June 2011 Field Note t -- --- - =- - -- ~ - . I -- . ____ L _ Public Disclosure Authorized Promoting voice and accountability in urban water and sanitation services Lessons on introducing demand side accountability tools in Kenya Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Summary • Putting in place strategies to overcome the legal, institutional, technical and social barriers to service delivery within informal settlements. The introduction of the Citizen Report Card (CRC) tool in three Kenyan cities formed a basis for dialogue between citizenry and A less understood aspect of reform is how to ensure that utilities give corporate decision makers on urban water and sanitation issues. The CRC attention to the priorities of the poorest j replicates the private sector practice of collecting and acting on and most vulnerable customers. In particular sector players have often not consumer data for self~improvement, but applies it to public goods had the tools to take citizen views into and services, framed in an open and public consultative process. account when planning and implementing utility operations. The CRC tool was followed by institutionalized approaches to The capacity to tap into, and promoting social accountability, such as specialist civic networks strategically channel citizen voice is on the demand side, and reguJatory supported citizen monitoring an important factor when ensuring access to quality water and sanitation and feedback mechanisms on the supply side. This note and services in rapidly growing urban accompanying DVD describes the context, processes and results cities in developing countries. When services are inadequate or break of the initiative which seeks to increasingly bring citizens to the down, there is usually little pressure center of urban water and sanitation sector reforms. from citizens for service providers to address concerns, in particular those of the poor, who constitute the low revenue segments of the population. One reason for this is that citizens Background have lacked the organizational skills, experience, confidence and tools to Urbanization in Africa and reforming urban water and sanitation services exact accountability from sector decision In 2010, Africa experienced the fastest growth in urbanization worldwide, with current makers. On the other hand, utilities have estimates showing that by 2015 approximately 55% of all African residents will be not always put in place the mechanisms residing in cities (UNDP, 1991). Unless current approaches to urban development to receive and act on feedback from change radically, by 2020 almost half of this population (about 300 million people) will those using what is generally seen as a be living in shanties - areas that are unplanned and lack basic services such as water secondary level of service. and sanitation (World Bank, 1996). The process used in strengthening the voice of citizens in Kenya's urban To address the challenge of accessing urban water and sanitation services, informal water and sanitation sector is governments have embarked on reforms which aim at: the focus of this note. The section that • Improving the policy and regulatory framework and restructuring the industry to follows describes the background of the reduce political interference. initiative, and how the institutions created • ~stablishing ,!,odern management practices, professionalization of services, by the Water Act 2002 participated in improving utility financial viability, and reinvesting water revenues in operations and the process of receiving and acting on maintenance. feedback. 2 Urban water and sanitation in Kehya government and newly formed institutions Regulatory Board. The Ministry of Water The Government of Kenya embarked on as illustrated in Figure 1 below. and Irrigation was separated from water reforms to address the downward service delivery and charged solely with spiral of service delivery evidenced in the Three features defined the gist of formulating policy. Second, the reforms early 1990s. A new policy dir~tion was Kenya's water reforms; separation, provided enhanced decentralization set through the Kenya Session Paper decentralization and participation. of service delivery. The expectation no. 1 of 1999, the 'National Water Policy First, separate regulatory institutions was that by holding jurisdiction over on Water Resources Management and were created for the management of smaller areas, decentralized institut,ions Development.' To bring this into effect, water resources, now under the Water would provide more effective planning the government enacted the Water Act Resources Management Authority, and and supervision of services than the 2002 which delineates the roles of central service delivery, under the Water Services centralized ones of the past. Accordingly, Figure 1: Institutional framework of the Water Act 2002 Source: Water Sector Reform Program, GTZ the government established and licensed To address sanitation and hygiene the rights and responsibilities and strengthen eight independent water services boards Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation the provider - client relationship. across the country. These boards were developed a new National Hygiene The accountability framework required to provide services within their and Environmental Sanitation Policy. The World Bank's World Development jurisdiction, primarily. through agents However, unlike the water sector an Act Report (Making Services Work for Poor who sign Service Provision Agreements. of Parliament is yet to be developed to People, 2004) argues that successful These agents, although owned by local put the sanitation policy into effect. services need relationships in which authorities, were required to create clients can monitor and pressure autonomous and commercially run providers (client power). It also contends companies and plough back water In a shift from the past, one of the water that citizens can have a strong voice in revenues to finance operation and reform's stated goals was to increase policy making and regulation through maintenance. stakeholder and beneficiary involvement politicians and bureaucrats (the voice), in sector activities. As the reforms while politicians and policy makers create In summary the key institutions created unfolded, citizens remained unaware of the incentives for providers to service for water and sanitation services by the the expected benefits of the reforms, not clients (the compact). Water Act 2002 are: understanding who was responsible for The accountability framework suggests • The Ministry of Water and Irrigation what. In this situation, citizens did not that citizen voice and client power can (MWI) responsible for policy demand improved levels of service from serve as elements for improving service formulation and overall sector institutions which were now required to delivery. Citizen voice can draw attention coordination. adhere to new service benchmarks.The to and negotiate compliance in the • Water Services Boards (WSB) Water and Sanitation Program recognized compact at on ~ level, and organized responsible for asset holding and that social accountability tools could clients can cat~lyze responses within development and ensuring service contribute to citizen awareness of their service organizations at another. delivery through Water Service Providers. • Water Service Providers (WSP) Figure 2: Accountability framework responsible for providing services to customers. WSPs, otherwise referred to as utilities or water and sewerage companies, are loca ~ government owned commercial entities operating under contractual Service Provision Long route of accountability Agreements. • The Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) responsible for: setting Short route and enforcing standards within the sector and issuing licenses to water providers; advising WSPs on Client Power procedures for dealing with consumer complaints; consumer protection; developing guidelines for tariff Services setting; and developing performance agreements between WSPs and WSBs. Source: World Development Report, 2004 4 CRC, which ranged from civil SOciety Box 2. What is a Citizen Report Card? organizations, resident representatives and service providers up to national level policy making organizations such as The citizen report card (CRG) was pioneered by the Public Affairs Center in Bangalore, India, as a tool to provide public agencies with systematic feedback from users of public the ministries responsible for water and services. sanitation. CRCs are compiled from data on consumer perceptions collected during a random sample survey of the users of services. The responses are aggregaled in order to rate the The consortia services, and released publicly in concise reports called report cards. City level consortia became the center of the CRC process forming direct CRCs were repeated in Bangalore every two or three years, and in this way were used links between the service provider and to monitor improvements over time and benchmark agencies' progress. The CRC is the experience of citizens as told by citizens. citizens, so that citizens could receive information on the reforms and water and How can a citizen report card be used? sanitation issues. The consortia provided an avenue for the voices of the poor The information provided in a CRC may be helpful to: through their resident representatives. • Citizens, as a basis for dialogue with service providers. • Policy makers, in policy formulation and targeting