Rural Water Service Delivery: 'It's the Politics, Stupid!'

Earlier this year, we released the results of an in-depth quantitative study into the factors affecting the performance of different management models for rural water provision in Ghana. One important insight from this study is that there is a surprisingly small difference in the performance of these different arrangements. This lack of consistent performance differences, whether run by communities, public utilities or safe water enterprises, suggests that the model per se is not a critical determinant and that more support to professionalize and implement clear regulations for any management arrangement would improve rural water supply performance.

The corollary of this finding is to ask why, in the case of Ghana - which is now moving up through the ranks of middle-income countries and with a GDP per capita of over USD 2,400 – is support for the rural water sector so weak? We can shed light on this question from a related qualitative study also carried out with Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology and the Aquaya Institute which has just been released, which complements our earlier findings on management performance and factors. This involved a political economy analysis to identify how electoral politics, political patronage, macroeconomic factors, and donor preferences, among other factors, influences the ability of the rural sector to progress.

The findings don’t make for very encouraging reading. The long-standing lack of clarity in sector in policy and legal instruments, ill-defined and overlapping service areas, inconsistency in tariff frameworks and localised elite capture have all hampered attempts to the galvanise the sector.

But most of all, it is a lack of political prioritisation of the sector on the part of the government that is at the root of the current fragmentation that can inhibit investment, regulation and effective water resource management. Without greater political attention and leadership, well-meaning development partners may also be contributing to this fragmentation. For example, promoting and funding Safe Water Enterprise approaches in a context of limited (central) government oversight or regulation and which cost more to end consumers than most alternatives.  

And it is not enough and certainly unfair, to point the finger at weak line ministry capacity. Because many of these systemic barriers - and their solutions – often run deep into much broader governance and public administration frameworks, including for example the inadequate levels of fiscal decentralization, lack of regulation or local government staffing, it is only high-level government pressure, including from Cabinet, that can help to address them.  

The good news is that the government, through the Ministry for Works, Housing, and Water Resources, the existing Public Utility Regulatory Commission and executive branch is now clear on the need for reforms that must be holistic in nature if these types of political economy barriers are to be overcome. Central to these reforms are three principal components:

1. Transforming the Community Water and Sanitation Agency into a utility,

2. Establishing a regulatory body and regulatory frameworks for the rural water sector, and

3. Defining service delivery areas for all entities involved, including the Ghana Water Company, Community Water and Sanitation Agency, private water service providers and community-managed entities.

Strengthening the rural water system in Ghana must be led by government. The time is now for the Government of Ghana to act. As responsible development partners we all have the obligation to support these reforms within a government-driven agenda and provide our best efforts when called upon.

The report is available here and for more information please contact Harold Lockwood