments and non governmental organisations (NGOs) that work to improve access to water in low-income countries tend to focus on delivery of water supply assets, whether they are for domestic or agricultural use. The sustainability of the service, both from a functional perspective and from an environmental (water resource) point of view, is often neglected or insufficiently emphasised. Practical guidance to improve the situation is presented later in the publication. The pressures on global water resources are increasing and the need to put water resource management into practice at various levels is both urgent and compelling. Examples from China, Ethiopia and Malawi set the scene for understanding why effective water resource management is more important than ever before.

In some areas, water users are already practising communal water management by applying their own rules and traditions. In Chapter 5, examples from Peru, Spain and the Sahelian zone of Africa demonstrate the importance of recognising and respecting traditional water management techniques that continue to survive, but highlight that these now need to be strengthened to cope with increasing variability.

Chapter 6 describes on-going field experiences from India, Nepal and Niger, where country programmes have engaged with local institutions to put water resource management into practice using flexible, adaptive support mechanisms. The implementation of CBWRM in these regions has included involving communities in activities such as water resource allocation, undertaking local level monitoring, implementing rules or operating principles for day to day water usage, and establishing a management system with clearly defined rules and regulations. CBWRM gives local water users the opportunity and means to engage in water resource management, recognising the economic value of water and its role in sustaining people’s livelihoods.

One of the main problems with water resource management is that national and regional water policies often do not take account of or incorporate successful operational practices which are present at the local level; the bridges between science, policy and practice are weak. Chapter 7 explores methods for involving local institutions and water users in decisionmaking processes so that water policy is more accurately aligned to field realities. The final chapter summarises the issues and draws conclusions as to how collaboration between local institutions and communities, and water sector practitioners and policy-makers, can dramatically improve water resource management.

There are options to subscribe to daily e-mail alerts or RSS feeds of all new posts or to specific categories or topics.

As of October 2011, the SuSanA Forum already had 930 registered users.

Web site: forum.susana.org/forum