Introduction

Background

During the past two to three decades there has been relative success in providing new rural water infrastructure – building the physical systems – and driving increased coverage levels. However, despite this positive trend, there has to a large extent been a failure to achieve sustainable solutions. Tens of millions of rural people face continuing problems with systems that fail prematurely, leading to wasted resources and false expectations. For many of those who supposedly already enjoy an improved service, the reality is one of poor continuity, poor quality and premature failure.

Between 1990 and 2006, the absolute number of un-served people across 19 sub-Saharan African countries increased from 29 million to 272 million (RWSN, 2009). In part this is due to population growth, but many of those who supposedly count as having been 'served' actually have systems that are now not working properly or have failed completely. Both population expansion and migration patterns have led to more urbanisation, but also an increase in more densely populated rural villages or rural growth centres, with accompanying increased demand for higher levels of service. However, it is still the rural population that continues to suffer most from poor services; the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) reports that 84% of people without access to improved drinking water sources live in rural areas (WHO/UNICEF, 2010).

Already in the early 1990s, estimates suggested that at any given moment, 30–40% of rural water supply systems in developing countries were not working (Evans, 1992). This rate has not changed much since then and although figures vary, studies from different countries indicate that somewhere between 30% and 40% of systems, particularly handpumps, still either do not function at all or are working at sub-optimal levels. The Rural Water Supply Network indicates an average rate of 36% non-functionality for hand-pumps in sub-Saharan Africa (RWSN, 2009). A more recent study by WaterAid in Tanzania indicates that only two years following installation 25% of systems are already non-functional (Taylor, 2009). Failures on this scale represent significant levels of wasted investment, probably many hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years. In gravity-fed piped systems the issue is often not full collapse of services, as they are technically less prone to become fully non-functional, but providing services well below the expected performance level.

Poor sustainability of rural water supplies has been recognised for some time, and a number of management approaches have come and gone with the aim of addressing these problems; the predominant model of community management has been adopted as formal sector policy in many countries. At the same time, most efforts and resources in the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector continue to go into the construction of new infrastructure, which undoubtedly is needed. However, such investment often appears to be at the expense of the sustainability of services already in place. A tipping point may now have been reached with more and more national governments and development partners beginning to recognise the scale of the problems associated with poor sustainability and the real threat this presents to achieving the WASH Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The objectives of Triple-S

It is against this backdrop that the Sustainable Services at Scale (or Triple-S) initiative was developed. Started in late 2008, this six-year learning initiative has the overall goal of contributing to improved sustainability of rural water services, and bringing about greater harmonisation through increased sector capacity. Triple-S aims to act as a catalyst for transforming the approaches in rural water supply from one focused on the implementation of water systems, to the provision of indefinite and reliable rural water services delivered at scale. The initiative is managed by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC) in the Netherlands, and works in partnership with international, national and local partners1, working initially in two focus countries – Ghana and Uganda – and expanding to Burkina Faso in 2011.

As part of the initiative's start-up, a research study was conducted between late 2009 and the second quarter of 2010. The main objective of the research study was to review and better understand the trends in rural water supply, and to identify factors that appear to contribute to or constrain the delivery of sustainable rural water services at scale. The study also sought to identify organisational incentives and barriers that shape the way in which sector institutions approach rural water services. The study was carried out in 13 countries across the globe (see Annex E for the full references of all country studies). In addition, literature reviews on into rural service provision more broadly (Butterworth, 2010) and on aid harmonisation at national and sub-national levels (de la Harpe, 2011a) were carried out. Finally, this book has been informed by a symposium on sustainable services at scale held from 13-15 April 2010 in Kampala, where many of the experiences reported here were presented and discussed, alongside work by other sector practitioners and researchers in the field (see Smits et al., 2010 for the proceedings; and Moriarty and Verdemato, 2010 for the discussion report).

As well as carrying out the studies and collation of views and information, there was an explicit goal of providing follow-up to the research in a number of countries through projects and activities of IRC and partners, with a view to generate further sector debate and action in the area of improving sustainability of services.

Structure of this book

This book presents a synthesis of the 13 country study findings and the literature reviews, and is structured around five principal sections as follows:

• Chapter 1 provides an introduction.

• Chapter 2 sets out the methodologies adopted in the country studies, and explains underlying concepts and terminologies used in the analysis of the findings.

• Chapter 3 provides a brief summary of the state of the rural water sector in each of the 13 countries.

• Chapter 4 presents the main findings from a comparative analysis across the country studies, addressing the current status of sustainability, progress on decentralisation and sector reform, the definition of Service Delivery Models (SDMs) and experiences with professionalisation of community management. This chapter also looks at the difficult question of understanding costs and financing flows. Planning, accountability, learning and capacity building are all investigated in this chapter, as well as processes of organisational change as part of sector reforms.

• Chapter 5 contains a discussion on the implications of the study findings, and conclusions are drawn up regarding the state of sustainability of rural water services. This chapter also indentifies key policy implications and provides some concrete recommendations for moving the sustainability debate forward, and for working at scale.

Methodology and conceptual framework

Country selection and context

Studies into the rural water sector were carried out in 13 countries with a deliberately broad range of country profiles and levels of sector development. The study countries are: Benin, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, India (three states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu), Mozambique, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uganda and the United States of America (USA)1. These countries were selected on the basis of the following criteria:

• Prior knowledge of interesting experiences with elements of rural water services delivery.

• Spread of development context and geographical regions, including very different general development indicators, such as their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, and levels of aid dependency (aid as percentage of Gross National Income).

• Capacity of IRC and its partners to carry out the study and follow-up activities.

From country case studies, three groupings can be identified (see Table 1):

• Least developed countries, which are highly aid dependent.

• Middle group of countries with mixed levels of aid dependency and income levels.

• Middle (and high) income countries, which are non-aid dependent.

The relative placement of a country across these different groupings can have an important influence on how the sector deals with the provision of rural water supply services. In the least developed countries, there is still a strong drive and need to rapidly increase coverage, whereas in the middle income countries the management and sustainability of services feature more prominently in sector agendas. The degree of aid dependency has a strong bearing on the need for, and importance of, aid alignment and harmonisation.

Other experiences with rural water services were included as part of the broader literature review, including those found in Latin America (Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Paraguay), South East Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines and Viet Nam) and Africa (Senegal, Mali, Morocco and Niger). Countries in (post)-conflict situations or so-called 'fragile states' have been deliberately excluded from the selection process, as these pose very specific challenges for governance and sector capacity for the delivery of sustainable rural water supply that go beyond the scope of this study.

Methodology and common analytical framework

The methodologies for data collection followed a similar format in all study countries, employing a combination of secondary data collection, such as document and literature reviews, and consultation with key sector stakeholders through interviews and group meetings. Each study was conducted by a national expert, or team of experts, working as closely as possible with national authorities and non-governmental stakeholders.

In order to validate initial outputs of the country studies, and to gain sector buy-in to the results of the study, the majority of country studies incorporated a process of engagement with sector stakeholders in which preliminary findings were shared and discussed. This often involved a two-step process with those key issues identified at national level meetings being put to a group of experts and practitioners from district and regional levels who participated in similar workshops. This type of validation exercise served to enrich the conclusions in the studies, as well as jump-start a process of dissemination and dialogue.

The analytical tool

Provision of a water service, is often very context-specific. Culture, history, economy, politics, water resources, topography and demographic aspects all are determining factors in the possible levels of service, the opportunities to provide such a service, and the extent to which it can be financed sustainably. In short, what works in one place, does not necessarily work in another. And while this is a truism, we also know from long experience that there are a number of important elements that need to be in place to achieve more sustainable service delivery.

In order to provide a common point of reference for the various countries involved in this study, an analytical framework was developed, including a range of elements at three different institutional levels. This framework has drawn on earlier developed principle-based frameworks for rural water supply such as the one for scaling up rural water supply (Thematic Group for Scaling Up Community Management of Rural Water Supply, 2005), subsequently adapted by van Koppen, Moriarty and Boelee (2006) and van Koppen, et al., (2009), with a focus on multiple-use services.

The three main levels of analysis in the framework correspond firstly to the national level enabling environment; secondly to the intermediate level (most commonly the local or district government level or commune or municipality, depending on country context); and, thirdly, the service provision level (see Annex C). In total there are 18 elements included in this framework, each with a short description. It includes issues such as sector decentralisation and reform; institutional roles and responsibilities; financing; SDMs; learning and coordination; and monitoring and regulation.

The studies looked both at the formal policy and strategy documents for the respective countries, as well as the status of how it actually is on the ground. This often involved issues such as governance and political influence over (resource allocation) decision-making, and the relative strength of the rural water sector vis-à-vis other spending priorities. The expectation was that there would be a marked difference in the type of SDA followed between the least developed and most aid-dependent countries, and those that are at the middle to higher income level. The results of the individual country-level analyses were subsequently compared across all 13 countries in order to identify common trends or factors which seem to be important either as positive drivers of improved sustainability, or constraints to SDAs.

It should be noted that the focus of this study is on rural water supply. The definition of what is rural differs from country to country, and is often based on criteria such as population size (of settlements) or density. For this study, no new or common definition was developed. Rather, the criteria from the different countries where studies were carried out were respected. Some reference has been made to experiences with small town water supply, as the boundaries between small town and larger rural settlements are often blurred, or, as in Ghana and Uganda, small towns and rural growth centres are considered a particular sub-set of rural settlements. Small town water supply often presents a broader range of service provision options, some of which may be of relevance for rural water supply as well.

Rural sanitation has not been part of this study. Sanitation and water supply are, rightfully, often addressed in an integrated manner in implementation projects. However, fundamental differences exist between the two in terms of the type of service provided. The explicit omission of sanitation does not mean that that sanitation and water supply should be separated in service delivery. Rather, there is merit in studying how service delivery and sustainability mechanisms are different for the two specific interventions.

Key concepts and terminology

A number of important concepts are used in this book as part of making a comparative analysis across the country studies, and certain terminology is employed. The following sections explain the most significant of these concepts. Key definitions are also provided in Annex B: Glossary.

The Service Delivery Approach and Service Delivery Models

Accepting that there is a distinction between the physical system (the infrastructure) and the service which these systems deliver is a fundamental starting point. Service refers to the provision of a public benefit through a continuous and permanent flow of activities and resources; a concept applied in many other services, both in the developing and developed worlds, such as health, education, electricity, telephone and urban water supplies. A water service consists of access to a flow of water with certain characteristics (such as quantity, quality and continuity), as will be elaborated in the next section.

Water services delivery can be characterised by a life-cycle, consisting of various stages or phases over time (see Figure 1). A service normally starts with a capital-intensive period in which the physical systems are built and assets are developed at the front-end of the service period (i.e. the initial or 'new' construction of the physical system). These capital investments are typically done in the form of discrete implementation projects and often themselves follow a project cycle, with a series of consecutive activities including assessment, feasibility, design, implementation and monitoring. In the project cycle both physical construction as well as accompanying activities such as community mobilisation, training and other so-called 'software' activities are included.