Benchmarking for Pro-poor Water and Sanitation Services Provision: an Emerging Assessment Framework

Objective The objective of the project is : to propose improvements to the existing benchmarking tools to allow utilities and others to develop a much stronger focus on service provision to the poor

Key Stakeholders subject to Pro Poor Benchmarking Government Regulator / Supervisory Body Utility Communities/End Users

Focal areas for Pro-poor Benchmarking Five focal areas: - Policies, arrangements and capacities - Collaboration of actors - Pro-poor Tools - Sustainability - Quality of WatSan Services Provision

Perspectives and Indicators PerspectiveIndicator Policies, arrangements and capacities 1Political initiative and support 2Capacity of the regulating authority 3Capacity of the service provider Collaboration 4Inter agency collaboration 5End user or Community Participation Tools 6Mapping the poor 7Pro-poor financial instruments 8Pro-poor technology 9Pro-poor incentives Sustainability 10Innovation and learning 11Durability Services provision 12Quality of pro poor sanitation services 13Quality of pro poor water supply services

Assessment Framework PIndicatorItemsCriteria 1 1Political initiative and support312 2Capacity of the regulating authority312 3Capacity of the service provider Inter agency collaboration28 5End user or Community Participation26 3 6Mapping the poor14 7Pro-poor financial instruments312 8Pro-poor technology14 9Pro-poor incentives Innovation and learning28 11Durability Quality of pro poor sanitation services58 13Quality of pro poor water supply services89 513TOTALS3395

Assessment Perspective 1: Policies, strategies and capacities Indicator 1: Political initiative and support Item 1: Existence of pro-poor WSS policy Data collection: secondary data and interviews CriteriaScore 1elaborates priority to WSS services provision to the poor 0/1 2 has a component on water supply and sanitation services provision to the poor 1/1 3has community participation and gender components 1/1 4Includes financing mechanism for pro-poor WSS services provision 1/1 Total Score3/4

Perspective 5: Service Provision Indicator 12: Quality of Sanitation services Data Collection: questionnaires Criteriaunit bench mark ValueScore slum 1 slum 2 slum 1 slum 2 1Distance from home m Facility is an improved technology Facility is only for single family use % Facility is clean Facility does not smell offensive % Facility is accessible to disabled persons Facility is safe for nightly use (by women) % Affordability (not investigated)%---- Total Score4/71/7 Assessment

Overall Assessment PerspectiveIndicator Score SLUM 1SLUM 2 Policies and capacities 1Political initiative and support3.7/4 2Capacity of regulating authority2.7/4 3Capacity of service provider2.5/4 Collaboration 4Inter agency collaboration3.5/4 5End user or Community participation0/21/2 Tools 6Mapping the poor0/4 7Pro-poor financial instruments2/4 8Pro-poor technology2/41/4 9Pro-poor incentivesn.a. Sustainability 10Innovation and learning2.5/4 11Durabilityn.a. Services provision 12Quality of pro-poor sanitation services4/71/7 13Quality of pro-poor water services6/8

Conclusions 1.The assessment component of the pro-poor benchmarking system is able to determine both the: o Capacity of the Key Stakeholders to enable services delivery to the poor o Performance in pro-poor services delivery 2.Information and data collection is enabled by a mix of secondary data, interviews, focus group discussions, questionnaires and observation (allowing some triangulation) 3.The system appears to yield internally coherent results suggesting linkages between deficiencies in enabling processes on the one hand and service quality on the other

3.Concerning the 13 indicators, the findings from the field suggests that: o Additional, in-slum indicators may be needed (e.g. events and socio-political dynamics in the slums) o The items and criteria that the indicators are made up of will need review and improvement o Sanitation needs to be distinguished from drinking water throughout 4.The benchmarking framework now covers a variety of actors that jointly enable/disable services provision to the poor, however: o Disaggregation of the framework to cover individual actors may be more effective Conclusions

THANK YOU