Community Involvement, Engagement and Management? Rhetoric and Reality …… & ‘ Plus’?

1. Community Involvement, Engagement and Management? Rhetoric and Reality …… & ‘Plus’? Dr Richard Franceys International Research Coordinator Cranfield University, UK

2. The overall research question, to be answered through the ’18’ Case Studies is: What type, extent and style of supporting organisations are required to ensure sustainable community managed water service delivery relative to varying technical modes of supply? Specific research sub-questions are: • What are the current modalities of successful community management and how do they differ in their degrees of effectiveness? • What supporting or partnering organisations are in place to ensure sustainable water service delivery relative to alternative modes of supply? • What are the indicative costs of effective support organisations? • Can particular trajectories of professionalising and strengthening the support to rural water be identified?

3. Global interest in this research • Not only in India • Because India is ahead on the water supply development trajectory … • And has invested much in CM • But wondering about what level of CM can be both effective and efficient? • DRA and CM where the contractor pays the 5%? • Have we asked too much of CM? • Is something more needed? Something ‘Plus’ ?

4. What and How much is the Plus+ • >8% for implementation? ‘x’? For ongoing services? Better approaches? • Necessary to investigate the • Community involvement spectrum • Partnering entity style • Technical spectrum

5. Local government ‘failure’ ? (1990) • ... funding has been declining and many completed systems are in disrepair or have been abandoned. This state of affairs has led many experts to question whether the emphasis on centrally managed schemes needs to be re-evaluated and a new approach taken to the provision of rural water supply as a public service. • Community management has been proposed as one possible alternative strategy in view of the increasing evidence that systems are more sustainable when designed, established and operated by the community. • Externally imposed solutions do little to build capacity, increase empowerment, or create support structures that represent the interests of users willing to maintain these RWSS systems on a long-term basis. • Community Management of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Services , McCommon, Warner and Yohalem, WASH Technical Report 67, UNDP-World Bank, 1990

6. By the mid-1980s most development organizations formally supported the idea of community participation, although few included the concept in their programs and fewer still could claim any success in applying it. • World Bank definition: • "an active process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development projects rather than merely receive a share of project benefits" (Paul, 1986).

7. The objectives of community participation in the context of development programs may include: • a) sharing project costs (beneficiaries contribute money or labor) • b) increasing project efficiency (beneficiaries assist in project planning and implementation) • c) increasing project effectiveness (beneficiaries have a say in project design and implementation) • d) building beneficiary capacity (beneficiaries share in management tasks or operational responsibilities) • e) increasing community empowerment (beneficiaries share power and increase their political awareness and influence over developmental outcomes) • Community Management of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Services , McCommon, Warner and Yohalem, World Bank, 1990

8. Community management failure? (2011) • We have moved from supply-driven centralisedgovernment programming to more demand-driven approaches, based on the philosophy of community participation with community-based management . . . • the reality behind these aggregated figures is often quite different: • communities unable to cope with management of their schemes, • poor maintenance, lack of financing, breakdowns, poor water quality, • lack of support and, ultimately, an unreliable and disrupted supply of water to households. • Commonly cited figures from a range of countries put non-functionality at somewhere between 30-40% of all systems at any one time. Lessons for Rural Water Supply: Moving towards a Service Delivery Approach, Lockwood, H. and Smits, S. 2011

9. Community Management spectrum ‘Plus’ - Empowering & supporting communities sufficiently?

13. How to account for ‘non-scaleable’ cases of ‘charismatic leadership of communities eg. Gangadellipalli, Andhra Pradesh

14. Community Partnering (support) spectrum ‘Plus’? Are we supporting Communities in the most effective way? PartnershipContinuum.pdf

15. PARTNERING • LEVEL 3 interactions Party A and Party B will typically have shared aspirations and a strong desire to work as equal partners toward a goal or set of goals that both wish to achieve but cannot achieve alone. These engagements are usually long-term in nature and require substantial commitments (and sometimes sacrifices) to be made by each party. We consider this to be “Alliance.” • LEVEL 2 interactions are characterized by greater collaboration between the parties. In this case, both Party A and Party B are willing to share ideas in the expectation that by doing so each will benefit in some way. We have labeled this level of engagement as “Collaboration.” • LEVEL 1 interactions are tactical in nature. In a two-party interaction, for example, Party A may have something of value to Party B and is willing to provide it to Party B in return for some other form of consideration (tangible or otherwise). We have labeled this level of engagement as “Transaction.”

16. www.servq.co.uk/systems-and-tools/partnership-continuum/

17. Technical supply spectrum • Hand-dug well with/without handpump • Borehole with handpump • Borehole with motorised pump • Gravity flow piped system • Powered small piped system (SVS) • Rural distribution from bulk supply • Powered medium piped system (MVS) • Package Reverse Osmosis Plants • Does the ‘Plus’ change by technology?

18. Danger of expecting too much in • Limited community capacity situations • Limited governance capacity situations • Increasingly sophisticated technical situations • What is a ‘good enough’ level of community management? • What is an effective level of ‘Plus’ ?

19. Community Water Plus ?

20. ‘the coevolution of economic institutions, social developments and technological innovation’ (Kay, 2004)

21. ‘Plus’ never stops …. • Community Management – England and Wales • Water service providers (private companies) have to report at public CCWater meeting twice a year • Customer Challenge Groups have been established and have to approve private company business plans (billions of dollars) for the coming Price Review to agree prices for 2015-202

23. Delft Hoogheemraadschap van Delfland Civil Society Involvement ‘Plus for 500 years …

25. James, A.J., 2011. India: Lessons for Rural Water Supply; Assessing progress towards sustainable service delivery.

26. What added value from Community Water plus ? • Quantifying the ‘Plus’ in resource terms – financial and quantity/quality person hours – what it takes to deliver and sustain ‘good enough’ community involvement and the water services they can deliver • Partnering does not stop with completion of new systems • Understanding what this means for the ‘hard to reach’ final 15% whilst sustaining the 85% as they continue the transition to ‘conventional’ water supply…. • Sharing this knowledge with low-income countries (consultant & academic opportunities) who are significantly behind on the transition curve …..

27. A key output from this research will be a categorisation of different community-management and sustainable services partnering models along with trajectories for professionalization, including costing, for the sustainable delivery of the range of alternative technologies. • We see this categorisation giving us the confidence to plan in any forthcoming project proposals that: • rural water supply through handpumpsin type ‘X’ socio-economic context’ • requires a ‘level 2’ support system • with ‘Band A’ capital maintenance budgetary support and • zero potential cost recovery • whereas a ‘single village piped scheme’ in a ‘Y’ setting • requires ‘level 4’ support system with • ‘Band C’ budgetary support but • ‘level IV’ potential for cost recovery.

28. The overall research question, to be answered through the ’18’ Case Studies is: What type, extent and style of supporting organisations are required (‘Plus’) to ensure sustainable community managed water service delivery relative to varying technical modes of supply? Specific research sub-questions are: • What are the current modalities of successful community management and how do they differ in their degrees of effectiveness? • What supporting or partnering organisations are in place to ensure sustainable water service delivery relative to alternative modes of supply? • What are the indicative costs of effective support organisations? • Can particular trajectories of professionalising and strengthening the support to rural water be identified?

29. Selecting the most useful cases to study ….

30. Grateful to Steering Committee • Mr. SujoyMojumdar, Director (RWS) • Dr. James A.J., (Viju),  Independent Consultant • Dr. Manish Kumar , WSP-SA • Mr. ArumugamKalimuthu, Country Director, Water for People • Mr. Hemant Kumar Joshi, CCDU, Rajasthan • Mr. R. P. Kulkarni, Chief Engineer, K RW S & S • Mr. Ravi Narayan, Advisor to Arghyam • Mr. Joe Medith, Gramvikas

31. Key messages – Steering Committee • Clear methodology with flexibility • Water quality is an important criteria • Service delivery improvement for disadvantaged communities is a criteria for defining success • Measuring “plus” – resource implications – is the key differentiator of this research – Richard • Collecting secondary information • Success stories – documents and no documents – in lagging states should be considered • Water security issues + O & M – are important • Engagement with state level agencies / district level agencies to capture “plus”

32. Research Team • Dr Kurian Baby, IRC, Co-Director Stakeholder, Engagement and Communications • Prof Srinivas Chary, ASCI, Co-Director Academic Research • Dr MekalaSnehalatha, National Research Coordinator • Dr Richard Franceys, International Research Coordinator • Stef Smits, IRC, The Netherlands • CEC, Chennai, MS Vaidyanathan, Dr RemaSaraswathy, Dr Gladston Xavier, • MNIT, Jaipur, Dr UrmilaBrighu • Fourth partner …. • ASCI, Hyderabad, Ms Shaili; Cranfield, Paul Hutchings

33. Mr. SujoyMojumdar, Director (RWS) • Experiences of Community Management • Stakeholder Views

34. What constitutes Community Management PLUS ??? • Support by Govt and Civil Society before and during and continuing after implementation … financing, software, capacity devl, awareness raising, augmenting water resources, institutional mechanisms at comm level and asset management • Institutional inbuilt in to the programme – for sustainablity, involved from beginning, without contributions no ownership … • Value of water in eyes of user – more active valuation • Developing a feeling of ownership … structured approach towards equity – mechanism at each level from access to other components equity is assured • Gender and social equity • Communities are not homogeneous .. So approach has to vary • Plus comes from external … equity in terms of roles being played and in terms of continuous support … roles that institutions as well as communities play . . Support – even Narmada can be called + - minimalastic support – should not be project driven but ongoing local support – beyond Bank driven • Mobilisation for awareness of interventions – inclusiveness, men, women • Codifying the rights and responsibilities for water at household and community and govt level

35. Are these necessary and sufficient conditions? For the 18,000 GPs? Gujerat? Why are there 10 star performers? What has made the ++ stars to be really really successful? • Students in university perform at different levels . .. Not normal distribution, it is highly skewed! Other views expressed that it is near enough normal – but + can make the bell curve a little less wide …. • But we are not testing communities . . . There are a lot of contributions that make a difference • Getting in to forestry and education and and …….. Functioning institutions in the village … enabled to get in to other development arenas ……. Is the plus … in context that we are simply describing necessary good design …. Our systems are functioning 100% .. It is not plus, it is necessary to have a functioning watsan • 100% community compliance to systems and effort of sustaining water sources etc on ongoing basis – lot of attitudinal change over time … • Are these not part of ‘ordinary community management’? We need to understand ‘normal’ CM before we address the +

36. To what extent can we enhance performance through a + approach? • Need to disaggregate performance . . . Dynamic situation . .. How to help institutions become responsive … making systems functional is a problem ..supply chain approach? • Look at various dimensions of performance … and then the plus …. Very disaggregated to understand the various factors …. Look at the creation of institutions . . And demand mechanisms …. Beyond a collective way of organising communities • Gram Vikas is not a supply chain … only ones that speak 100% not for today but for all times … not money dumped on us .. Not supply chain . . • CM+ is the ‘organic’ element necessary to complement the ‘mechanical’ approach of conventional government

37. Definitions of Success – and how to make a choice? What parameters?: • Not best approach to go technically .. Go with different geographical areas …. And even small scale, even single village, charitable work, if you find one village in Punjab where it is working .. look to find out why. WASMO etc are cases in their own .. And have already been documented … • Discussion re still looking at resources large scale interventions have used? Not too many … advised • Two interventions – Govt and Enterprise approach … comparing…. WB supported is designed systematically, a delivery project with some CM elements – whereas GTO project is designed to deliver community led responsiveness – enterprise model based on business approach – CM+ in all three … levels and scales of intervention …. So, ‘4’ programmatic cases, others at moderate level, some at small community level … • Even chosing geo – which ones do you select? Levels of scale … and further criteria .. .simple parameters, such as duration of service . .sustainable is successful; efficiency criteria; • Remembering that sustainable might not be equitable … equity should be at the core of selection –

38. How to select? • Capturing the existing problems and how they were addressed . . • May have to be geo and scale, gov and non-gov … and sanitation? Without sanitation there is no pure water …. • Is there a conflict resolution mechanism within successful supplies …. In a moment of crisis, how do they resolve? Leadership? Institution? No luxury of 24x7 to all . .. Issues of quality and scarcity, inaccessibility … we have to reduce the 1.5km norm … success is if the people can resolve the conflicts themselves …. • Geographical location and different types of service mechanism …. • Where the benefits reach scale and cascading to others . . Inspired to reach the unreached, the unserved in the habitation … demonstration effect/multiplier effect • Mixed caste, tribal, habitations dominated by disadvantaged groups • Criteria cannot be fixed ….. Need to use relative terms and finally we can balance it out …. • Calling them scenarios … a range of scenarios … responding differently in each …. Some could focus on equity at different scale …. Governance itself could be an issue ….

39. Best cases? • How do we find the really successful ones? • (Google not helping Sneha!) • Only the ones that are already available … • They are there from the different States in their own media – yes, not on Water Portal • Please please indicate possible sources***** • JMP data? Only 2 or 3 parameters …. OK per State • Examples are few …. But can give some eg. 15 hps – how many work? one out of 15…. In difficult tribal area … • RO systems are being introduced in many places …. Community managed….. Part of a success story … • In Orissa . . . Part of a CONCERN project ….. • WaterAid/Water for All more in to water quality/treatmen … • Jharkand many supported interventions ….

40. Presentations to be shared …. • Follow-up actions • Sort out Terminology and eg indicators … reference document …. • Where does CM end and where does + start?? • Explain research approach and why case study and not large scale ‘proof’ that x CM delivers y • Equity aspect has been highlighted – ensure it is included in service levels … lowest income quartile as key service level? • Elaborate methodology on inputs – human, financial, financial, economic … (opportunity cost of CM’s time!) • How do we precisely capture source sustainability – Gujerat and the dual source . . . • We are measuring the management – not the infrastructure – how technical advice can be accessed? Not the pumps and pipes … or even infiltration wells … • Need to evolve a methodology that is easily accessible to people – so they can relate to it – there is something I can do … ‘cases of success within a certain category …’ and ‘success in Bihar/Jharkand’ …but Gujerat gives us evidence of success at scale …. 500 people deployed …. Led be a CEO - Gram Vikas could cost more than WASMO … • Most states do have some additional organisations – eg UP who does a WASMO type job … but not delivering in same way … • Criteria of selection – can be on diverse properties – not all cases to have all criteria .. • Equity is not a criteria for selection but something to determine for each case in the field research …

41. Water Quality – not for selection criteria… but as part of the research … • Special study .. • EgWateraid in 16 panchayats on water quality monitoring and improvement … • Special topic studies – eg Cranfield MSc … • Anthro study compared with statistical study? IWMMI challenge …. • Is baseline CM ‘dumping after implementation’ and requiring payment for O&M • Chary – functions, functionaries, facilitation, ICE now the pattern …. From our side all but first f is a plus • But Bihar etc now doing the same as including in sector reform the other f s . . . ? But these extra fs are not delivering. • States have tried the extra reform but not seen the benefits – hence the frustration at being reminded of successful Gujerat … • Have to recognise therefore there may be gradations from a low level, of pluses …. Chary, perhaps not the functionaries ….

42. Long list longer .. • Then ranking – as a filter … • Then the selection • Then the initial field exercise – to feed in to the methodology … • Draft methodology within the month … Then checking against availability of data • Eg. Disaggregated equity data …. • Interviews/transect walk … • Sneha explaining how conflicting the information can be … any two groups can give opposite information. • Prototype testing in Dec/Jan?? • Video conference in November • And one in January – • WEBEX from Cranfield • Draft plan/Agenda for Chennai

43. Size/scale to include ….