System-level Support to Community-based Service Providers

Community-based providers (committees, operators and managers) need direct support to perform effectively. In many countries this is the responsibility of municipal or district government, often provided by ‘circuit riders’, promoters, extension workers, or technical advisors. A range of typical areas of support and associated roles is given in Table 1.

Conflict resolution often proves to be the main area requiring external support. Addressing challenges to a local committee’s authority, elite capture of system management, or disputes over ownership and pollution of water resources, requires a supporter with strong facilitation skills and the trust of the community, ideally backed-up by regulation and local byelaws.

Whole life cycle support

Rural water service provision is much more than designing and constructing a water system, training a committee and an operator. System operation and maintenance, extension, upgrading and eventual replacement are all key components of ensuring a water supply that is technically and institutionally sustainable. Community-based providers need to be involved in the whole service delivery cycle, enabled by support mechanisms.

Governance in provision

Service provision also includes good financial management; to make budgets, establish a tariff system, collect fees and keep financial records. It requires byelaws that stipulate rights and responsibilities of users and committees. Decisions about extending or upgrading service levels are required, ideally the responsibility of a water committee. Effective and transparent service provision requires a clear separation of function between those who govern (such as a water committee) and those who provide (an operator) the service: both will require external support to ensure that the full service delivery cycle is maintained.

Table 1.  Areas and functions of support¹

¹The table combines support to water supply, sanitation and hygiene interventions.  At system level in rural settings, this may prove to be more effective than providing discrete support to separate interventions.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Complementary, flexible support

Support to community-based providers should complement their roles, not replace them. This means that the roles and responsibilities of community-based providers and other support institutions are clearly defined and agreed – ideally being included in national policy and legal frameworks.

Support must also be flexible, both in form and duration, to suit the technology, level of service, size and complexity of the management system, capacity of those managing, national standards and social dynamics in the community.

Pre- and post-construction support

Support in the design and construction of water systems, typically provided by projects, is usually successful. To ensure ongoing sustainability of rural water systems, more attention is now focused on pre- and post-construction support, which include water users in participatory planning and decision making. Strategies and programmes should consider the full service delivery cycle, from design and construction through to O&M, extension and replacement.

Community-based providers typically operate in isolation from the external environment. Providers, and those giving external support, will operate most effectively within a responsive and enabling political, legal and institutional environment – with service provision linked, for example, to policy reform and decentralization processes. The overall process should be led by central government, in collaboration with donors, NGOs, the private sector and associations representing civil society groups.

Community-based service providers are often recognized – albeit informally – as the provider of rural water services. To stimulate the enabling environment, simple recognition is not enough. Other forms of government engagement can support increasing levels of support. For community-based service providers, forms of engagement may include the following:

• recognition: formal recognition of the right of community-service providers to provide services;

• dialogue: between government and representatives of community-based service providers, identifying methods and systems for participation of community-based institutions in service delivery;

• collaboration: longer term agreements between government and community-based service providers, such as MoUs and approaches to scaling-up services;

• contracting: longer term contracts for service provision, with adequate incentives; and

• regulation: setting minimum standards of service quality and performance of the service provider; supporting self-regulation, informing and empowering consumers.

Examples of such forms of engagement can be found in Sansom (2006).

To effectively support community-based service providers, rural water policy should define the typical roles, responsibilities, rights and obligations of the providers themselves, as well as the role of the support agency in relation to providers. Supporting policy documents can more generally stipulate norms and standards for water supply provision; considering for example cost recovery, technical options, water quality, supply chains and specific support mechanisms for community service.

Governments are often willing for communities to operate and maintain rural water services, but are reluctant to legalize water committees and acknowledge them as partners in service delivery. Legal status not only gives community service providers recognition and credibility, that also allows them to engage in contracts, apply for loans and have their performance regulated.

Support services need to be paid for. Resolving issues such as who pays for which aspects of the support, cost-sharing options, revenue mechanisms and the regulation of prices, all need to be accounted for and designed-in, to ensure sustainable financial systems.

Financial sustainability is often jeopardized by the fact that not all costs are taken into account. A project approach to rural water supply tends to account for direct costs (such as spares and repairs), while ignoring costs associated with creating and sustaining an enabling environment for ongoing support services. Community-based providers, reluctant to charge realistic costs, may seek to minimize expenditure, even to the extent of limiting maintenance and ultimately the ability to upgrade, extend and repair systems. Increasing donor harmonization may go some way to ensure that adequate funds are allocated to support services, as part of SWAps (Sector Wide Approaches) or basket funding.

Broken down water pumps are a familiar sight across parts of rural Africa and Asia. Poor maintenance, limited finances to carry out minor repairs or skills to resolve major problems, and no access to spares, are just some of the causes of failure. Communities often become reliant on another donor to rehabilitate the failed system or, more commonly, construct a new one. Overcoming such dependency requires the right choice of technology (simple, affordable, locally maintainable) initially, backed-up by systems that ensure availability of spares when needed, with well trained and resourced mechanics.

Effective support to community-based rural water providers requires adequate monitoring, both of the state of the service and the performance of the service provider. Monitoring should enable local-level decision making and action. Findings should also feed into national or regional management information systems, for data analysis and to enable appropriate long-term planning and investment. In reality, monitoring is one of the most difficult activities to undertake; requiring appropriate procedures (ideally standardized), together with regulatory capacity and competence to take action.

Figure 1. Models of institutional support