1 / 14

CHALLENGES OF RURAL WATER SUB-SECTOR REFORM WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DECENTRALISATION

CHALLENGES OF RURAL WATER SUB-SECTOR REFORM WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DECENTRALISATION. Gilbert Kimanzi Directorate of Water Development (DWD), Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, Kampala, Uganda. Decentralisation in the Ugandan Context.

kale
Download Presentation

CHALLENGES OF RURAL WATER SUB-SECTOR REFORM WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DECENTRALISATION

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. CHALLENGES OF RURAL WATER SUB-SECTOR REFORM WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DECENTRALISATION Gilbert Kimanzi Directorate of Water Development (DWD), Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, Kampala, Uganda

  2. Decentralisation in the Ugandan Context • A hybrid of Devolution, Deconcentration and Delegation • Regulatory Framework provided for in Local Government Act (1997) • District, Municipal and subcounty Councils are corporate bodies • District Admins. are responsible for planning, development, Rehab. & O&M

  3. Provisions of LGA(1997) cont’d • Districts entitled to funding from central Gov’t [Conditional & Equalisation Grants] • Districts can Contract out public services incl. Water and Sanitation to Private sector • Central Gov’t responsible for Policy, coordination, technical guidance, support supervision, M&E.

  4. Why the Reform • Substantial Investments (1991 – 2000) but coverage still low. • Poor Coordination among donor supported projects thus fragmenting interventions • Low managerial and technical functional capacities at district and lower levels • Slow involvement and implementation by Private sector and slow district bureaucracy • Insufficient funding for the investments

  5. Highlights of the Reform • Sector Development and Investment Plans, with district specific plans for increasing coverage to 95% by 2015 • Direct disbursement of development budget to districts as conditional grants • Strengthening of District sector capacity with logistics and personnel • One management structure for RWS programme for harmonised approaches

  6. Focal Point /Institution Functional Committee PS/MWLE IMSC Director/DWD Technical Committees) Senior Engineer (DWD) / Technical Support Units TSU Programme Secretariat (8No.) Chief Administrative Officer/ District Coordination District (45Nos.) Committee(s) Programme Structure for Rural Water Deconcentration Devolution

  7. Transitional Arrangements Why the Transition • Rural Water sector reform Study (2000) • Districts lacked capacity for Effective Implementation • Need for strong support for institutional and organisational capacity building • Technical support units (TSUs) established for technical backup and quality assurance

  8. Key Challenges Private Sector Participation • Changing roles of Public and Private sector • Severe lag in private sector’s capacity to provide quality of services • Weak private sector in remote districts with poor infrastructure Procurement • LGA mandates even weak districts to tender and procure services and supervise contracts • Bulk procurement of services undertaken by centre but severely contested by Districts

  9. Key challenges cont’d Decentralisation Process • Adequate authority and budgets not yet devolved to local governments • Conditionalising most Grants undermines districts’ financial autonomy • Districts closer to large towns are advantaged over remote districts – inequity in support ??

  10. Decentralisation Cont’d • Prospects for career development and further training limited at district level • Districts autonomy to procure services in some cases results in political interference and poor quality of services.

  11. Key Challenges Cont’d Sustainability of Facilities • Unit costs of implementation tagged to physical outputs • Imbalance between service delivery and capacity building for longterm sustainability of services • Conditionality of return of all unused funds back to the centre undermines sustainability

  12. Conclusions and Recommendations • Judge effectiveness in Rural Water Supply in terms long-term sustainability and not purely in terms of increase in No. of facilities • Build flexibility into decentralisation by allowing works for Private sector and NGOs • Decentralisation an opportunity for major sector reforms but requires patience and political support • Base support to decentralisation on longterm support and strategic reforms and investment

  13. Conclusions and Recommendations • Private sector Participations results in increase of unit cost of facilities in the short-term • Overall management of contracts is key to realisation of longterm objectives of empowering local governments for sustainable service delivery • Allow annual interactive reviews of the process between Centre and Local Gov’ts.

  14. Conclusionsand Recommendations • For holistic and common approaches, budget support for districts investments is the preferred option. • Allow project approach for certain specific interventions where the district capacity and budget are constrained.

More Related