The Hows and Whys of Water Connection Charges

High and upfront water connection charges often act as a major barrier to connecting the poor. So why charge for a connection? Mobile companies provide free phones to attract subscribers. Supermarkets do not charge entrance fees to potential shoppers. Why can this not be applied to water services?

There are several answers-from tradition to requiring proof of creditworthiness and willingness to pay, availing of a cheap funding source, and creating artificial bottlenecks to cater to vested interests. Whatever the utilities’ reasons are, one thing is clear-connections should be paid since installing them involves legitimate costs that need to be covered.

Fortunately, the prevailing practice of collecting fees upfront is now being challenged by innovative solutions that reach out to the poor while simultaneously giving utilities good business. Governments, municipalities, water utilities, and donors, including the Asian Development Bank (ADB), should explore these alternatives when designing water supply and sanitation projects, and pursue the elimination of upfront payment of full connection fees through other options, including an all-inclusive water tariff
Read the full ADB issue paper

Who Pays for Water? a case study of action learning in the islands of the Caribbean

Who Pays for Water? a case study of action learning in the islands of the Caribbean
Sarah McIntosh, Nicole Leotaud, Duncan Macqueen
Knowledge Management for Development Journal, Vol 4, No 1 (2008) p. 42-58
Full article

Abstract

This paper documents a case study of knowledge management and sharing in the Caribbean. The case study documents an action learning project on payments for watershed services (PWS) and their potential to enhance rural livelihoods, which is more fully described in the final project report (McIntosh and Leotaud 2007).

The paper considers how action learning contributed to knowledge sharing about economic instruments for watershed management and their potential to contribute to improved rural livelihoods. It documents the approach taken to action learning in a region comprising many small islands with differing institutions. It also examines the value of the partnership between a southern and a northern non-governmental organisation (respectively the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute and the International Institute for Environment and Development) and compares the Caribbean process with those in the other project countries. Finally, it identifies ways in which the action learning process could be further enhanced and adapted to the region, and how these are being incorporated into a new action learning programme on Forests and Livelihoods.

Global Water Partnership: joint donor external evaluation

The Global Water Partnership (GWP) was established in 1996 as an international network promoting an integrated approach to water resources management. The Performance Assessment Resource Centre (PARC) carried out an evaluation of the GWP for its Joint Donor Group of six European bilaterals (Denmark, UK, Netherlands, Germany, Norway and Sweden). The evaluation focuses on the 2004-2008 strategy period.

One of the main achievements of the GWP was that it has expanded from 28 Country Water Partnerships (CWPs) to 71 and from 9 Regional Technical Advisory Committees (RTACs) to 12 Regional Water Partnerships (RWPs) during this strategy period. The number of members has tripled from 600 to over 1800. There is also a greater awareness of IWRM across the network.

A major challenge is that GWP’s international policy advocacy has not kept pace with emerging issues. Whilst the central message of IWRM is still valid, the global advocacy role needs reinvigoration to remain relevant and demonstrate that GWP is abreast of topical issues that affect its members. The financial sustainability at any level of the partnership was said to be doubtful.

A key recommendation is for the GWP to re-position itself as a globally recognised advocate of IWRM that clearly articulates the relationship between IWRM and emerging global challenges. The regions should become stronger and technically support the countries. Most resources should go to the country, then regional, then HO level.

Read the full evaluation report here

Local governance: the critical challenges facing urban municipalities in India

A paper from the Asia Research Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science in the UK examines recent urban sector reforms and their implications for urban governance in India. Data was obtained on key local government characteristics for six urban centres based in the northern and north-western states of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttaranchal in India. The key characteristics include constitution and governance, duties, composition, management and finance practices, and state/local-level initiatives and problems.

The study found that India’s urban local governments are overwhelmed by critical problems that affect their ability to carry out their duties efficiently. The study identifies several important questions that Indian municipalities must address if appropriate solutions are to be found.

Read more: id21, 22 Jan 2008

Watershed development: evaluating social impacts in India

Research from Oxford University, in the UK, evaluates the social impacts of watershed development in Madhya Pradesh, India. ‘Propensity score matching‘ was used to compare the impacts from a control micro-watershed, where no interventions had taken place, and a treated micro-watershed.

The analysis focuses on changes in agricultural income and access to domestic water following several development interventions in the treated watershed. These include pond construction, tree planting and water harvesting terraces.

One of the findings was that there was a reduction in domestic water collection times for those households that had previously spent the longest time collecting water. However, despite these benefits, the majority of people were still without basic access to water.

To achieve more effective development impacts, there is a need for more rigorous and objective evaluation methods.

Read more: id21, 5 Apr 2008

Sanitation and hygiene: responding to challenges, lessons from Burkina Faso

Safe hygiene practices and access to sanitation are crucial for combating the main health threats to children. However, nearly twice as many people lack access to sanitation compared with water supply. Is it time to stop aligning sanitation and health (S&H) policies so closely with water management policy?

A paper from Tearfund, researched and written by ACCEDES, one of Tearfund’s local partners, together with the Overseas Development Institute, in the UK, investigates barriers to sanitation and hygiene promotion in five villages in Burkina Faso.

Read more: id21, 14 Mar 2008