How can we adapt the life-cycle costs approach for rural water supply in fragile states? What the DRC WASH Consortium has done so farPosted: July 14, 2015
The DRC WASH Consortium, a programme of five international NGOs led by Concern Worldwide, has made the use of the life-cycle costs approach a central part of our approach to rural water supply. In February 2014, we organised the first workshops on life-cycle costs in DRC for over 50 participants from the sector with the support of IRC WASH. We developed a tool to facilitate the estimation of life-cycle costs and the ability of communities to cover these costs, based on an adaptation of a tool from the Global Water Initiative. In December 2014, the Consortium organised another sector workshop with over 60 participants on how to consider users as ‘clients’ not ‘beneficiaries’.
So far in 2015 we have conducted research on how to improve financial planning tools for use by communities and local health services, not just by NGOs (training modules on this will be available very soon). We have also started research on alternative solutions (such as household water treatment) in villages where a community water point is not viable. And last week, in July 2015, we organized our biggest workshop yet, with over 70 people discussing “How to make sustainable investments in the rural WASH sector in DRC?”
I will be at the WEDC Conference at Loughborough University in the UK from 27-31 July to present more on all this and the key lessons so far. A taster slide – on how we use life-cycle costs estimates to aid decision-making – is above and the abstract is below. I’ll aim to post more while at the conference and the full paper will be available afterwards. Do come along to find out more and discuss what we can do next to try to promote more sustainable WASH services in fragile states. Abstract:
Investments in rural water infrastructure in DRC are generally made without good information on what financing and technical support is required in the long term for the infrastructure to provide a sustainable service to the users. Given the under-developed policies and local government structures for water supply, the responsibility for organising and financing long-term operation, maintenance, and minor and major repairs is left to the users by default, usually through community-based water management committees. The DRC WASH Consortium is trying to address this issue by adapting the life-cycle costs approach (LCCA) to permit informed investment decisions by local actors which are based on an analysis of long-term economic, technical/environmental and social/institutional feasibility. This paper explains how the Consortium has developed this approach so far, the lessons learned, and recommendations for other WASH sector actors implementing the life-cycle costs approach.
How to analyse institutional arrangements for rural water services and how they evolve: new paper linking political economy analysis and theories of institutional changePosted: June 8, 2015
I have a new paper in the International Journal of the Commons. The title is Bridging political economy analysis and critical institutionalism: an approach to help analyse institutional change for rural water services. The paper is part of a special issue on “Challenges of critical institutionalism” edited by Frances Cleaver of King’s College London and Jessica de Koning of Wageningen University. Their overview paper sets out the ideas of “critical institutionalism” as a way of helping to understand how institutions for natural resource management evolve. My paper links this literature with work on institutional reform by Matt Andrews (in particular his excellent book on the limits to institutional reform – see here for a good review), David Booth (and the Africa Power and Politics Programme) and the structured approach provided by political economy analysis approaches such as those developed by ODI. My aim is to show how this academic literature can be used in a practical way to help understand how organisations such as NGOs can work with communities and local governments to find ways of improving public services by building on existing local institutions rather than trying to import templates from outside. The approach also fits into recent debates about Doing Development Differently, working with the grain and thinking and working politically.
The abstract is below and the full paper is open access:
This paper argues that approaches to understanding local institutions for natural resource management based on “critical institutionalism” (Cleaver 2012), which emphasises the importance of improvisation and adaptation across different scales, can be placed within broader political economy analysis frameworks for assessing challenges in public services delivery from national to local levels. The paper uses such an extended political economy analysis approach to understand the role of the international NGO WaterAid and its partners in Mali in relation to institutions for financing rural water services, drawing on collaborative research undertaken in 2010 and 2011. The case study shows that WaterAid’s approach can be understood through elements of both mainstream and critical institutionalist thinking. At local government level, WaterAid primarily promotes formal institutional arrangements, which exhibit the challenge of “reforms as signals” (Andrews 2013), where institutional reforms appear to happen but lack the intended function. However, the work of WaterAid’s partners at community level supports processes of “institutional bricolage” through which they try to gradually work with local actors to find ways of ‘best fit’ for financing rural water services which adapt existing local practices into new arrangements.
The Sustainable WASH Learning Event, hosted by Arup yesterday, was overall an honest assessment and discussion by different actors involved of where the sector has got to on thinking about sustainability, and how this general awareness of the challenges needs to translate into actions which lead to a long-term service delivery approach. Many thanks to the organisers for bringing it together, particularly the team from Aguaconsult and IRC. I know they are busy collating the presentations, videos and discussions – and hopefully plenty of new stories for Sensemaker – but in the meantime here are the four lessons I took from the day:
Analyse local and national politics
Analyse donor politics
Think about scale
Talk about subsidy
“Change is hard” in the rural water sector is the message from the Impact and Learning team at the Institute of Development Studies, who have been acting as external learning facilitators for the Triple-S initiative. They explain that so far Triple-S has based its efforts to promote change towards an approach of sustainable service delivery in the sector on three elements:
- Relationship-led (i.e. using champions to mobilise change)
- Value-led (i.e. leveraging peer pressure and creating coalitions for change)
- Evidence-led (i.e. providing proof that the current approaches don’t work and proof that other ones do)
However, Triple-S and the Impact and Learning team are now reviewing progress to see if these Theories of Change need to be revised, and should be reporting back next week.
How do these thoughts compare with the Theory of Change put forward by WASHCost, Triple-S’s sister project? On the surface, their theory suggests a strong belief in the evidence-led aspect of change – the idea that better information on costs of water, sanitation and hygiene will lead to better choices: Read the rest of this entry »
In my last post I referred to the concept of a ‘danger zone’ for rural water services – a term developed by the Triple-S project to describe the tension in many countries between the increased coverage created by new rural water infrastructure and the ‘slippage’ caused by older systems failing. This idea highlights the importance of allocating sufficient resources to recurrent costs and capital maintenance expenditure as coverage levels increase. Stef Smits recently reflected on the contribution of the Millennium Development Goals to this tension:
… the MDGs are one of the biggest competitors to the approach of sustainable services at scale … [they] have been great in mobilizing public investments for WASH… However, the focus on increasing coverage makes it also difficult to fund all the other life-cycle costs of water supplies, such as replacement of assets or post-construction support. In that sense, there is a competition brought about by the MDGs on whether to invest in coverage or dedicate funds to the sustainability of services. We would argue that both are needed, but that there are trade-offs between them. Therefore, a careful balance is needed in investing in that, a balance that even shifts over time. Read the rest of this entry »
I’m back in London for a few months, and gave a presentation to staff in the WaterAid office here last week on progress made by WaterAid and its partners in Mali in using WaterAid’s Sustainability Framework to analyse and address the challenges in developing sustainable rural water services. To illustrate one of the key challenges – finding the balance between financing new investments to increase access to water services, and financing ongoing costs to keep services running – I adapted a diagram developed by the Triple-S and WASHCost projects for a presentation to the World Bank last year.
Back from the RWSN Forum and starting to blog some of the ideas that were discussed. Patrick Moriarty picks up on the ‘myths of the rural water sector’ paper and suggests that we need to add ‘the biggest myth of all’:
… this is the myth that there is an inherent demand for ‘clean’ drinking water in rural areas. In my experience there isn’t. There is a demand for water – of course. There is a demand for convenient water (that you don’t have to march for miles lugging a jerry can to collect). There is demand for (no adjective added) drinking water. And for livestock water. And for irrigation water. And for business water. And much of this demand is well captured in myth no. 4 – “what rural dwellers need is 20 litres per person per day of clean water”. Which makes the point that actually people need far less than 20 litres of clean water (probably only about 5 for actual drinking and cooking) and quite a bit more for other uses.
… But … the assumption is still there that there is demand for these 5 litres of clean water. And there isn’t – at least not always. Of course, from a public health perspective people need at least five litres of clean water. But without basic education and behaviour change interventions people do not demand it.
WaterAid’s Sustainability Framework is clear that demand – and subsequent willingness by the users to pay certain costs – is the first element of the whole framework, without which everything else fails. So any intervention has to test that assumption of demand, and/or promote behaviour change to create the demand.
The challenge is that testing demand is very difficult before the actual water service is up and running. Rural water infrastructure investments typically require an initial contribution to this cost from the users as a proxy for ‘demand’, but this is not necessarily a reliable indicator of their ability and willingness to pay over the lifetime of the service.
The quote from Patrick above, and a comment from Stef Smits on one of Patrick’s previous posts about demand, also emphasise that people actually want water for a variety of uses, and what they demand (in terms of accessibility, quality, reliability etc) varies according to the use. The ‘myths’ paper summarises the implications of this:
… there is urgent need for: (i) consideration of other water requirements, such as for livestock and crops and how these needs can be better linked to requirements for clean drinking water; (ii) full consideration of household values with respect to water (particularly distance to source and reliability alongside water quality) and (iii) presentation and demonstration of real and affordable choices for household water supplies.
This implies a significant effort on the part of service providers to understand what rural water users already do for themselves, and how ongoing external support can help them build on that – luckily these were key elements of the discussion sessions at the RWSN Forum on multiple-use services, post-construction support, and self-supply. I’ll follow-up on some of these later in the week, including getting started on one of the crucial questions: if better external support is needed to promote demand, support multiple-use services and improve sustainability, how much does this support actually cost?