Message-ID: <199606251730.WAA25283@sdnpk.undp.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 15:59:08 -0400 From: Riaz Khan <mailto:RIAZKHAN@NLDP.SDNPK.UNDP.ORG> Subject: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION-WATER SUPPLY To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Dear List members, I am posting the following for your comments:ANALYSIS OF THE UNIFORM POLICY IN RWSS
1. Introduction The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation sector is one of the four sectors covered by the Social Action Program of the Government of Pakistan. In this sector the Government has adopted the Uniform Policy since 1993. Under the Uniform Policy all new water supply and sanitation schemes will be constructed with the involvement of the community. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will have to be signed with the community prior to the initiation of the scheme. After completion, the scheme will be handed over to the community, which will be responsible for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs thereafter.
The Government will also mobilize the community to accept the schemes constructed prior to the adoption of the Uniform Policy.
The objective of this paper is to analyze the existing situation and to provide some recommendations for future policies.
2. Need for Uniform policy The PHED is responsible for the provision of water through mechanized schemes. While the LG&RDD's mandate is to supply water through non-mechanized schemes mainly handpumps. Over the years the number of schemes and their associated O&M costs have been increasing. On the other hand the funds for O&M have not kept pace with this increase. The result was that many existing schemes due to lack of O&M funds could not be maintained and were being abandoned. Thus new schemes were being added while old ones were becoming non-operational. In order to correct this imbalance the Government decided to introduce the concept of the Uniform Policy in the RWSS sector. The policy was fully supported by the international donors. Thus the major objective of the Uniform policy was to transfer the O&M burden to the community.
3. Objectives of the Sector From the above discussion it becomes clear that any policy formulated in the RWSS sector must meet the following objectives:
- Transfer the O&M burden from the Government - Decrease O&M costs through improved management and adoption of the latest appropriate technology - Increase coverage of drinking water supply - New schemes to be demand based 4. Strategies available In order to meet the basic objectives of the sector the PHED has the following strategic options:
Older Policy To continue with the earlier policy of managing the schemes through the PHED.
Uniform Policy Under this policy all new schemes are to be initiated with the involvement of the community. After completion the schemes are to be handed over to the community and the O&M costs are to be borne by the Community. Also efforts are to be made to transfer the schemes prior to the Uniform Policy to the community as well.
The adoption of the above policies will lead to totally different management orientation, styles and procedures. The pros and cons and the implementation issues of each of the above policy is discussed in the next section.
5. Implementation Issues
Older Policy This policy has been followed since a long time by the department. All the staff are aware of the systems and procedures and these are well established. However the basic assumptions are:
- the Government will provide the necessary funds for the O&M costs - the Government will recover O&M costs through user charges - the community has the capacity to pay - PHED has the capacity to collect user charges
These assumption have not been met in the past. There is no indication that it will be met adequately in the future especially when new schemes are being added every year.
The risk is that there will be an increase in the number of non-operational schemes over time. However this is not the case in the NWFP Province where the Government through a consistent policy has provided the funds and all the schemes are operational. In general the recovery position has not been good due to poor cost recovery systems.
Uniform Policy This policy has been adopted only recently. It requires a totally new orientation of PHED. It is for the first time that the management and staff have to work together with the community and involve them in the planning and operational stages. This policy meets the objectives of the sector very well and if successful the O&M burden would be transferred to the community. The result so far indicate that the initial transfer may be easy but the management of the schemes and the capacity to bear the O&M COSTS by the community at a later stage may prove to be difficult. The major assumptions involved in this policy are that:
- PHED is able to mobilize the community and to get an MOU signed for new schemes - Community is willing to takeover the schemes - Community has the capacity to operate the schemes - Community is in a position to afford the O&M costs - Community will not default on the MOU - The rate of mobilization of the communities is in line with the number of new schemes being completed - Security of the assets can be guaranteed - All schemes new and existing will be run under the Uniform policy in the province - Existing schemes are technically and socially feasible and can be handed over to the community - Community will agree to taking over the arrears of the existing schemes or finance department will agree to waive the arrears - Water connections will be provided to each household in order to make them financially feasible
The risks associated with this policy are:
- Community may default on the schemes and PHED then has to rehabilitate and operate the scheme thus increasing costs rather than reducing them.
- Multiple policies (different policies for new, existing-feasible/not feasible, and returned schemes) within the same province will lead to inconsistencies and problems with the community which are successfully managing schemes
- Those communities which are unable to organize themselves or are not willing to take over schemes or schemes are not financially feasible in their area, will not have access to drinking water thus forcing PHED to provide water in disregard of the uniform policy
6. Analysis The analysis will focus on the best strategy to meet the objectives of the sector. There are basically four issues in rural water supply sector which are as follows:
cost of construction In the present environment the cost of construction is not a major issue as it is a one time commitment, however the period of construction is very long which could be reduced. The site selection needs to be improved. All these issues can be tackled.
O&M costs The underlying theme behind all the above policies is that the water supply should be made in the most efficient and cost effective manner so that the cost to the user or community is kept to the minimum. Who has the lowest O&M costs is the question being considered here? It is an assumption that the community will operate the schemes in the most efficient manner. One needs to compare the costs of O&M through both mechanism (PHED operated or Community operated) to be able to make the correct decision regarding management of the schemes. PHED may have the advantage of economies of scale which the community may not be able to achieve. The outcome of such results will have different implications at the operational stage. If the costs of PHED are less, then under the uniform policy it is better for the community to operate the schemes through the PHED on contract basis thus reducing their O&M costs. If such is a case then PHED may very well opt to operate the schemes itself and involve the community only in the user charges recovery process. Thus the process of handing over the management of the scheme to the community needs to be reviewed in terms of PHED vs Community operational costs.
capacity of the users/community to pay The capacity of the user/community to pay the monthly charges vary according to the geographic location and the socio- economic condition of the community. It is not possible to generalize and impose the same user charges, conditions, or policies on every community. The most important factor to consider is whether the community has the capacity to pay or not? The Government through the uniform policy is linking the supply of drinking water to the capacity of the communities to pay. This may be a correct position from a purely financial angle but on a more macro level it may not be the right decision eg. lack of access to clean drinking water may lead to increase in costs of Health services. Charges for services such as telephones, electricity etc are acceptable to the community as these are not an essential requirement. They can opt not to have them. A completely different policy may have to be formulated in cases where the community does not have the capacity to pay and yet are in urgent need of a water supply scheme. It may be better to remove subsidies from other sectors in order to provide subsidy for O&M costs as clean drinking water is the basic necessity. Already in Sindh subsidies are being allowed in this sector. Thus the Uniform policy needs to be revised keeping in mind that the community may not be in a position to pay. At present it does not officially cater for this option.
Mobilization of the community Community mobilization is an essential part of the Uniform policy. It is critical to the success of the uniform policy. Again the following question arises; which is the most efficient, cost effective and viable mechanism to motivate communities? At present the following mechanisms are being followed: Through NGOs It is expected that NGOs will play a major role in mobilizing communities. However so far it has proved to be difficult as there are very few NGOs willing to take on such responsibility. Inherently NGOs prefer to work outside of the government and most are Urban based. In Sindh one NGO has quoted more to mobilize than the Government's existing costs. It is not necessary that the NGOs mechanism is a cheaper option. Replication on a large scale may be difficult through NGOs.
Through Donor Funded Projects The teams under the projects are more organized and thus may show better results. On the other hand sometimes the project's implementation mechanism are not so flexible and may lead to delays. These teams are probably good for demonstration and pilot projects. In general it is not be a long term solution as a project's life is generally small. The cost of these teams would generally be much higher and not sustainable in the long run.
Through PHED's own efforts These teams are hampered by recruitment bans, lack of mobility, lack of motivation and expertise in social mobilization.
Which option is feasible may vary from province to province. However cost of mobilization should play an important factor in the selecting a mobilization option.
Capacity to recover user charges from the community The uniform policy assumes that the community has the capacity to pay. In such a case then it is just a matter of collecting the user charges which PHED can also collect. At present even in the Urban areas where the procedures are well laid down the cost recovery is very little. Thus in the rural areas to expect PHED to collect the bulk of the revenue is unrealistic. Irrespective of who manages the scheme it may be better to use the community or a private party to collect the user charges.
The following points emerge from the analysis:
- If the cost of O&M is less if PHED operates the schemes and that the community has a capacity and willingness to pay then there is no need to hand over the schemes as the water would be delivered at the lowest cost and in the most efficient manner by PHED itself. The only improvement that is recommended is that the User charges are collected by the Community on behalf of PHED. This option would be more acceptable to PHED as it would not disrupt its present system. Another way of looking at the same option is that the Community contracts the operations to PHED.
- If the cost of O&M is less if the Community operates the schemes and that the community has the capacity and willingness to pay and the capacity to manage then the scheme should be handed over to the community. This would ensure that the water will be delivered at the lowest cost and in the most efficient manner
- In case the community is not in a position to meet the criteria of the Uniform policy then an adjustment has to be made in the Uniform policy and some subsidy has to be provided. The subsidy can be decreased over time if possible.
7. Conclusions Based on the above analysis it is recommended that the Uniform Policy be adjusted to incorporate the new issues which are emerging now. It is not necessary that the management of a scheme by the community is the most cost effective and efficient option. This decision must be driven by costs considertion besides others. Once the conceptual framework has been identified then an operational strategy to accomplish the objectives can be easily drafted.