Pro-poor Benchmarking of WatSan Services · 7 Pro-poor financial instruments 2/4 2/4 8 Pro-poor...
Transcript of Pro-poor Benchmarking of WatSan Services · 7 Pro-poor financial instruments 2/4 2/4 8 Pro-poor...
Name of the Lecturer: Maarten Blokland
Organization: UNESCO-IHE
Country: Delft, The Netherlands
Governance of Decentralized Sanitation
Pro-poor Benchmarking of WatSanServices
• Introduction to Benchmarking (#1)• Rationale for pro-poor benchmarking (#2)• Framework for pro-poor benchmarking (#3)• Methodology (#4)• Assessment and Results (#5)
Structure
Topic 1:
Introduction to Benchmarking
Topic 1
Introduction
Source: Fong, 1998
Benchmarking definitions:• Harrington (1995): “a continuous process to compare
with the best practices, to project future trends in them, and to implement them in order to meet and exceed customer expectations.
• Watson (1993): “a continuous search for and application of significantly better practices that leads to superior competitive performance”
• Boxwell (1994): “is about setting goals by using objective, external standards and learning from others, with the emphasizes in learning “how” rather than “how much
Introduction
Performance Indicators
– Water Resources (4):– Personnel (26):– Physical indicators (15)– Operational indicators (40)– Quality of service indicators (34)– Economic and financial indicators (47)
Tynan and Kingdom (7 indicators)
– Operational efficiency (1)– Cost recovery (1)– Commercial performance (1)– Coverage and access (1)– Asset maintenance (1)– Service quality (1)– Price and affordability (1)
International Water Association (166 indicators)
Performance Indicators
Operational Efficiency
Recommendation: 5 staff/1000 connectionsSource: Tynan and Kingdom, 2002
Application
Performance assessment: comparison over time
Is the utility improving its performance?
KPI 2000 2001 2002
Population served 460,900 480,000 538,600
Water supply connections 94,724 112,427 131,136
No of Employees 713 730 762
Unaccounted for water 24% 28% 32%
Working Ratio 0.82 0.67 0.62
Staff per 1000 connections 7.20 6.49 5.66
Service coverage – water supply 75% 80% 85%
Average domestic tariff (US$/m3) 0.30 0.40 0.45
Voluntary Benchmarking
% of customer calls answered within 20 seconds
Performance of worst performers improved significantly
Vewin: 10 Dutch water supply companies
Source: VEWIN, 2007, 2010
Benchmarking by Regulators
Zambian Regulator NWASCO
Topic 2:
Rationale for Pro-poor Benchmarking
Topic 2
Water and Sanitation Access 2011S
am
ple
of
larg
e
co
un
trie
s
Sanitation Drinking water supply
imp
rove
dunimproved %
access gainsince 1995
improved
un
imp
rove
d
Su
rfa
ce
wa
ter
% access
gain since 1995
sh
are
d
oth
er
un
imp
rov
ed
op
en
d
efe
ca
tio
n tota
l im
pro
ve
d
pip
ed
oth
er
imp
rove
d
Brazil 81 1 14 4 +23 97 92 5 2 1 +22
Mexico 85 11 3 1 +28 94 90 4 6 0 +26
S-Africa 74 8 11 7 +20 91 69 22 5 4 +23
Nigeria 31 24 22 23 +6 61 4 57 25 14 +26
Egypt 95 5 0 0 +36 99 96 3 1 0 +28
Iran 100 - 0 0 +33 95 93 2 5 0 +22
India 35 9 6 50 +19 92 25 67 7 1 +33
B’desh 55 27 14 4 +23 83 10 73 16 1 +23
China 65 19 5 1 +34 92 70 22 7 1 +25
Indonesia 59 10 7 24 +25 84 21 64 14 2 +24
Improved/Unimproved
Inequity
The poor are two to five times less likely to use improved facilities than the rich
SANITATION
DRINKING WATER
Focus of pro-poor benchmarking
• the (political) resolve to supply services and remove obstacles (pro-poor policies, regulation, land issues)
• pro-poor technology (such as water kiosks, public standposts, public and multi-family latrines, small bore sewers, etc..)
• affordable services (tariffs, connection fees, flexibility to pay arrears, targeted subsidies, micro-credit, etc.)
• effective, innovative and sustainable institutional arrangements (utility partnerships with small scale private providers, Govt/Utility/NGO/CBO/Community cooperation, community self-help schemes, etc.)
Factors known to favor pro-poor services
Topic 3:
Framework for
Pro-poor indicators
Topic 3
Benchmarking Perspectives
Balanced Score Card:
Source: Norton and Kaplan, 2007
Perspectives >>> Indicators
Sustainable Balanced Score Card (SBSC):
Sample SBSC:
6 perspectives: the 4 ‘old’ BSC ones + 2 new ones: social and environmental performance, including KPIs with current and target values
Benchmarking perspectives
SBSC, Vewin and UvW perspectives compared
SBSC Vewin(Dutch water supply)
UvW(Dutch wastewater)
Product Drinking Water Quality Wastewater Treatment
Customer Service Quality
Finance Finance and Efficiency Finance
Innovation Innovation
Environment Environmental Environment
Social Stakeholders
Benchmarking perspectives
ToolsMapping the poorPro poor financial mechanismsPro poor technology
SustainabilityInnovation and learningDurability
CollaborationInter agency collaborationUser participation
PreparednessCapacity of local government organizationCapacity of WSS providersPolitical initiatives and support
Services provisionQuality of pro poor sanitationQuality of pro poor water supply
5 Pro-poor Perspectives:
- Policies, arrangements and capacities
- Collaboration- Tools- Sustainability- Services Provision
Policies, arrangementsand capacities
Topic 4:
Methodology
Topic 4
Perspective and Indicators
Perspective Party being
benchmarked Number and name of the Indicator
Policies,
arrangements
and capacities
Government 1 Political initiative and support
Regulator 2 Capacity of the regulating authority
Service provider 3 Capacity of the service provider
Collaboration
All 4 Inter agency collaboration
User community 5 Community leadership and outreach
User community 6 Community involvement and participation
Tools
Service provider 7 Mapping the poor
Service provider 8 Pro-poor financial instruments
Service provider 9 Pro-poor technology
Service provider 10 Pro-poor incentives
Sustainability Regulator and
Service provider11 Innovation and learning
Services End users 12 Quality of pro poor sanitation services
End users 13 Quality of pro poor water supply services
• Government/regulators/municipality – policy,
• Legislation, regulation, resource allocation,
• Collaboration, incentives, compliance
• Utility – capacity, incentives, tools, collaboration,
• Sustainability
• CSOs/communities – collaboration
• Slum dwellers (end users) – appreciation of services
Parties subject to assessment and areas of assesment
Assessment Framework
P Indicator Items Variables
11 Political initiative and support 6 262 Capacity of the regulating authority 2 163 Capacity of the service provider 2 8
24 Inter agency collaboration 4 165 Community leadership and outreach 2 86 End user or community participation 2 8
3
7 Mapping the poor 2 88 Pro-poor financial instruments 2 79 Pro-poor technology 2 8
10 Pro-poor incentives 2 84 11 Innovation and Learning 2 8
512 Quality of pro poor sanitation services 1 813 Quality of pro poor water supply services 1 10
5 13 TOTALS 30 139
Methodology
1 Political
Initiativ
e and
support
Regulator Sanitation
Sets a pro-poor tariff (social tariff) for
sanitation services
Uses pro-poor indicators to monitor WSP
sanitation services performance
Reports performance of WSPs in terms of
sanitation services provision to the poor
Communicates pro-poor performance of WSP
sanitation services to the stakeholders
including slum dwellers
Semi
Structured
interview
Stakeholder
interview
guide
Indicator Party being
benchmark
ed
Variables for investigations Data collection
method
Data
collection
tool
Methodology
9 Pro-
poor
technol
ogy
Service
Provider
Sanitation
Evidence of action research or pilot projects in
support of the choice of appropriate
technologies for the provision of sanitation
services to the poor
Evidence of the rolling out at scale by the WSP
of selected technologies for the provision of
improved sanitation services to the poor
Evidence of the regular and satisfactory
functioning of pro-poor sanitation
technologies
Evidence of adequate financial resources and
stocks of spare parts to ensure the effective
functioning of pro-poor sanitation technology
Semi
structured
interview
Stakeholder
interview
guide
Indicator Party being
benchmark
ed
Variables for investigations Data collection
method
Data
collection
tool
Methodology
1
3
Quality
of pro
poor
sanitatio
n
services
End Users Sanitation
Distance to the facility
Facility is an improved technology
Facility is accessible 24/7
Facility is for single family use
Facility is clean
Facility has no offensive smell
Facility is suitable for disabled persons
Facility is safe for use at night (by women)
Facility is affordable
General customer satisfaction
Interview
Some
outcomes may
be compared
with data
provided by
regulators,
service
providers or
other
stakeholders
through
interviews or
reports
Questionnair
e
Indicator Party being
benchmark
ed
Variables for investigations Data collection
method
Data
collection
tool
Topic 5:
Assessment and Results
Topic 5
Assessment
Perspective 1: 'Policies, Arrangements and Capacity', Policies, Strategies, Capacities
Indicator 1: Political initiative and support
Item 4: Existence of Legislation - Sanitation – Evidence (YES/NO)
Variable Score Source Remarks
Legislation elaborates sanitation services provision to the poor
0/1
Legislation provides an institutional framework for sanitation services provision to the poor
1/1
Legislation provides implementation mechanisms
1/1
Legislation provides a monitoring and evaluation framework
1/1
Legislation provides a financing
mechanism for sanitation services
provision to the poor
0/1
Total score for item 4 3/5
Assessment
Perspective 5: Service ProvisionIndicator 12: Quality of Sanitation services
Variableuni
tbenchmark
Value slum Score slum
1 2 1 2
1 Distance from home m 50 21 75 1 0
2 Facility is an improved technology % 75 100 80 1 1
3 Facility is accessible 24/7 (not included) - - - - - -
4 Facility is only for single family use % 75 2 0 0 0
5 Facility is clean % 75 77 64 1 0
6 Facility does not smell offensive % 75 30 32 0 0
7 Facility is accessible to disabled persons % 75 0 0 0 0
8 Facility is safe for nightly use by women % 75 77 50 1 0
9 Affordability (not included) - - - - - -
10 General customer satisfaction (not incl) - - - - - -
Total Score 4/7 1/7
Overall Results
Perspective Indicator ScoreSLUM 1 SLUM 2
Policiesand capacities
1 Political initiative and support 3.7/4 3.7/42 Capacity of regulating authority 2.7/4 2.7/43 Capacity of service provider 2.5/4 2.5/4
Collaboration4 Inter agency collaboration 3.5/4 3.5/45 End user or Community participation 0/2 1/2
Tools
6 Mapping the poor 0/4 0/47 Pro-poor financial instruments 2/4 2/48 Pro-poor technology 2/4 1/49 Pro-poor incentives n.a. n.a.
Sustainability10 Innovation and learning 2.5/4 2.5/411 Durability n.a. n.a.
Services provision
12 Quality of pro-poor sanitation services 4/7 1/713 Quality of pro-poor water services 6/8 6/8