1 / 40

Restructuring Cities for Efficient Service Delivery

Restructuring Cities for Efficient Service Delivery. Vivek Srivastava WSP-SA ASCI-WBI Program on “Strengthening Urban Management - Unlocking the Potential of Indian Cities” Hyderabad January 24 2003. Productive Cities as Centers of Growth. The Context.

leda
Download Presentation

Restructuring Cities for Efficient Service Delivery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Restructuring Cities for Efficient Service Delivery Vivek Srivastava WSP-SA ASCI-WBI Program on “Strengthening Urban Management - Unlocking the Potential of Indian Cities” Hyderabad January 24 2003

  2. Productive Cities as Centers of Growth

  3. The Context • A New Global SettingUrban Millennium • A New Management Challenge Creating World Class-Cities

  4. Share of Cities in GNP

  5. Important Implication • Municipal service delivery cannot be seen in isolated context; • How municipal services come together to serve the city-economy; • Managing cities to be credit worthy • National economic growth and poverty reduction efforts will be increasingly determined by the productivity of cities and towns

  6. Models of Urban Governance

  7. Which Model of City Governance? • Metropolitan Government • Metropolitan Government with Economic Decentralization • Metropolitan Government with Political Decentralization

  8. Key Differences • In the politically decentralized model, political and fiscal power is shared between the metropolitan and municipal tier.The metropolitan tier and municipalities jointly keep each other in check. • In the economic decentralized model, political and fiscal powers resides at the metropolitan level. The regions are de-concentratedarms of the metro unlike the independent municipalities of the first model

  9. Similarities • Fiscal and political power is devolved to city governments. • Both models adopt corporate structures for the financing and delivery of municipal services with user-charges. • In both models the city has share ownership with expected dividends from the corporations. • Danger of political deadlock.

  10. Evaluating Decentralization Political Stability Quality of Public Services Equity Horizontal (inter-state/city) Within state/city Impact of Macro-economic Stability

  11. Issues in Service Delivery

  12. The Problem • Chronic poor performance is the rule rather than the exception in many publicly run municipal services • Technical losses • Poor cost recovery • Subsidies do not reach the poor

  13. Current Situation - Water • Technical and commercial losses • “filling the leaking bucket” • 3 hour connectivity • Poor quality of service • High coping costs • Low Tariffs • Fiscally and financially unsustainable

  14. Policy • Define the Objectives • 24-hour supply • Clean water • Extended Access • Define the Rules Regulation Delivery • Enforce the Rules • Monitor Compliance • Regulate Pricing • Deliver the Service • Play by the Rules Why?The Judge, The Jury and the Executioner are the Same! .

  15. Goals • 24 hour delivery • coverage for by all: geographic and household • quality • pressure

  16. Elements of Separation • Government ownership of some form • Public good nature of water • Sustainability as a resource: time and quality • Attacking poverty • Business approach to delivery • Private good nature of water • Demand driven; customer responsive • Independent regulation

  17. City Restructuring:Johannesburg Example

  18. Johannesburg’s Original Structure • 4 municipalities and one metro • Fragmented: no economies of scale • Duplication of service delivery • Typical line function responsibility • No integrated planning

  19. IGOLI 2000 • Program A: Utilities • Water and Sanitation, Power Distribution, Waste Management • Program B: Agencies • Roads and Stormwater, Parks and Cemeteries • Program C: Privatize • Metro Gas, Airport, Stadiums, Power Generation • Program D: Corporatize • Zoo, Bus Co., Market, Property and Project • Program E: Traditional Governance • Admin, HR, Planning, Budget, Finance, Community Services, Welfare, etc.

  20. Metropolitan Government • Spatial Planning • Fiscal Budget • Local Economy Water & Sanitation • Slum-upgrading • Primary Health • Peoples Center R1 Waste Delivery Electricity Contract R2 IT Fiscal Surplus Transport/Roads R11 Restructuring of Johannesburg

  21. PSP Options for Service Delivery

  22. Why PSP? • Efficiency • Flexibility in procurement • Appropriate incentives • Technology • Investment • Accountability

  23. The Basic Options Compared

  24. Large City Utility

  25. The potential PPP • A public asset holding corporation (AHC) with • state and municipal shareholders • A private operating company (PO) with • with shareholder agreement with domestic and international partners • holding a concession contract with AHC • Appropriate mix of public and private finance • Appropriate division of risks between AHC and PO • A competent autonomous regulator

  26. State Govt. Municipalities shareholders Asset Holding Company contract Service delivery obligations Access by poor Pricing and subsidies O&M Human resource management Investment expansion Regulator Operating Company

  27. Medium and Small Towns

  28. Need of Alternative Management Model • Too big to be managed by communities • Large and dense enough to benefit from economies of scale offered by piped water systems • Too small and dispersed to be managed by a conventional utility

  29. Possible option • Regional or multi-town utilities • Advantages • Economies of scale in management • Minimize transactions costs of contracting • Viable volumes of business

  30. Criteria for Clubbing • Large enough population base  Clusters of 1-2 million • “Manageable” overall distance • Within a watershed boundary • Voluntary or prescribed

  31. International Examples: UK • Economies of scale up to population of 1 million • 10 large utilities with population of 2-10 million • 15 smaller utilities with population base of 250,000 to 1.2 million • Jurisdiction based on watershed boundaries

  32. International Examples: France • WSS responsibility of Local Governments • Voluntary “Syndicates” • 15500 undertakings for 37000 municipalities – 2/3 per grouping • SEDIF manages water services for 144 municipalities and about 4 million customers

  33. Regional Utility Shareholders: ULBs, State government ASSET HOLDING COMPANY Contract Private sector operator Town 1 Town 2 Town 3

  34. Rules of Engagement • “Top down”: Statutorily create the regions and enforce all ULBs to be members e.g. England, Scotland • Need to ensure compatibility with 74th amendment • “Bottom up”: Voluntary association e.g. France • Slow • How to create incentives for association?

  35. Governance • Vesting O&M control of water related assets by lease (or otherwise) to AHC/AMC • Share ownership proportional to asset value • Voting rights possibly allocated on a more equitable basis • State government as shareholder, coordinator and arbiter • Rules of entry and exit

  36. PSP and the Poor

  37. Current situation: Status of the poor • How are the poor being served today? • Free water through stand posts and tankers (10 -20 lpcd) • 15% of population not covered by public system • Is Water Really Free? • Poor quality water with adverse health implications • Time, physical energy, drudgery and space costs

  38. PSP and the Poor • A sound and competitively procured PPP will benefit the poor through efficiency gains • In addition, benefits to the poor can be further enhanced by specific contractual design • The Manila example: • 600,000 poor connected within two years • The poor now consume three times more water at half the price • The poor now have more time for productive work and more living space

  39. Maximizing the benefits for the poor • Designing Pro-poor Contracts: • Service expansion obligations designed to include the poor • Some form of subsidy (or finance) for one-time connection fee • Gradual phasing of prices: transition finance • Concessionaire responsible for providing water by alternative means where private connections are not feasible or during a transition period

  40. Thank you

More Related