A comparative analysis of public-private partnerships for piped rural water services in East Africa

Transcription

1 A comparative analysis of public-private partnerships for piped rural water services in East Africa Dr. Peter Harvey Chief, Water, Sanitation & Education Centre, UNICEF Supply Division Nancy Balfour Director, Centre for Humanitarian Change

2 Study objectives A multi-country study in East Africa incorporating comparative analysis across countries and systems to assess the successes, challenges and sustainability of PPP s for rural water service delivery. The study aimed to measure the performance of selected PPPs against community-based management (CBM) for similar rural water supply systems in three countries: Burundi, Kenya and Rwanda.

3 Methodology A total of 16 piped water supply schemes (motorized or gravity-fed) were studied across the three countries: 5 in Rwanda (3 PPP and 2 CBM); 6 in Burundi (5 PPP and 1 CBM); and 5 in Kenya (3 PPP and 2 CBM). Key stakeholder interviews to collect background information on the enabling environment, performance of schemes, perceived changes in efficiency under PPP, and challenges and successes under different management models. A quantitative survey was also administered to measure performance of the selected water schemes against standard indicators. The broad performance areas considered were: Investment; Efficiency of supply; Management (financial and technical); Governance; and User satisfaction.

4 Performance Area Performance indicator Indicator values/benchmarks Investment Capital investment High (> $100,000) Medium (50-100,000) Low <50,000 zero Upgrading services & systems Extensive (> 200 new connections/start of contract) Moderate ( new connections/yr) limited (<50) Efficiency of supply non accounted for water Low (<) Moderate (20-) High (>) Water quality High (> 9 samples meet standards) Medium (80-9 samples meet standards) Low (< samples meet standards) Metering Yes (all water sales metered) No (some or none of water sales metered) Hours of supply Continuous (24hrs) Moderate (>12 hrs/d) Limited (<12hrs/d) Water coverage High (>80 residents served) Moderate (50- residents Low (< residents served) served) Average down time Low (<4 days) Moderate (<10 days) High (>10 days) Management Revenue collection efficiency High (< fees outstanding > 1 (financial & technical) month) O&M cost recovery High (10 O&M costs covered from revenue annually) Governance Users satisfaction Planning Staff management Meetings of oversight committee Feedback to users Costs to households (relative to monthly income) Good (Budget & Plan exists) High (Daily supervision & work reports) Regular (> 1/quarter) Systematic (system in place and feedback regular) Affordable (< av monthly income) Moderate (20- fees outstanding >1 month) Moderate (> O&M costs covered from revenue annually) Moderate (Plan exists but not used) Moderate (weekly supervision & work reports) Periodic (1/6 months) Informal (occasional via public meeting) Affordable only to wealthy ( av monthly income) perceived value for money High Moderate Low service satisfaction levels High (no complaints) Medium (some improvements needed) Low (> fees outstanding > 1 month) Low (< O&M costs covered from revenue annually) Weak (No plan or budget) Low (limited or no supervision & no records) Infrequent (annual or less) None Not affordable (> av monthly income) Low (need major improvement) Not tested

5 Investment in private assets 10 9 $ 50,000- $ 100,000 <$ 50,000 Zero Community Private Community Private Community Private Burundi Kenya Rwanda

6 Metering of connections 10 9 Some or none All metered Burundi Kenya Rwanda Burundi Kenya Rwanda Community Private

7 Relative downtime Days > 10 Days < 4 Days Burundi Kenya Rwanda Burundi Kenya Rwanda Community Private

8 User satisfaction fees outstanding Moderate fees outstanding 8 High > fees outstanding 2 Community Private Community Private Perceived value for money of different RWS services Proportion of operators with fees outstanding >1 month

9 Planning and budgeting 10 9 Plan exists but not used No plan or budget Budget & Plan exists Burundi Kenya Rwanda Burundi Kenya Rwanda Community Private

10 Overall performance User Satisfaction Governance Management Efficiency Investment 9 CBM (%) PPP (%)

11 Conclusions PPP schemes appeared to be performing slightly better than the CBMs. 72% But for key areas such as efficiency the CBM schemes were performing better. Very few of the private operators were making a profit yet. Service providers were not measuring or using key performance indicators (KPI). 58% CBM (%) PPP (%) In both PPP and CBM schemes the key to success seemed to be effective capacity building at all levels (and time). Average Performance

12 Recommendations KPIs should be applied systematically and better performance data should be collected across schemes. Clearer systems of business planning and performance review could help the private operators to understand their profitability better. Additional mentoring, follow up and training is needed for new private operators to operate efficiently and fulfill their obligations under PPP agreements Ongoing capacity building should be built into local government support and regulation systems.

13 Thank you UNICEF/SUDA2014-XX228/Noorani