Your organisation is doing post-implementation monitoring of water systems and detects a serious problem. What to do? This guidance document, published by Improve International, helps in the resolution of those problems.
Published on: 22/10/2014
This document defines resolution as the process of addressing problems identified through post-implementation monitoring and/or evaluation. Resolution reflects the concept that those implementing organizations that are made aware that water systems they have built are non-functional or need major repair are responsible for responding. There is resounding agreement in the water development sector that rural communities in developing countries need some sort of support after installation of water points. Key questions for implementing organizations, donors, and local stakeholders are:
These questions are addressed in this report by Susan Davis of Improve International, based on interviews with experts and practitioners around the world, a literature review and the compilation of case studies. The document argues that ideally, resolution activities should be a bridge to sustained, locally-led services. While implementing organizations have a responsibility at a certain level, the goal is for governments to lead the way in ensuring water services for everyone in their countries. These guidelines, approaches, and models are intended to move implementing organizations toward that common goal.
The report argues that if installing infrastructure did not lead to ongoing services, just rehabilitating the same infrastructure will not lead to ongoing services either. Rehabilitation—major repairs to existing dysfunctional water points—is fairly common in many water supply interventions, mainly because it is less expensive than building new water points. However, rehabilitation programs use the same training and management that led to the breakdown. Or worse, rehabilitation programs just repair the water points without any additional support. Because of the trend towards obtaining community capital contributions to water systems, when those water systems fail, implementing organizations are making poor people poorer. Rather than just fixing the immediate problem (broken infrastructure), implementing organizations should find and address the root causes of why the water point failed. The guidelines provide a series of pointers towards common root causes are - in the institutional, financial, environmental, social and technical domains.
There is no consensus or evidence for how long an implementing organization should be responsible for the services provided by systems it has built; however, 10 years as a maximum was suggested by several organizations at the Resolution Workshop, with checks either annually or at three-, five- and 10-year intervals post-implementation. This monitoring can be done in partnership with local governments or other entities to reduce the burden on the implementing organization. Whatever the time frame, monitoring increments need to be supported from the initial project planning stages and reflected in the budget.
It is still a misconception that building water supply systems is more important than keeping them working.
While many implementing organizations initially balk at the idea of having to pay past the initial investment, under the misconception that "building water supply systems is more important than keeping them working" , it must recognized that if the intent is to save or change people's lives, the water must flow forever. The sector is already paying for failure through the costs of rehabilitation. Not all costs need to be covered from one source: Implementing organizations should insist on cost-sharing from users, local government and/or central government. Based on studies of several types of post-construction (also called direct) support, average expenditure is $2.50 USD per person per year. Another way to plan for costs is to dedicate a minimum of 10% of capital costs per year per system for post-construction support.
