Working together: a ‘best practice’ in rural water supply and sanitation in Africa

Water-related diseases are the single largest cause of human sickness and death in the world. The majority of poor people lack adequate provision of water and sanitation. With traditional approaches failing to achieve international water and sanitation goals, several national programmes have undergone significant changes to improve the provision of these services, an essential aspect of poverty eradication. Participation from a wide range of actors – consumers, NGOs, the public and private sector – is now widely considered to be crucial for the effective delivery of these services.

Research from the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) analyses best practices among programmes in rural water and sanitation in developing countries. Case studies from Ghana, South Africa and Lesotho have exceeded the average progress for sub-Saharan Africa and offer valuable insights that could be applied in other nations.

By the early 1980s, African governments had established large, centrally managed water supply programmes. Conventional engineering solutions, however, established an infrastructure that was not sustainable in the long run. As a consequence, coverage rates were typically 20 to 40 percent for water and 10 to 30 percent for sanitation. Economic decline in later years worsened the situation.

In response to this crisis, political and professional leaders in the three case study countries took decisive steps to improve water and sanitation. While the countries adopted different policies and approaches, there are some general trends with regard to institutional reform. One of the main features was the inclusion of different stakeholders. Both local governments and local communities were given core responsibilities in implementing national programmes and managing day-to-day operations. Central agencies that began as implementers have moved on to a facilitating and regulating role. The private sector is active in providing goods and services such as repairs and spare parts supply.

The case studies emphasise several other factors that were important for success:

• A strong political leadership with a long-term commitment supported national programmes. As a result, even in times of political change, infrastructure investments were maintained.
• Devolution of responsibilities to local government brought more flexibility, accountability and participation. However, in several cases, local government did not have the capacity or expertise to maintain services.
• Public campaigns resulted in significant use of improved sanitation. This is significant as in some cultures it is embarrassing to talk about sanitation which has resulted in sanitation and hygiene lagging behind advances in water supply.

The national programmes examined have made considerable progress and service coverage has increased significantly. Several challenges remain that need to be addressed. This includes the need for appropriate technology, suitable to local conditions. Engineering-driven technologies may be difficult for local governments to maintain and for users to fund. There is also a trade-off between coverage/access and sustainability of services. With no cost-recovery of capital costs, dependence on external (donor) support or national support is likely to continue.

The research identifies the following policy measures to address some of these challenges:

• Devolution of powers needs to be combined with adequate capacity building of local governments to manage the work. In addition, a strong central agency needs to support local government where needed.
• Donor or national support should be carefully targeted to capital costs only, to avoid financial dependence of operation and maintenance of services so that they are sustainable in the long run.
• At the national level, political commitment must be long-term and legislation should clearly define the different roles of stakeholders.
• New strategies, technologies and services may need to be promoted to achieve take-up, especially of sanitation.

Water and sanitation programmes can be significantly improved through a number of reforms. In response to the failure of centrally managed programmes, institutional changes should include involving more stakeholders with specific roles, and empower them at the local level. Despite several challenges, such approaches made considerable progress in the countries studied and could be applied elsewhere.

Source(s):
‘Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in Africa’: by Jon Lane, presented at the ‘Global Learning Process on Scaling up Poverty Reduction’ Shanghai Conference, May 25-27, 2004, in Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank, June 2004 Full document.
Blue Gold: Building African Solutions for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Full document.

Funded by: Water and Sanitation Program

id21 Research Highlight: 26 January 2005

Further Information:
Jon Lane
Water and Sanitation Program-Africa
PO Box 30577
World Bank Hill Park Building
Upper Hill Road
Nairobi
Kenya

Tel: +245 (20)3226306
Fax: +254 (20)3226836
Contact the contributor: wspaf@worldbank.org

Water and Sanitation Program-Africa

Other related links:
Can South Africa’s rural poor be guaranteed water?

Tackling India’s rural water crisis: new developments in managing water supplies

Implementation of Water Supply & Sanitation Programmes under PRSPs

IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre

ODI Water Policy Programme