Performance assesssment of small towns watersupply system: the role of management models and institutional structure

This study describes the role of management models and institutional structure on the performance of the Small Towns Water Supply Systems in the country. A small town basically is a town with a population ranging from 2,000 to 50,000. There are over 150 newly constructed or recently rehabilitated Small Towns Systems throughout the country and the cost of procuring such facility is about $40 per capita. Out of the number stated above, significant numbers are either not functioning or are performing poorly. In the western region alone 4 out of the 12 newly constructed such systems have broken down. The situation has been attributed to a number of suspected factors including the management style and the institutional structure of the small towns. With an increasing number of management models evolving which were all aimed at solving some of the above stated problems, it became relevant to conduct this study. In order to have a mix of management models, the purposive sampling technique was used in the selection of the six towns for the study. From the field data collected, adopted performance indicators were measured and given a score using a relative scoring system (excellent case - 10 score; worst case - 0 score) to determine the overall performance of the water systems under the five identified management models. SWOT analysis on the various stakeholders and the management models for the selected towns was done through focus group discussions in the selected towns and corresponding District Assemblies, CWSA and other stakeholders. This helped in the comparison of the management models as well as providing information on the achievement and constraints of the various stakeholders in the performance of their roles and responsibilities. The generic institutional structure was also assessed to determine its effect (if any) on the performance of a typical small towns water system by comparing present situations (functions) as against the expected roles (function) and capabilities stated in the CWSA Small Towns Water Policy. The comparison identified the gaps in the roles and responsibilities of the main stakeholders, overlaps in the roles of stakeholders, capacity levels of key stakeholders as well as the number of active accountability relationships in monitoring of the management of the water system and their related effects on the performance of such systems. The study identified five management models and the result showed that Management Model type A (private operator executes all O&M tasks on behalf of WSDB) has the highest performance rating as well as having the management structure with the highest accountability relationships, which agreed with the numerous advantages as spelt out in the result from SWOT analysis and focus group discussions. This was followed by the Model type B (private operator performs only maintenance function for WSDB), then Model C (direct community/WSDB management), Model D (direct community/WSDB management with commercial function for standpipe only) and Model E (one man operator with support from TDC. but no water vendors). The generic institutional structure (for the programming, implementing, operating and managing) of the small towns’ water system was found to strongly correlate to the performance of the Small towns’ water system. That is, the performance is enhanced when the institutional structure is perfectly functioning (in terms of roles and responsibility, active accountability and monitoring relationships). The study had limitations: Data unavailability (Selected performance indicators were influenced by the availability of data to evaluate the specific indicator), time and financial constraints limited the study to only six Small Towns in the Western Central and Ashanti Regions of Ghana, and also the operational years to 2000-2002 calendar years. Consequently the conclusions from the study are limited to this exploratory research only. Based on the conclusion reached, the following recommendations were made: • Private—Public partnership is essential in the delivery of rural water. It is therefore recommended that management type “A” be encouraged in as many communities as possible). This management structure could however be modified, strengthened, supported and ensured that it becomes practically functional (as in figure 5.1 pg.78) However in relatively smaller towns with smaller systems which may not be attractive to a competent private firm, local managers (WSDBs) should be given the needed training with backup support being provided by DAs staff through effective monitoring. • Strong and active accountability relationship for is to be ensured for any management model adopted for a community to achieve a relatively better performance. • The flaws in the institutional structure (gaps, overlaps, capacity of stake holders and monitoring/accountability relationships) should be strengthened to enhance performance.

Source: KNUST