1 / 20

ARE NATIONAL WATER AND SANITATION OBJECTIVES BEING ACHIEVED BY DISTRICTS IN UGANDA?

ARE NATIONAL WATER AND SANITATION OBJECTIVES BEING ACHIEVED BY DISTRICTS IN UGANDA?. A review of service delivery, planning monitoring & evaluation in Tororo and Wakiso Districts. Introduction. WSS a key priority of government Major reforms (decentralisation, DRA, SWAP)

ringo
Download Presentation

ARE NATIONAL WATER AND SANITATION OBJECTIVES BEING ACHIEVED BY DISTRICTS IN UGANDA?

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. ARE NATIONAL WATER AND SANITATION OBJECTIVES BEING ACHIEVED BY DISTRICTS IN UGANDA? A review of service delivery, planning monitoring & evaluation in Tororo and Wakiso Districts

  2. Introduction • WSS a key priority of government • Major reforms (decentralisation, DRA, SWAP) • Integrated into the PEAP (the PRSP) • Coherent goals and strategies (excl sanitation) • Substantial increases in funding since 1998 BUT Q: Are WSS goals being achieved on the ground? • Examine the rural water & sanitation sector • Equity and Sustainability of services in 2 districts • Analysis of Planning and M&E Systems A: Increasing inequity the deeper you dig

  3. Water and Sanitation Situation in Local Government • National Safe water coverage from 39% in 97 to 51 % in 2003 • District variations from 25% to 75% safe water coverage • Coverage currently calculated only at district • base on population served by existing water points (e.g. 300 per borehole) What about equity and sustainability? What about lower levels?

  4. Equity Analysis • Calculated Water Point Density • Across subcounties in district • Across parishes in 2 subcounties per district • Calculated standard deviation and compared it to the mean water point density DISTRICT Subcounty Parish Village

  5. Inconsistent Data

  6. Inequity in distribution between Subcounties in Wakiso

  7. Even More Inequity between Parishes

  8. Increased Inequity over time

  9. Wakiso

  10. Sustainability Analysis • Reported Functionality of Water Points • 3.5% not functioning Tororo (questionable) • All functioning in Wakiso (not true) • Sustainability Snapshot: What is the likelihood of a water point to remain functioning in the future? • 2 Water points in each parish examined • Looked at finance, technical skills, spare parts and equipment • Focus group discussions • Well served parishes better prepared

  11. Sustainability in Tororo

  12. What about Sanitation? • Sustaining good sanitation behaviour difficult • Deterioration since move away from project funding • Poor condition of facilities • Communities had limited information and no technical support • Ineffective strategy for household sanitation • Demanding guidelines

  13. Problems in Planning • Guidelines are not followed in their entirety • No adequate indicator for equity to assist planning decisions • Geographical coverage inadequate • Only report on no. people served • Political influence in allocating water points • No incentives to adhere to guidelines • Community frustration • No feedback, Lack of understanding of roles • Capital contributions not enforced • Weak political commitment

  14. Problems in M&E • Emphasis on vertical accountability not management and reporting to communities • Monitoring of condition of infrastructure only • Sanitation indicators too numerous and some difficult to measure • Lack of skills to undertake analysis • Poor integration of other players in the district • Difficulties in size and management of PAF • No structure performance measurement against national policies

  15. Conclusions • Despite coherent policies, strategies and increased funding: “More for some, and none for some” • Refine LG planning & M&E • Use WP density + GIS maps in planning • Performance measurement of districts and subcounties • Align districts incentives to deliver on national goals

  16. Overview of Sector Reforms • Decentralisation policy in 1997 • Key WSS policy Reforms • Rural Water and Sanitation responsibility decentralised to local government • Directorate of Water Development responsible for policies, planning & Quality assurance • Demand Responsive approach • Emphasis of software, including household sanitation • Participatory bottom up planning within districts

  17. Overview of Sector Reforms (Cont.) • Increases in Financing • Gained from HIPC debt relief in 1997 and 2002 • Donors moved from project to budget support • 10 x increase in GoU sector funding from $3million to $31 million • Significant increases for rural water supply to local governments as earmarked conditional grants • Move towards SWAP • Development of Sub-sector strategies & plans • Donor coordination mechanisms

More Related