1. Sector wide approaches in the water sector Earliest orgins can be traced to the comprehensive development frameworks of 1990s as response to increasing fragmentation of donor assisatance Further impetus in the 1990s by the HIPC initatives and the povery reduction strategies – these become an overarching mechanism for donors Some donors e.g. Dutch in 1998 adopted SWAps as the basis for all development aid Paris Declaration 2005 gave fresh impetus as it oblighed more than 50% of all aid should be provided by programme based approaches Since 2005 there has been a recognition that SWAps were not just about financial modalities and not just an instrument of aid 1

2. SWAPs respond to: Fragmented approach of the project approach Realisation that a sector approach is highly relevant to strengthening systems from within (by working outside the sytems projects undermined them) SWAPs can be defined as an organisation principle and a pragmatic approach to planning and management that: Identfies inter-related sector constraints and opportunities Addresses constraints and opportunities that require coordinated action Strengthen link between policy, budget and results Sector wide approaches in the water sector

3. Study rationale Study context There is no systematic summary of actual experience of SWAps in the water sector There is now a 10 year + experience of implementing SWAps in the water sector but the experience and information is not well captured Huge resources are being put into water sector SWAps and there are large expectations of the results there is a need to gather evidence on how well they work and what works and what does not This study aims at adding/updating the body of information on best practices on supporting water sector policy programmes; being a source of inspiration to those engaged in the process of moving external aid funding of water sector programmes towards more aligned sector approaches; providing a structure, tool and departure point for gathering experiences: providing an overview of options and steps for moving towards a sector approach; isolating factors, conditions and criteria that favour particular options and steps. 3

4. Study limits The absence of solid documentation of SWAps in the water sector – data is not reliable Very difficult to attribute success or failure to SWAp – no counterfactual The highly dynamic timeline –experiences have to be interpreted in their context - progress is often stop/start Sector wide approaches should be partner country led but many are donor led – not easy to determine the ownership Issues are common to all sectors but focus is on water This study should build on rather than repeat earlier work The need to collaborate with other agencies involved in providing programmatic support to the water sector – EU and African Development Bank are joining forces 4

5. The 5 study outputs General SWAp Policy Coordination Financial Institutions Monitoring Special features of the water sector Long list of challenges /opportunities Prioritisation of challenges / opportunities Detailed analysis 10 high priority challenges /opportunities Sector scope Coordination issues Policy issues Capacity issues Monitoring issues Finance issues 5) Recommendations 2) Case studies (7) : 3) Analysis of challenges / opportunities 3) Analysis of challenges / opportunities 4) Identify and compare options Analysis/ Synthesis Data 1) Literature review Water SWAp Case study 5

6. 6 Case studies CountryRational BoliviaHighly politicised context –domestic accountability Burkina FasoLong history of multi-donor cooperation JordanMENA region – water scarcity – water reforms LesothoMassive investment – sector budget support arrangement Senegal South AfricaMedium income country with strong institutions UgandaLong history of Finance ministry initiated SWAp Main criteria Needs to illustrate a key feature Should have long experience (3 years +) Documentation should be available Together a range of how the water sector is defined should be included Focus on africa

7. 7 Score card Criteria - policy Is recent policy for the water sector in place? Is there a prioritised strategy, policy implementation plan? Is the policy linked to PRSP / national development plans? Is the policy implemented in practice? Are policy targets being met? Has SWAp contributed to the policy environment? Criteria - Finance Is there a sector investment plan? Is donor funding linked to the SIP? Are sub-sector allocations policy directed? Is spending linked to policy and results? Is multiyear sector MTEF in place? Is the disbursement /expenditure level satisfactory Has SWAp influenced aid modalities? Has SWAp influenced unit costs? Has SWAp led to increased donor funding? Has Swap improved environment - NSA? Criteria - coordination Is domestic coordination effective - vertical? Is domestic coordination effective – horizontal? Is donor sector coordination effective? Is the private sector and civil society involved? Is there a code of conduct/partnership principles? Is the SWAp country led and owned? Does the SWAp cover rural/Urban WSS, WRM? Has Swap improved coordination?

8. 8 Score card Criteria – institutional capacity Are sector mandates/institutions policy aligned? Have needed reforms been designed? Are the reforms being implemented? Is donor support to institutions/reforms effective? Has sector capacity increased? Is donor support to capacity effective? Has SWAp improved institutional performance? Has SWAp improved sector capacity? Criteria – Monitoring and Accountability Is there a performance measurement framework? Are the sector indicators appropriate? Is the data considered high quality and reliable? Is there regular reporting and (annual) review? Is the sector well governed? Has SWAp improved monitoring Has Swap improved sector governance? Criteria – implementation Efficiency of urban WSS sector? Functionality of rural sector? Is the sector financially viable (O&M, expansion) Is the environmental performance adequate? Are there water rights in place? Are there IWRM plans for major basins? Av. annual coverage increase since SWAp (date) Criteria - PFM Is there a PFM framework in place? Is there VFM & effective procurement? Has SWAp contributed to sector PFM Criteria – Macro-economic context National budget % is allocated to water sector Has there been political stability and leadership? Has SWAp contributed to political economy

9. 9 Who is going to use it and for what Any place where it works? We have had a lot of manuals – SWAP is put forward as a magic solution there is an absence of feed back from real experience Experience from this study will lead to greater flexibility in how to apply - there are many ways of killing a cat The limits to the modality need to be better understood Better definition of what is success – what can we expect from a SWAP? Is it coverage or sustainable services? Ukraine – the SWAp (environment) changed the mind of policy makers – the isolated projects worked well – SWAP was initially started as a big project…ultimately, the dialogue lead to a process of developing far reaching environmental strategy and policies for the first time

10. Who is going to use it and for what EIB is not a donor but a bank – how can SWAP be used/ be useful for banks? E.g. SBS is not relevant, general studies cannot be financed. Even for project orientated banks, the SWAp is important for establishing a strong enabling environment – the 3 Gs The Study could show how projects can work well with and benefit from a SWAP (or illustrate the problems of doing this) SWAps can help reduce ad hoc political interference – study can help to see how donors can react to such difficult situations - Issue of timing is important Some do not support SWAPs for a variety of reasons …perverse benefits of not adopting SWAp – can it work when many are against? We must realise that our own facilities and projects often work against Nigeria – reluctance to coordinate nationally, at the state level it is much more promising