Name of the Lecturer: Maarten Blokland

Organization: UNESCO-IHE

Country: Delft, The Netherlands

Governance of Decentralized Sanitation

Pro-poor Benchmarking of WatSanServices

• Introduction to Benchmarking (#1)• Rationale for pro-poor benchmarking (#2)• Framework for pro-poor benchmarking (#3)• Methodology (#4)• Assessment and Results (#5)

Structure

Topic 1:

Introduction to Benchmarking

Topic 1

Introduction

Source: Fong, 1998

Benchmarking definitions:• Harrington (1995): “a continuous process to compare

with the best practices, to project future trends in them, and to implement them in order to meet and exceed customer expectations.

• Watson (1993): “a continuous search for and application of significantly better practices that leads to superior competitive performance”

• Boxwell (1994): “is about setting goals by using objective, external standards and learning from others, with the emphasizes in learning “how” rather than “how much

Introduction

Performance Indicators

– Water Resources (4):– Personnel (26):– Physical indicators (15)– Operational indicators (40)– Quality of service indicators (34)– Economic and financial indicators (47)

Tynan and Kingdom (7 indicators)

– Operational efficiency (1)– Cost recovery (1)– Commercial performance (1)– Coverage and access (1)– Asset maintenance (1)– Service quality (1)– Price and affordability (1)

International Water Association (166 indicators)

Performance Indicators

Operational Efficiency

Recommendation: 5 staff/1000 connectionsSource: Tynan and Kingdom, 2002

Application

Performance assessment: comparison over time

Is the utility improving its performance?

KPI 2000 2001 2002

Population served 460,900 480,000 538,600

Water supply connections 94,724 112,427 131,136

No of Employees 713 730 762

Unaccounted for water 24% 28% 32%

Working Ratio 0.82 0.67 0.62

Staff per 1000 connections 7.20 6.49 5.66

Service coverage – water supply 75% 80% 85%

Average domestic tariff (US$/m3) 0.30 0.40 0.45

Voluntary Benchmarking

% of customer calls answered within 20 seconds

Performance of worst performers improved significantly

Vewin: 10 Dutch water supply companies

Source: VEWIN, 2007, 2010

Benchmarking by Regulators

Zambian Regulator NWASCO

Topic 2:

Rationale for Pro-poor Benchmarking

Topic 2

Water and Sanitation Access 2011S

am

ple

of

larg

e

co

un

trie

s

Sanitation Drinking water supply

imp

rove

dunimproved %

access gainsince 1995

improved

un

imp

rove

d

Su

rfa

ce

wa

ter

% access

gain since 1995

sh

are

d

oth

er

un

imp

rov

ed

op

en

d

efe

ca

tio

n tota

l im

pro

ve

d

pip

ed

oth

er

imp

rove

d

Brazil 81 1 14 4 +23 97 92 5 2 1 +22

Mexico 85 11 3 1 +28 94 90 4 6 0 +26

S-Africa 74 8 11 7 +20 91 69 22 5 4 +23

Nigeria 31 24 22 23 +6 61 4 57 25 14 +26

Egypt 95 5 0 0 +36 99 96 3 1 0 +28

Iran 100 - 0 0 +33 95 93 2 5 0 +22

India 35 9 6 50 +19 92 25 67 7 1 +33

B’desh 55 27 14 4 +23 83 10 73 16 1 +23

China 65 19 5 1 +34 92 70 22 7 1 +25

Indonesia 59 10 7 24 +25 84 21 64 14 2 +24

Improved/Unimproved

Inequity

The poor are two to five times less likely to use improved facilities than the rich

SANITATION

DRINKING WATER

Focus of pro-poor benchmarking

• the (political) resolve to supply services and remove obstacles (pro-poor policies, regulation, land issues)

• pro-poor technology (such as water kiosks, public standposts, public and multi-family latrines, small bore sewers, etc..)

• affordable services (tariffs, connection fees, flexibility to pay arrears, targeted subsidies, micro-credit, etc.)

• effective, innovative and sustainable institutional arrangements (utility partnerships with small scale private providers, Govt/Utility/NGO/CBO/Community cooperation, community self-help schemes, etc.)

Factors known to favor pro-poor services

Topic 3:

Framework for

Pro-poor indicators

Topic 3

Benchmarking Perspectives

Balanced Score Card:

Source: Norton and Kaplan, 2007

Perspectives >>> Indicators

Sustainable Balanced Score Card (SBSC):

Sample SBSC:

6 perspectives: the 4 ‘old’ BSC ones + 2 new ones: social and environmental performance, including KPIs with current and target values

Benchmarking perspectives

SBSC, Vewin and UvW perspectives compared

SBSC Vewin(Dutch water supply)

UvW(Dutch wastewater)

Product Drinking Water Quality Wastewater Treatment

Customer Service Quality

Finance Finance and Efficiency Finance

Innovation Innovation

Environment Environmental Environment

Social Stakeholders

Benchmarking perspectives

ToolsMapping the poorPro poor financial mechanismsPro poor technology

SustainabilityInnovation and learningDurability

CollaborationInter agency collaborationUser participation

PreparednessCapacity of local government organizationCapacity of WSS providersPolitical initiatives and support

Services provisionQuality of pro poor sanitationQuality of pro poor water supply

5 Pro-poor Perspectives:

- Policies, arrangements and capacities

- Collaboration- Tools- Sustainability- Services Provision

Policies, arrangementsand capacities

Topic 4:

Methodology

Topic 4

Perspective and Indicators

Perspective Party being

benchmarked Number and name of the Indicator

Policies,

arrangements

and capacities

Government 1 Political initiative and support

Regulator 2 Capacity of the regulating authority

Service provider 3 Capacity of the service provider

Collaboration

All 4 Inter agency collaboration

User community 5 Community leadership and outreach

User community 6 Community involvement and participation

Tools

Service provider 7 Mapping the poor

Service provider 8 Pro-poor financial instruments

Service provider 9 Pro-poor technology

Service provider 10 Pro-poor incentives

Sustainability Regulator and

Service provider11 Innovation and learning

Services End users 12 Quality of pro poor sanitation services

End users 13 Quality of pro poor water supply services

• Government/regulators/municipality – policy,

• Legislation, regulation, resource allocation,

• Collaboration, incentives, compliance

• Utility – capacity, incentives, tools, collaboration,

• Sustainability

• CSOs/communities – collaboration

• Slum dwellers (end users) – appreciation of services

Parties subject to assessment and areas of assesment

Assessment Framework

P Indicator Items Variables

11 Political initiative and support 6 262 Capacity of the regulating authority 2 163 Capacity of the service provider 2 8

24 Inter agency collaboration 4 165 Community leadership and outreach 2 86 End user or community participation 2 8

3

7 Mapping the poor 2 88 Pro-poor financial instruments 2 79 Pro-poor technology 2 8

10 Pro-poor incentives 2 84 11 Innovation and Learning 2 8

512 Quality of pro poor sanitation services 1 813 Quality of pro poor water supply services 1 10

5 13 TOTALS 30 139

Methodology

1 Political

Initiativ

e and

support

Regulator Sanitation

Sets a pro-poor tariff (social tariff) for

sanitation services

Uses pro-poor indicators to monitor WSP

sanitation services performance

Reports performance of WSPs in terms of

sanitation services provision to the poor

Communicates pro-poor performance of WSP

sanitation services to the stakeholders

including slum dwellers

Semi

Structured

interview

Stakeholder

interview

guide

Indicator Party being

benchmark

ed

Variables for investigations Data collection

method

Data

collection

tool

Methodology

9 Pro-

poor

technol

ogy

Service

Provider

Sanitation

Evidence of action research or pilot projects in

support of the choice of appropriate

technologies for the provision of sanitation

services to the poor

Evidence of the rolling out at scale by the WSP

of selected technologies for the provision of

improved sanitation services to the poor

Evidence of the regular and satisfactory

functioning of pro-poor sanitation

technologies

Evidence of adequate financial resources and

stocks of spare parts to ensure the effective

functioning of pro-poor sanitation technology

Semi

structured

interview

Stakeholder

interview

guide

Indicator Party being

benchmark

ed

Variables for investigations Data collection

method

Data

collection

tool

Methodology

1

3

Quality

of pro

poor

sanitatio

n

services

End Users Sanitation

Distance to the facility

Facility is an improved technology

Facility is accessible 24/7

Facility is for single family use

Facility is clean

Facility has no offensive smell

Facility is suitable for disabled persons

Facility is safe for use at night (by women)

Facility is affordable

General customer satisfaction

Interview

Some

outcomes may

be compared

with data

provided by

regulators,

service

providers or

other

stakeholders

through

interviews or

reports

Questionnair

e

Indicator Party being

benchmark

ed

Variables for investigations Data collection

method

Data

collection

tool

Topic 5:

Assessment and Results

Topic 5

Assessment

Perspective 1: 'Policies, Arrangements and Capacity', Policies, Strategies, Capacities

Indicator 1: Political initiative and support

Item 4: Existence of Legislation - Sanitation – Evidence (YES/NO)

Variable Score Source Remarks

Legislation elaborates sanitation services provision to the poor

0/1

Legislation provides an institutional framework for sanitation services provision to the poor

1/1

Legislation provides implementation mechanisms

1/1

Legislation provides a monitoring and evaluation framework

1/1

Legislation provides a financing

mechanism for sanitation services

provision to the poor

0/1

Total score for item 4 3/5

Assessment

Perspective 5: Service ProvisionIndicator 12: Quality of Sanitation services

Variableuni

tbenchmark

Value slum Score slum

1 2 1 2

1 Distance from home m 50 21 75 1 0

2 Facility is an improved technology % 75 100 80 1 1

3 Facility is accessible 24/7 (not included) - - - - - -

4 Facility is only for single family use % 75 2 0 0 0

5 Facility is clean % 75 77 64 1 0

6 Facility does not smell offensive % 75 30 32 0 0

7 Facility is accessible to disabled persons % 75 0 0 0 0

8 Facility is safe for nightly use by women % 75 77 50 1 0

9 Affordability (not included) - - - - - -

10 General customer satisfaction (not incl) - - - - - -

Total Score 4/7 1/7

Overall Results

Perspective Indicator ScoreSLUM 1 SLUM 2

Policiesand capacities

1 Political initiative and support 3.7/4 3.7/42 Capacity of regulating authority 2.7/4 2.7/43 Capacity of service provider 2.5/4 2.5/4

Collaboration4 Inter agency collaboration 3.5/4 3.5/45 End user or Community participation 0/2 1/2

Tools

6 Mapping the poor 0/4 0/47 Pro-poor financial instruments 2/4 2/48 Pro-poor technology 2/4 1/49 Pro-poor incentives n.a. n.a.

Sustainability10 Innovation and learning 2.5/4 2.5/411 Durability n.a. n.a.

Services provision

12 Quality of pro-poor sanitation services 4/7 1/713 Quality of pro-poor water services 6/8 6/8