Transcript Slide 1

Government of the Republic of Namibia
– European Commission
Exchange of Experiences with Sector Indicators
for Water Supply and Sanitation
Namibia Case
EuropeAid Regional Water and Sanitation Workshop
18 – 21 October 2010 – Nairobi Kenya
Sjaak de Boer – EU Delegation Namibia
Exchange of Experiences
Water and Sanitation in Namibia
Topics:
 Situation up to 2009
 Proposal for Improvement
 NAWASA & Performance Assessment
Framework
 Strengths & Weaknesses of proposed
set up
Situation up to 2009/2010







Over 10 sets of indicators on water and sanitation for
measuring progress in sector
Limited alignment between sets (e.g. Ministry of Finance;
National Planning Commission; CBS; line Ministries etc)
Currently 2 main performance measurement systems: one
for budget allocation by Ministry of Finance (PEMP –
Performance & Effectiveness Management Programme)
and one for planning (National Planning Commission - NPC
for National Development Programmes – NDP3)
Too many indicators
No distinctions between type of indicator (output, outcome,
impact)
Unclear definitions, source and reliability ->
Sets do not provide clear picture of sector progress
Situation up to 2009 / 2010





(continued)
Directorate Water Supply and Sanitation Coordination since
end 2008 responsible for coordination in sector
DWSSC has ongoing monitoring of interventions
Linkage of monitoring to planning, through monthly,
quarterly and annual reports at all levels of organisation
WATSAN forum provides quarterly monitoring platform for
all stakeholders in sector
Since 2006 Joint Annual Review (JAR) meetings: provide
consolidated reports on progress and constraints, finances
and impacts in terms of operational (recurrent),
development and donor funded projects
Proposal for Improvement






Development of SPSP 10th EDF in support of Namibia Water
Supply and Sanitation Programme – NAWASA accelerated
discussion on sector indicators for PAF
Resulted in limited set of 9 process & performance indicators on
output, outcome and impact level for sector dialogue
Decision to harmonise performance monitoring system for
contributing to quality of sector dialogue (PAF)
System proposes sub-set of indicators for water supply and also for
sanitation (output and outcome)
One impact indicator for both sectors: children under 5 years with
diarrhoea in the last two weeks
Although work in progress harmonisation of indicators in WATSAN
sector can provide pilot example for future NIMRES (Namibian
Integrated Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation System) currently
under development by NPC
SPSP for NAWASA
Conditions disbursement tranches:

Fixed tranche: Progress in WATSAN Policy &
Strategies; Macro-economic stability and PFM
reform
 Variable tranche: performance against agreed
sector targets:


Access to safe potable water and cost recovery for
water supply, both disaggregated into rural and urban
Access to adequate and safe sanitation for sanitation,
disaggregated into rural and urban
Water
Characteristics performance indicators variable tranches
Water
Performance
indicator
Definition
Calculating method
Urban Water
Access for urban
population to potable
water
Safe drinking water
within 500 meter
% urban households having access
< 500 m
Rural Water
Access for rural
population to potable
water
Safe drinking water
within 2500 meter
% rural households having access <
2.5 km
Urban Water
Cost recovery urban
Community contribution
to production of potable
water
% of urban centres paying their
NamWater bill in full
Rural Water
Cost recovery rural
Community contribution
to production of potable
water
%
of urban centres paying their
NamWater bill in full
% of water schemes and water
covering their O&M in full
Cost Recovery
 Costs
related to water service can be
broken down into



Daily costs to operate a system / water point
Periodic costs to maintain system / point
Reservation to replace system once its
economic lifetime is over
Sanitation
Characteristics performance indicator variable tranches
Sanitation
Performance
indicator
Definition
Calculating method
Urban
Sanitation
Access to adequate
and safe sanitation
Access, best utilisation
and ownership by urban
population of sanitation
facilities and services
% of urban households and
public buildings with
adequate (improved)
sanitation facility
Rural
Sanitation
Access to adequate
and safe sanitation
Access, best utilisation
and ownership by rural
population of sanitation
facilities and services
% of rural households and
public buildings with
adequate (improved)
sanitation facility
Water & Sanitation
Performance Indicator Targets NAWASA
Indicator
Baseline
2010
2011
2012
(best estimate)
Access:
Urban Water
97 %
97.7 %
98.3 %
99.0 %
Access:
Rural Water
83 %
85.3%
88.0 %
90.7 %
Cost Recovery:
Urban Water
96 %
96.7 %
97.3 %
98.0 %
Cost Recovery:
Rural Water
38 %
41.7 %
45 %
48.3 %
Access:
Urban Sanitation
61 %
62.4 %
64.0 %
66.2 %
Access:
Rural Sanitation
15 %
19.5 %
24.6 %
30.3 %
Sector Policy Dialogue

Sector policy dialogue guided by limited set of
nine mutually agreed indicators: five process
indicators -four at output level and one at
outcome level- and 4 sector performance
indicators: 3 at outcome level and one at impact
level (same for both sectors)


Sector performance indicators (some of which are
from the PEMP and the NDP3 for water and
sanitation)
Process indicators for e.g. sector coordination,
monitoring and budgeting, and surveys on
knowledge, attitude and best practices in water
supply and sanitation (KAP surveys).
Sector Policy Dialogue (continued)
Nine indicators will form basis for reviewing sector process under PAF - NAWASA
Indicator
Type
Level
When?
1
Water supply and sanitation
coordination forum
Process
Output
July 2009
2
Hygiene promotion & awareness
campaign on sanitation
Process
Output
11/2010
3
KAP surveys for water and
sanitation
Process /
performance
Outcome
As from 2011
4
Performance Monitoring System
for water and sanitation
Process
Output
11/2011 both
sectors
5
MTEF for water supply and
sanitation
Process
Output
11/2011
6
Access to safe drinking water
(urban & rural)
Performance
Outcome
Targets as defined for
variable tranches
7
Cost recovery in water supply
(urban & rural)
Performance
Outcome
Targets as defined for
variable tranches
8
Access to improved sanitation
facilities (urban & rural)
Performance
Outcome
Targets as defined for
variable tranches
9
Children under 5 years with
diarrhoea in last two weeks
Performance
Impact
Targets as defined for
variable tranches
Sector Policy Dialogue (continued)
NAWASA & Paris Declaration:

With 9 PAF indicators GRN can comply with indicator 11 of Paris Declaration:
"Managing for Results" which calls for "results-oriented frameworks…with transparent
and monitorable performance assessment frameworks to assess progress against (a)
the national development strategies for water and sanitation and (b) sector
programme NAWASA".






Some indicators in PEMP and NDP3 are already same as indicators for sector policy dialogue
in NAWASA.
New performance indicators -becoming integral part of PEMP and NDP- will align with PAF
indicators for measuring achievement
Refinement and further improvement of sector indicators (e.g. completion of baselines and
annual targets) will be part of process through which NAWASA will be continually refined,
rolled forward and improved
A roadmap for this process, identifying milestones for improving results framework has been
developed
Milestone end 2010: Approval of new sets of indicators on water supply and sanitation by
MAWF, MoF and NPC for PEMP and NDP4
Testing period up to end of 2012 after which adjustment, if any, will formalise new sets
PAF NAWASA
strengths & weaknesses
Strengths





Limited set of indicators for variable tranches
Performance indicators relatively easy to measure: all
quantitative
Provides good information on access to public services
PAF combines both performance indicators (mostly
quantitative: access to; cost recovery in) as well as
process indicators (more qualitative: coordination,
monitoring and budgeting and a positive trend in surveys
on knowledge, attitude and practice of best practices in
water supply and sanitation)
PAF is guiding sector dialogue assessing progress in
implementation of policy and strategies
PAF NAWASA (continued)
strengths & weaknesses
Weaknesses
 Limiting number of indicators results in merely quantitative indicators
for variable tranches
 Risk that this set is also used for qualifying “use of services and
satisfaction thereto”
 Qualitative indicators are to ensure overall improvement in quality of
services and perception of users thereto
 Qualitative indicators are now only in PAF, not being part of
calculation formula for variable tranche
 PAF, as part of sector dialogue, determines “satisfactory progress in
sector” being one of general conditions
 Risk of damaging “stop and go” situation in release of fixed tranches
 Sufficient emphasis, not only on “access to” but also on “use of”?
Issues for Discussion
Specific
 Interpretation of indicators and sensitivity of setting targets
 Balance between quantitative and qualitative indicators
 How to avoid “stop and go”, using process / qualitative indicators
only for fixed tranches (e.g. better coordination; improved monitoring and
budgeting; best practices in water supply and sanitation)?




Specific condition variable tranche guaranteeing “satisfactory use”?
How to determine "satisfactory progress in sector dialogue"? Via
Aide Memoire / MoU / JAR?
Trade off between complexity and need to keep it simple
Assuring coherence with wider national systems (NIMRES)
General
 Experiences other countries increasing quantity (volume) of public
WATSAN services and at same time improving quality of services