Uganda embraced a decentralised system of government in 1997 and has since taken strides to ensure that the agenda for public service provision is driven by the local governments, mainly at the district and sub-county levels.
Though the decentralisation policy provisions and structures are clear, it remains important to examine the actual implementation of services within the framework. One must examine the involvement of local governments, communities, and non-government district level actors in the provision of rural water services. How are the different WASH stakeholders playing their roles in the decentralised system of governance?
Published on: 07/12/2011
Ever since the decentralisation of government in Uganda in 1997, efforts were made to ensure that local governments, specifically at district, municipal, and sub-country levels drove the agenda for public service provision. Improving service provision is hailed as the key motivation behind decentralising the governance system. The Local Government Act of 1997 which was put in place in 1997 supports the autonomy of local governments by inherently devolving responsibilities finance, legislation, politics, planning, and personnel matters to local governments. The Act empowers different levels of government to plan and implement development interventions according to local priorities.
In respect to water services, the Local Government Act empowers local governments to undertake the provision of water and maintenance of facilities in liaison with the Ministry of Water and Environment. Decentralisation in the water sector is reflected through such structures as the Technical Support Units (TSUs); District Water Offices (DWOs); the District Water and Sanitation Coordination Committees (DWSCCs); the District Water and Sanitation Conditional Grant (DWSCG); Water and Sanitation Committees (WUCs); Water Supply and Sanitation Boards (WSSBs); Water and Sanitation Development Facilities; and Umbrella Organisations.
While the decentralisation policy provisions and structures are clear, it is important to examine the actual implementation of services within the framework. It is crucial to examine the involvement of local governments, communities and non-government district level actors in the provision of rural water services. How are the different WASH stakeholders playing their roles in the decentralised system of governance?
The decentralisation framework is clear on who plays what role in the provision of rural water services. The Ministry of Water and Environment, through the Directorate of Water Development (DWD) is responsible for providing overall technical oversight for the planning, implementation and supervision of rural water and sanitation services, including water for production. DWD is also responsible for regulation of provision of water supply, capacity development and support services to local governments, private operators and other service providers.
At district level, local governments are empowered to provide water services. The District Water Offices manage water and sanitation development and oversee the operation and maintenance of existing water supplies in their areas of jurisdiction. The District Water and Sanitation Coordination Committees (DWSCC) over see the implementation of WSS programmes, strengthen collaboration and coordination with other sectors like education, health, social development and agriculture. Private sector firms undertake design and construction in water supply and sanitation under contract to local and central government. Private hand pump mechanics and scheme attendants provide maintenance services to rural water sources. On their part, communities are responsible for demanding, planning contributing to capital cost and operating and maintaining rural water supply and sanitation facilities through the WUCs.
With such a clear structure and clear roles, decentralisation creates numerous opportunities for improved service delivery. Decentralisation has given meaning to “bottom-up” planning, which fits very well with the MWE demand-driven approach to provision of water services. Water users at community level are not only involved in identification of needs, they also take part in planning for interventions. In addition to participatory planning, decentralisation has the potential to enhance transparency and accountability among actors.
While indeed decentralisation has provided great opportunities for improved water service delivery, it has also provided some daunting challenges. Decentralised service delivery is especially constrained by inadequate skills and institutional capacity at local government level. A key challenge for the provision of rural water services is inadequate staff, especially in the district water offices. In some districts there are no substantive district water officers while in others the DWO also doubles as the district engineer.
The situation is worsened by the trend of creating new districts whereby resources are spent on establishing new offices rather than expanding water services. In the Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2011, it was reported that there were 559136 people served through the construction of 2863 water sources, which was a reduction from the 670910 people served in 2009/2010. This was attributed to the fact that considerable investments went into establishing new district water offices, purchasing transport and office equipment for them.
The low staffing levels in district water offices have further affected implementation of water programmes and subsequently sector performance. This has especially been the case in newly created districts. The SPR 2011 notes that 90% of staff in the newly created district water offices lack the required qualifications and experience to effectively and efficiently implement water activities under the DWSCG. But the older districts have not been spared the loss. In some districts like Lira, the new districts that were curved out went along with geographical territory and personnel, leaving the parent district constrained for staff.
Apart from the human resource capacity, other challenges arise from limited financial resources caused by the narrow revenue base in most districts. Other challenges include inadequate coordination, information and communication gaps as well as political interference.
Perhaps the most daunting challenge is the lack of appreciation and ownership of water sources by the users. It has been observed that most water users do not see the sources as their own hence they do not put enough effort especially in operation and maintenance. Many of them view their water sources as a gift from the government or from the NGOs. Not only does this attitude lead to low sustainability of sources, it also distorts the roles of other actors in the decentralisation framework.
In spite of the adoption of the demand driven approach, communities still lack information on how they can benefit from the available resources and the feasible technologies. There is general lack of awareness on the procedure for applying for the facilities; moreover the district authorities sometimes have no justification for their allocation of water facilities. This situation curtails efforts to ensure equitable distribution of water facilities.
Disharmony in planning and implementation of water and sanitation activities continues to create gaps in the distribution of water facilities. As a result some localities are better served while others are under-served or not served at all. This is attributed to a disjoint in the planning processes between the local government authorities and other partners in the sector.
Delivery of services in the decentralised framework is also compromised by the weak monitoring and enforcement of sector guidelines. Despite the development and dissemination of sector guidelines in the implementation of water sector activities, response to adopt and utilise them by the local governments has been slow. Take the District Implementation Manual for example. In an assessment of the utilisation of the manual, Triple-S Uganda found that most of the actors at district and sub county level were not using it. There are many other policies and guidelines that are not effectively enforced. This is attributed to the poor follow up and monitoring functions within the local governments especially because they are constrained by personnel and resources. As a result, appropriate feedback to the planning process is limited.
Given that decentralisation provides great opportunities for better water service delivery, it is important for actors to adapt to the system and see how best to improve their performance therein. There are many ways in which water service providers can capitalise on the opportunities created by the decentralisation system of governance. To make the most of the decentralisation framework, actors each have to play their roles effectively. But the outstanding question is how to strengthen those roles and ensure that all actors take on their roles.
