TECHNOPOLICY BRIEF 18

WHAT ARE THE POLICY GAPS HINDERING
FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY
WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAMMES INGHANA?
Frederick K. Amu-Mensah
Emmanuel K. Tetteh
Joseph D. Chonia

AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKPublished by
The African Technology
Policy Studies Network,P.O. Box 10081, 00100 General Post Office,Nairobi, Kenya.
© 2008 African Technology
Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

Printed by○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary
network of researchers, policy makers, actors in the private sector and other endusers interested in generating, promoting and strengthening innovative scienceand technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in Nairobi, the network
operates through national chapters in 23 African countries, with an expansion plan
to cover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policymakers, legislators, the organized private sector, civil society, mass media andfarmers’ groups through publications, dialogue and advocacy. Among its range ofpublications are the Working Paper Series (WPS), Research Paper Series (RPS),
Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
Technopolicy Briefs Series are commissioned short papers written byexperts from all over the world specifically to address current science andtechnology policy concerns and questions in Africa. The briefs are also
summaries of technical papers published under our WPS, SPS and RPS
written to highlight significant policy recommendations. These briefs arewriten with the busy policymakers and non-specialists in mind. Thematerials are designed for general readership and help advance theadvocacy and knowledge brokerage roles of the ATPS.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, theRockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, CocaCola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, and the Royal Dutch Government.

Acronyms
ATPS
GPRS
GWCL
HIPC
MDGs
NCWSA
NCWSP
NEPAD

African Technology Policy Studies Network
Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy
Ghana Water Company Limited
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
Millennium Development Goals
National Community Water and Sanitation Agency
National Community Water and Sanitation Program
New Partnership for African Development

Table of Contents
Abstract
1.0Introduction

12.0

What are the policy gaps and problems of implementation?

23.0

What is the current status of water and sanitation delivery underNCWSP

34.0

What are the alternative approaches?

45.0

What are the best alternatives?

66.0

What are the policy recommendations?

8

1.0
BackgroundA national water policy of Ghana was launched in October 2005. It seeks to provide a framework
for the sustainable development and utilization of Ghana’s water resources. The policy outlines
Ghana’s Water Vision for the year 2025; – “to promote an efficient and effective management
system and environmentally sound development of all water resources in Ghana”, (Ministry ofWater, Works and Housing, 2005).
Three important development frameworks inform Ghana’s water policy, namely:• Global – Millennium Development Goals, (Ministry of Works and Housing, 2003)• African Region – New Partnership for African Development, (NEPAD, 2001)• National – Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS), (Ghana Government, 2000).
The GPRS document is a follow-up from other development programmes of previous
administrations including the National Community Water and Sanitation Programme (NCWSP)
that was launched in 1994 to address the challenges of providing improved water and sanitation
services to rural communities and small towns in Ghana. These communities previously did notbenefit from the national piped domestic water supply programme operated by the Ghana Water
Company Limited (GWCL) under a centralized system. The NCWSP was later carved out of theGWCL by an Act of Parliament (Act 564, December 1998) with mandate to facilitate the provisionof safe drinking and related sanitation services to rural communities and small towns in Ghana.
In the context of the NCWSP, communities are classified as rural with populations of between 75
to 2,000 and small towns that have populations from 2,001 to 50,000. Inclusion of a community inthe programmes of the NCWSP requires, among others, a commitment from the community in theform of counterpart funding to the tune of 5% of the cost of the project in addition to another 5%
from the district assembly in which the community lies.

1○ ○ ○ ○ ○2.0What are the Policy Gaps and Problems ofImplementation?
Sizes of communities determine the types of technologies that can be accessed by the community.
A rural community can access a protected communal hand-dug well system with or without awater lifting device whilst a small town can only access piped systems that involve a number ofinter-connected boreholes or a surface water treatment system.
The policy on sanitation is that communities are presented with technical designs produced by theNCWSA. These designs do not receive any inputs from the communities involved and they are
not permitted to alter the designs provided. This stems from the design criteria adopted by theNCWSA (CWSA, 2004) that:• Household latrines are designed for an average of eight (8) persons per one latrine.
• Institutional latrines are designed for an average of fifty (50) persons per squat hole.
This provision means that designs are fixed and cannot, therefore, be altered.
To further compound the issue, many communities cannot appreciate the strong link between
good sanitation and well-being. This perception discourages the communities from accessing
sanitation services especially since, according to them, such facilities are expensive.

2○ ○ ○ ○ ○3.0
What is the Current Status of Water and Sanitation
Delivery under NCWSP?
The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) recently sponsored a study to assess
community water and sanitation programmes in Ghana. The research interviewed one hundredand forty (140) respondents in three (3) regions, eight (8) districts and thirteen (13) communities.
The respondents were made up of fifty-seven percent (57%) females and forty-three percent(43%) males and some problems and recommendations for the improvement of the program
were put forward.
The policy directive governing the National Community Water and Sanitation Agency (NCWSA)
introduces three major setbacks that result from:• The inability of a community to provide its required commitment.
• The inability of the district assembly to provide its required counterpart funds.
A community that falls below the threshold population cannot access the technology for thatthreshold. A community that falls below a population of 75, for example, is not served at all. If thecommunity is above 2,000 people it only qualifies for a piped system from networked boreholes
and in the situation that the community cannot afford its commitment fee for the piped system, it fails
to access the technology.
The study recommended, among others, the following:• Deprived communities that are unable to provide the 5% commitment fees for facilities
should be supported under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) funds. Thesefunds are available for the nation through the implementation of the HIPC initiative.
• Budgetary allocations to the districts in the form of district assemblies’ common fundshould be released on time to enable districts to provide the district’s matching funds of
5% of the cost of facilities.
• There is the need to provide access to populations under the minimum threshold withwater and sanitation programmes as a right.
There is the need to educate and impress on communities the strong relationship between poor
hygiene and disease incidence to encourage them to participate in improved sanitation services
and improve the health of rural communities.

3○ ○ ○ ○ ○4.0
What are the Alternative Approaches?
Providing water to human settlements is an emerging principle of community participation andresponsibility. This derives from the concept of sustainability of the resource or project. The
research shows high community mobilisation and participation in maintaining the installed systemby paying levies and cleaning the surroundings of installed water and sanitation systems.
In some instances when limited numbers or poverty among some communities denies themaccess to the provision of the systems, it is proposed that the 5% commitment fees of communities
be translated into labour and provision of services during construction. This will enable deprived
communities access to facilities. However, the provision of labour and some services may not add
up to the commitment fees. This is a demerit but the total fulfilment of the requirements can bewaivered considering that the community would have demonstrated some level of commitment. In
the spirit of flexibility and the need to provide access to all, the district assembly or the HIPC funds
may be used to absorb the remaining costs.
In every society some communities are more endowed than others. This, in many countries, hasresulted in the institution of the welfare system to empower more deprived persons and communities.
Urban communities in Ghana pay a levy equivalent to a percentage of their water use to cater forrural water provision. There is need to institute policies that govern the collection and disbursementof these funds to meet the water and sanitation requirements of extremely deprived communities
who are unable to access water and sanitation systems. This will enable them to access thefacilities. The demerit in this approach is that the affected communities will not have the opportunityof demonstrating commitment which could undermine the ownership principle upon which thewater provision concept is born.
The programmes should be flexible enough to enable communities to access various options thatbest serves their needs. In addition to districts not receiving their budgetary allocations on time,priorities in the administration of district assemblies’ common fund also inhibits the timely developmentof water and sanitation systems in some communities. District assemblies were instituted to implement
government policy at the grassroots through a decentralisation process to ensure a wider andmore effective implementation of government agenda. It is, therefore, suggested that district
assemblies adopt national development programmes to meet the over-riding national policy
goals. The provision of water and sanitation should, therefore, according to the GPRS, be also

4

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

What are the Policy Gaps Hindering full Implementation of Community Water and ...?
a priority of the district assemblies. This should feature prominently in the policy initiatives on theoperation of district assemblies. This will obviously ensure that more communities are served withwater and sanitation programmes.
District assemblies supplement funds for development programmes from the national coffers
through levies collected within the district. It is suggested that in line with the national agenda, aportion of extra funds collected through levies should be put aside for the provision of water andsanitation programmes for deprived communities within the districts. This should feature prominently
in the policy initiatives on the operation of district assemblies. This will ensure that more communities
are served with water and sanitation programmes.
Buying-in into sanitation programmes requires an involvement in the form of inputs to the design
process. This will enable the communities to appreciate the cost implications of their inputs. As amatter of policy, education of communities on health implications of improper disposal of faecal
matter should be aggressively pursued.

○

5○ ○ ○

5.0
What are the Best Alternatives?
Issues raised as solutions to speed up the access of communities to water and sanitation provision
include the following:• support deprived communities under the HIPC funds.
• release budgetary allocations to the districts on time to facilitate development.
• provide populations under the minimum threshold access to water and sanitation
programmes as a right.
• allow the programmes flexibility to enable communities’ access options that best serves
their needs• translate communities’ commitment fees into labour and provision of services duringconstruction.
• institute adequate policy in collecting and disbursing water levies from more endowed
communities within and without the district to meet the water and sanitation needs ofextremely deprived communities• encourage district assemblies to adopt national development programmes when prioritisingprojects so as to meet the over-riding national policy goal
• put aside a portion of extra funds collected as levies to provide water and sanitation
programmes for deprived communities within the districts in support of national policygoals• pursue education on the health implications of improper sanitation as a matter of policy• Communities should be encouraged to buy-into sanitation programmes by encouraging
their contribution to the design process of sanitation systems.
The above options all contribute to solving the water and sanitation issues of communities that aredeprived and therefore need interventions. A combination of these approaches, clearly spelt out
in policy statements regarding the provision of water and sanitation services to communities will
not only assure the deprived communities of an essential requirement for poverty reduction asindicated in the GPRS document but ensure that Ghana’s attempt to meet the MDGs are realized.
The limitation of these interventions will occur when communities are not willing to comply with thenecessary requirements for inclusion into the programmes. Persistent chieftaincy disputes, lack ofcommunal cohesion and peace, and lack of interest in the intended programmes are all issues
that will not allow the goals of the government relating to water and sanitation provision to be metin the short term.

6○ ○ ○ ○ ○What are the Policy Gaps Hindering full Implementation of Community Water and ...?
Lack of commitment in the formulation of effective policies as well as implementation and monitoring
strategies from central government and the local government authorities could also derail theprocess of extending water and sanitation services to the communities especially the deprived
ones.

○7○ ○ ○

6.0
What are the Policy Recommendations?
The arguments developed have been targeted at deprived communities who without suchsupport and interventions would not be able to access improved water and sanitation services.
The impact of the above is that more communities will be able to access such systems thereby
enabling the country to reduce poverty on a wider scale and in a shorter time scale.
HIPC funds to support deprived communities to access water and sanitation systems in thefollowing ways:• release budgetary allocations promptly to the districts to facilitate water and sanitation
development• provide access to populations under the minimum threshold with water and sanitation
programmes as a right• initiate flexible programmes to enable communities to access options that best serve theirneeds• translate communities’ commitment fees into labour and provision of services during
construction• institute adequate policy for collecting and disbursing water levies from more endowed
communities within and without the district to meet the water and sanitation needs ofextremely deprived communities• encourage district assemblies to adopt national development programmes when prioritisingprojects s to meet the over-riding national policy goal
• put aside a portion of extra funds collected as levies for the provision of water andsanitation programmes for deprived communities within the districts in support of nationalpolicy goals• pursue education on the health implications of improper sanitation as a matter of policy• encourage communities to buy-into sanitation programmes by through contributions tothe design process of sanitation systems

8○ ○ ○ ○ ○ATPS Technopolicy Briefs Series(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 1) Who Benefits from the New International Intellectual Property Rights
Regime? And What Should Africa Do? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 2) How Can We Constitutionalize Innovation, Technology and IntellectualProperty in Kenya ? by Bernard Sihanya(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 3) What Can Biotechnology Do For Africa? How Can The AssociatedRisks And Uncertainties Be Managed? by Norman Clark(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 4) Who Needs Technology Policy? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5) Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in
sub-Saharan Africa by John Mugabe(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 6) Science in a Globalizing World: Implications for Africa by Awele
Maduemezia(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 7) How can Science and Technology in Africa be Formulated and
Implemented? by Osita Ogbu
(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 8) How can Science and Technology Policy Aid Nigeria’sReconstruction? by Osita Ogbu
(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 9) Can Africa Develop without Science and Technology by OsitaOgbu(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 10) How can Innovation Systems and Innovative Clusters be used toDevelop Africa? by Osita Ogbu
(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 11) Science and Technology and Food Security in Africa? by ATPS/MCST(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 12) What Danger Lies in the WTO-NAMA Negotiations for Africa? by HaJoon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 13) What is sui generis System of Intellectual Property Rights? by MoniWekesa

Dr. Frederick K. Amu-Mensah is a Senior Research Scientist at the Water Research Institute ofthe Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Ghana
Mr. Emmanuel K. Tetteh is a Research Scientist of the Science and Technology Policy ResearchInstitute of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Ghana
Mr. Joseph D. Chonia is an Assistant Director in the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports,Ghana

For more information this series and ATPS Contact:

The Executive Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-2-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-2-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org