Accountability report_final draft

Evaluation of accountability in water and sanitation services

worldwide An analysis based on the data from the UN Water

GLAAS report 2014

Author: Imenne Åhlén

Supervisor: Alejandro Jiménez

2016

Table of content1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................3

1.1 GLAAS report 2014............................................................................................................................3

1.2 Accountability....................................................................................................................................4

1.3 Objective............................................................................................................................................6

2. Method....................................................................................................................................................6

3. Results.....................................................................................................................................................9

3.1 Sanitation...........................................................................................................................................9

3.1.1 Rural areas................................................................................................................................14

3.1.2 Urban areas..............................................................................................................................22

3.1.3 Schools and Health facilities.....................................................................................................28

3.2 Drinking-water.................................................................................................................................30

3.2.1 Rural areas................................................................................................................................34

3.2.2 Urban areas..............................................................................................................................41

3.2.3 Schools and Health Facilities.....................................................................................................48

3.3 Sanitation and Drinking-water.........................................................................................................49

3.4 Results from open-ended questions................................................................................................52

4. Discussion..............................................................................................................................................54

4.1 Accountability in Sanitation.............................................................................................................57

General provisions.............................................................................................................................57

Rural and Urban sanitation................................................................................................................58

4.2 Accountability in Drinking-water.....................................................................................................60

General provisions.............................................................................................................................60

Rural and Urban drinking-water........................................................................................................61

4.3 Accountability for both Sanitation and Drinking-water...................................................................62

5. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................63

7. References.............................................................................................................................................64

1. Introduction1.1 GLAAS report 2014GLAAS report 2014 (Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water) is one of the UN Water regular reports. It is focused on analysing the strengths and challenges in water, sanitation and hygiene within and across countries (WHO, 2015). 94 countries are part of the GLAAS report 2014 survey which aims to investigate the water and sanitation sector by looking at the inputs and the enabling environment required to develop and to sustain good drinking water and sanitation facilities for all people and especially for the most disadvantage population groups. The GLAAS report 2014 analysis the drinking-water and the sanitation sector for both rural and urban areas.

The GLAAS report 2014 shows that the majority of the countries involved in the survey support political processes to gain safe and affordable drinking-water and sanitation. The majority of the surveyed countries approve national policies for drinking-water and sanitation and many policies are in place. But most of the policies and plans are partially implemented. As such there is a clear gap between aspiration and reality for many countries. For the rural areas, the majority of the surveyed countries answered that they do not have universal coverage target that provides sanitation and drinking water for people living in such areas. Further, the GLAAS report showed that 6 out of 19 countries that actually have universal target coverage for the rural areas, more than half of the rural population do not have access to sanitation facilities. The GLAAS report also show a low level of implementation of the drinking-water and sanitation sector in both health facilities and schools.

The level of implementation to improve the drinking-water and sanitation sector is according to the GLAAS report, moderately successful, where the majority of the surveyed countries indicate that specific measures has been taken in their national plan. The results indicate that an implementation plan exist for both urban and rural areas. Only a smaller percentage of all the surveyed countries show a high level of implementation in rural areas. Additionally, the GLAAS report shows that the decision processes are for the most part not evidence based which is due to a low monitoring capacity, inconsistent or fragmented gathering of data and limited use of information management system and analysis. Only a small percentage of all the surveyed countries report having analysed and used data regarding drinking-water and sanitation. Moreover, urban areas are better monitored than rural areas and the affordability and service quality for drinking-water is more often measured than for sanitation. At the same time and for many countries, the coordination of the drinking-water and sanitation sector is distributed between a numbers of different ministries and national institutions, which has implications for sector coordination, monitoring and financing.

Even though financial resources have increased for some countries, insufficient national financing is also a problem for the majority of the countries as much as the rather poor capacity of tracking funding for the different sub-sectors. The main financial resource that goes to drinking-water and sanitation comes from tariffs, taxes and transfers but the drinking-water and sanitation sector is also in a big extent funded by households. The GLAAS report also shows that 33 of all surveyed countries finance drinking-water and sanitation through governmental and external resources. For the majority of the surveyed

countries, the external resources have increased with 30 % between the years of 2010 and 2012. As such, one of the main findings of the GLAAS report is that development aid for both drinking water and sanitation sector has increased during the last five years and remains a major resource of financing.

Investments programmes for both drinking-water and sanitation exist for the majority of the surveyed countries. The programmes, which contain financing plans and budgets, are tools to track the financial resources between different parties involved in the drinking-water and sanitation sector. Results from a breakdown of expenditure, show that urban areas get more financial resources than rural areas and that drinking-water also gets more financial resources than sanitation.

The GLAAS report shows clearly that more work is needed for both the drinking water and the sanitation sector and especially for the rural areas. Results from the report also show that many countries lack of a plan for drinking water and sanitation in health facilities and in schools, where schools are given least attention. Furthermore, work has to be done to enable the most disadvantage population groups to access affordable services, although some countries are already trying to reduce the inequalities by taking financial measures. The report also shows that more work has to be done to strengthen the capacity for each country to set targets, formulate plans, undertake implementation and conduct meaningful reviews.

1.2 AccountabilityAccountability describes the relationship between different stakeholders, such as government, service provider and users and their level of responsibility, answerability and enforceability. In the context of drinking-water and sanitation, improving the level of accountability will conduct to improved management and better drinking-water and sanitation services (Accountability in WaSH; a reference guide for programming, 2015). Accountability can help improve the quality of relationships between different parties as it helps to clarify the commitments of actors involved, create a more efficient management of resources, protect water resources and increase control over the actions of public and private stakeholders as much as ensuring minimum quality standards of drinking-water and sanitation. Accountability is therefore about changing current institutional systems to make them more responsible in the policymaking and implementation and additionally fight the institutional inertia (Accountability in WaSH; explaining the concept, 2015).

In this context, accountability can be analysed horizontally and vertically. Horizontal accountability refers to internal control mechanism and oversight, such as monitoring and evaluation of services, and the right to require explanation and information from another state actor. The horizontal accountability is measured by looking at how law, rules and regulations are established. Vertical accountability is referred to linking the citizens directly to the government, such as through election. For the sector of drinking-water and sanitation, citizen participation in water governance, improvement of Country Status Overviews (CSO) political analyses and development of the capacity for non-governmental organizations (NGO) to better understand the water sector are ways to increase the level of accountability (Accountability in WaSH; explaining the concept, 2015).

Accountability can also be narrowed down into different dimensions. This means that accountability can be analysed through a social, political, financial and administrative point of view. Good social

accountability can be reached by holding governments and other actor’s actions by the civil society, media and the people. Political accountability refers to the level of answerability from governments towards the citizens while administrative accountability is defined by evaluating and improving the administrative structures and ensuring a professional level of the public servants, consultants and technical support. Additionally, financial accountability refers to the truthfully and accurately documentation of use of resources made by institutions and individuals involved in the sector.

Three different accountability components can be analysed when looking at the drinking-water and sanitation sector, such as responsibility, answerability and enforceability (Table 1). Responsibility in the context of accountability is about defining the roles and enabling cooperation between different actors in service delivery. As such, responsibility is partly referred to clearly define the duties and performance standards of does who are in positions of authorities in a transparently and objective way. Furthermore, responsibility is also referred to the ability of coordinating different parties involved in the sector in an organizational manner. Answerability is about informing, consulting and including stakeholders in all stages of service delivery. Therefore, answerability is referred to the accessibility of timely and accurate information and the possibility of participation for the both service users and service. At last, enforceability is about monitoring performance, supporting compliance and enforcement. This means that sanction mechanism are putted in place, appropriate corrective and remedial actions is taken when required (Accountability in WaSH; a reference guide for programming, 2015)(Table1).

Table 1. Accountability components and the objectives for each intervention level.

Accountability Component Subcomponent Evaluated element

I) Clarity in the definition of roles and responsibilities

Define a clear allocation of responsibilities among stakeholders

Clarity

Put coordination mechanisms in place Coordination

II) Informing, consulting and engaging stakeholders

Improve access to information Information

Create spaces for stakeholders participation Engagement

III) Overview of performance, enforcement and compliance

Strengthen external and internal control mechanisms Control

Support or establish the regulatory function Regulation

1.3 ObjectiveAs the GLAAS report shows that many countries have deficiencies in the drinking-water and sanitation sector such as the lack of national plans and policies, low level of implementation and monitoring, poor access of drinking-water and sanitation for poor people and disadvantage people, much more work has to be done to enable a good drinking-water and sanitation status for all countries. Since accountability can be evaluated by looking at the responsibility, answerability, and enforceability in each sector, evaluating the accountability at different levels and perspectives can help us move forward in the development of reaching good and accessible drinking-water status and sanitation facilities.

The aim of this report is therefore to evaluate the level of accountability in the drinking-water and sanitation sector globally by looking at the three different levels of accountability: responsibility, answerability and enforceability.

2. MethodTo enable the evaluation of accountability of the drinking-water and sanitation sector, the level of responsibility, answerability and enforceability has been studied. Data from the GLAAS report 2014 that is related to the different levels of intervention has been used. As such, questions from the GLAAS survey related to the three different accountability components has been used for the evaluation (Table 2).

Table 2. Questions related to the three levels of intervention in accountability.

Accountability Component Questions in GLAAS

I) Responsibility

A1. Policy/plan development and implementation: Do national policies and plans exist, and to what extent are these implemented to ensure the provision of water and sanitation?A2.Institutional roles and responsibilities and lead agencies: Please list ministries/ national institutions with responsibilities in WASH and indicate the level of responsibility in each sectorA3.Coordination between actors: Does a formal mechanism exist to coordinate the work of different organisations with responsibilities for WASH (health, education, environment, public works, etc.) to coordinate activities?A4. Coordinating with non-government organizations: To what extent do NGOs coordinate with government institutions?A5. Donor funding: Is there a coordination mechanism between bi-lateral/multi-lateral donors and government and how are the donor funds channelled to the sector?

II) Answerability

B1. Dissemination of data: Is the performance (e.g. quality of service) of the formal service providers made public and are the results of customer satisfaction information made public? (please check all that apply)B2. Financial reporting: Are expenditures reports available that allow actual spending on WASH to be compared with committed fundingB3. Participation procedures: Are there clearly defined procedures in laws or policies for participation by service users (e.g. households) and communities in planning programs and what is the level of participation?

III) Enforceability C1. Public reporting/complaints: Do members of the public served by formal service providers have an effective mechanism to file complaints concerning the lack of, or unsatisfactory sanitation and drinking-water services?

C2. Service providers: Do service providers report the results of their internal monitoring against required service standards to the regulatory authority and does internal monitoring trigger timely corrective action?

The results in this report has been analysed for 83 of the 94 countries surveyed in the GLAAS report. Since accountability is hard to evaluate for each country, the analyses has been done regionally. The regionalization of the countries has been done according to the report of Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water- 2015 Update and MDG Assessment by UNICEF and World Health Organisation in the year of 2015. The table 3 shows how the regionalization of the 94 countries has been done.

Table 3. Regions and the belonging countries that is surveyed in the GLAAS report 2014 (source: Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water- 2015 Update and MDG Assessment; UNEP, 2015)

Region CountriesSub-Saharan Africa37/51 countries covered (72 %)

Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, GhanaGuinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, MaliMauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, United Republic of Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South SudanRwanda, Senegal, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Southern AsiaAll countries covered (100 %)

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India3, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Bhutan and Maldives.

South East Asia8/11 countries covered (72%)

Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam and Cambodia

Oceania4/20 countries covered (20%)

Cook Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu and Tonga

Caucasus and Central Asia6/8 countries covered (75 %)

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Mongolia and Azerbaijan

Europe7/48 countries covered (15 %)

Lithuania, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, TFYR Macedonia, UkraineBelarus and Estonia

Latin America and Caribbean16/46 countries covered (35%)

Uruguay, Mexico, Colombia, Dominican Republic2, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba and Haiti

Middle East5/13 countries covered (38 %)

Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Yemen, West Bank and Gaza Strip

North Africa2/6 countries covered (33 %)

Morocco and Tunisia

Some regions have been assembled to further facilitate the evaluation. This means that the region of South East Asia and Southern Asia has been grouped into one region and the region of Middle East and North Africa has been grouped into one region. Another reason for this assembling is due to the fact that many regions are incomplete and therefore difficult to analyse (Table 3).

Two regions that are listed in table 3 that is not part of this study since to many countries are missing to make those regions complete. Therefore, the region of Europe and Oceania are not part of the evaluation of accountability. For the region of Latin America and Caribbean, most of the countries that

are missing are Caribbean countries. Since, the region of Latin America and Caribbean are generally assembled into one region and this report follows the regionalization made by the report of Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water- 2015 Update and MDG Assessment by UNICEF and World Health Organisation, the region of Caribbean will be included together with Latin America even though many Caribbean countries are missing. As such, the results that can be derived from the region of Latin America and Caribbean will predominantly be about Latin American countries.

The evaluation of accountability has been done for rural and urban drinking water and rural and urban sanitation separately. Some results are presented for both rural and urban drinking-water and sanitation and some results are represented for drinking-water and sanitation together. Furthermore, the results concerning sanitation and drinking-water in schools and health facilities have also been presented and evaluated separately.

Figure 2. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 of donors involved in sanitation.

3. Results3.1 Sanitation Level of responsibility Figure 1 shows the percentage of countries having one or more than one leading ministries/institutions in the sanitation sector. All regions, except for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa show that the majority of the surveyed countries (over 60 % of the countries) have more than one leading ministry/institution in the sanitation sector. For the region of North Africa and Middle East, almost 30 % of the countries have not answered the question and approximately 15 % of the countries have no leading ministry/institution (Figure 1).

Sub-Saharan Africa

Southern Asia and South East Asia

Latin America and Caribbean

Caucasus and Central Asia

North Africa and Middle East

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Countires with one leading ministry/institutionCountries with more than one leading minsitry/institutionNo leading ministry/institutionNo answer

PERCENTAGE OF COUNTRIES

Figure 1. Percentage of countries having one or more than one leading ministries/institutions in sanitation.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-10

11 +

No an-swer

percentage of countries

Figure 2 represent the percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 donors involved in sanitation for each region. For the region of North Africa and Middle East, Caucasus and Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, the majority of countries report having between 1 and 10 donors. The percentage of countries that do not give an answer to the question regarding the total number of donors involved in sanitation is between 15 %, for the region of North Africa and Middle East, and 50 % for the region of Latin America and Caribbean. However, the percentage of countries that have more than 11 donors is highest for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia with a percentage of 45 % in comparison to the region of Latin America and Caribbean that has less than 15 % of the countries reporting having more than 11 donors (Figure 2).

Figure 3 represents the percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 donors in sanitation allocating through a signed agreement. For the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia more than 50 % of the countries have not answered and less than 10 % of the countries report having more than 11 donors allocated through signed agreement. However, the percentage of countries that report having between 1-10 donors allocated through signed agreement is more than 50 % for the regions of Caucasus and Central Asia, Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. As such, only the region of North Africa and Middle East and Latin America and Caribbean have less than 45 % of the countries reporting having between 1- 10 donors allocated through agreements (Figure 3).

The percentage of the surveyed countries that do not give an answer to the question of the total number of donors in sanitation that use direct funding that do not pass through the national budget is high for every region, with 50 % of the countries (Figure 4). Less than 40 % of the countries for all regions report having between 1-10 donors where funding do not pass through national budget. Even a smaller amount of all surveyed countries (less than 10 %) reports having more than 11 donors using direct funding (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 donors in sanitation that allocates funding through a signed agreement responsive to government defined priorities.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-10 11+

No answer


Figure 5. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in sanitation using targeted budget support.

Figure 4. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in sanitation that do not pass through the national budget.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-10

11+

0

No answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-10

11+

0

No answer


Figure 6. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in sanitation using general budget support with specific objectives or performance indicators.

The results from figure 5 show that more than 40 % of the countries for all regions have not answered the question regarding the total numbers of donors involved in sanitation using targeted budget support. For all regions, except for the region of North Africa and Middle East, the percentage of countries reporting having between 1-10 donors using targeted budget support is less than 20 %. As such, the region of North Africa and Middle East has the highest percentage of countries reporting having between 1-10 donors through targeted budget funding and approximately 15 % of the countries for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia and South East Asia lack of donors using targeted budget support (Figure 5).

Figure 6 shows similar results concerning the percentage of countries for each region that have not answer the question regarding the number of donors using general budget support with specific objectives or performance indicators. The majority of the surveyed countries (over 50 %) for all regions have not answered the question regarding the amount of donors using general budget support. Only the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have less than 15 % of the countries reporting having no donors of this type or having between 1-10 donors. Additionally, all regions have less than 30 % of the countries reporting having more than 11 donors (Figure 6).

In addition to the reported numbers of donors involved in sanitation, the number of NGOs implemented in the sector range between 1 to over 100 NGOs. For the sanitation sector, around 35 % of the countries report having between 1 and 20 NGOs involved in sanitation.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-10

11+

0

No answer


Figure 7. Percentage of countries that reports having community based service providers reporting results of internal monitoring against required service standards in sanitation.

Level of enforceability

Figure 7 and 8 represent the percentage of countries where community based respectively informal service providers report the results of internal monitoring against required service standards in sanitation. The results from figure 7 show that over 50 % of the countries for all regions report that community based service providers do not report results from internal monitoring in sanitation. Only a few countries, with a percentage between 10 % and 15 %, reports having community based service providers reporting results from internal monitoring that also triggers corrective action (Figure 7).

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not reported Reported but does not lead to corrective action

Reported and triggers corrective action No answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not reported Reported but does not lead to corrective actionReported and triggers corrective action No answer


Figure 8. Percentage of countries having informal service providers that reports the results of their internal monitoring against required service standards to the regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions for sanitation.

Similar to the results in figure 7, figure 8 also show that more than 50 % of the countries for all regions except for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia, report that informal service providers do not report results from internal monitoring in sanitation. Between 30 % and 15 % of the countries for all region except for the region of North Africa and Middle East, report having community based service providers reporting results from internal monitoring but only a small percentage between 5 and 15, reports that the results triggers corrective action. For the region of North Africa and Middle East the results shows that informal service providers do not report results from internal monitoring for all countries that have answered the question (Figure 8).

3.1.1 Rural areasLevel of responsibilityFigure 9 represent the level of implementation of national policies and plans for rural sanitation. The region of Caucasus and Central Asia is the only region having 50 % of the countries reporting that plans and policies are fully implemented while the remaining countries report having the policies and plans partially implanted or approved. Except for the region of Latin America, the majority of countries for all regions report having policies and plan either fully or partially implanted or just approved but not implemented (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in rural sanitation.

Level of answerability More than 50 % of the countries for all regions except for the region Caucasus and Central Asia reports having less than 25 % of the service providers made public (Figure 10). Only the region of Caucasus and Central Asia have over 50 % of the countries reporting having between 25-75 % or more than 75 % of the service providers made public (Figure 10). Figure 11 shows similar results as figure 10, where the 50 % of the countries for all regions have less than 25 % of providers made customer satisfaction public.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Plan being fully implemented, with funding, and regularly reviewed

Policy and plan costed and being partially implemented Implementation plan developed based on approved policyNational policy formally approvedand gazetted through formal public announcementNo national policy or under developmentNo answer


Figure 10. Percentage of countries having few, some or most of the performance reviews made public in rural sanitation.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Few (less than 25% of providers)Some (between 25-75% of providers) Most (more than 75% of providers)No answer


Figure 12. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and the type of expenditure in rural sanitation.

Figure 11. Percentage of countries having few, some or most of the customer satisfaction review made public in rural sanitation.

The following pie charts represent the percentage of countries for each region that have available expenditure reports and the type of expenditure for sanitation in rural areas (Figure 12, 13, 14, 15, 16).

For the region of Sub-Saharan Africa 84 % of the countries report having expenditure reports available. Of this 84 % of the countries, 54 % of the countries reports that expenditure comes from both external and national funding and 16 % of the countries reports having governmental expenditure only. Only 14

Unavailable16 %

Only Governement expen-diture16%

External funding from non ODA and ODA

14%

Expenditure from external and national funding

51%

No answer3%

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Few (less than 25% of providers) Some (between 25-75% of providers) Most (more than 75% of providers) No answer


% of the countries reports having expenditure from external funding from both Official Development Assistance (ODA) and non-ODA (Figure 12).

Figure 13. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and the type of expenditure in rural sanitation.

For the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia, 90 % of the countries report having expenditure reports available. Of the 90 % of the countries having available expenditure reports, almost half of the countries report expenditure from external and national funding. Of the remaining countries, 19 % of the countries reports having government expenditure only and 19% have not answered the type of expenditure (Figure 13).

Unavailable13%

Only Governement expenditure25%


38%

No answer25%

Unavailable12%


Expenditure from external and national

funding53%

No answer18%

Figure 15. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia and the type of expenditure in rural sanitation.

Figure 14. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Latin America and Caribbean and the type of expenditure in rural sanitation.

The region of Latin America and Caribbean shows similar results as the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia regarding the availability of expenditure reports. Of the 88 % of the countries that have expenditure reports available, 38 % of the countries report having expenditure from external and national funding. Of the remaining countries, 25 % reports having government expenditure only and 25 % have not answered the type of expenditure (Figure 14).

The results from the region of Caucasus and Central Asia and North Africa and Middle East, are similar as

pervious results for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa, Southern Asia and South East Asia and Latin America and Caribbean. For the region of Caucasus and Central Asia, 31 % of the 77 % of the countries that report having expenditure reports available, have expenditure from external and national funding.

Unavailable17%


External funding from non ODA and ODA17%


33%

23 % of the countries report having government expenditure only and 8 % of the countries have expenditure from external funding from both ODA and non ODA (Figure 15).

For the region of North Africa and Middle East, 57% of 86 % of the countries reporting having expenditure reports available, reports having expenditure from both external and national funding. The remaining 29 % of the countries report having government expenditure only.

For all regions, the amount of countries reporting having expenditure reports available is relatively high. Further, the majority of these countries report having expenditure from both external and national funding and a relatively large part of the remaining countries reports having government expenditure only. The number of countries that have not given the type of expenditure is relatively high for the region of Latin America and Caribbean, with a percentage of 25%.

Unavailable14%

Only Governement expenditure

29%


57%

Figure 16. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of North Africa and Middle East and the type of expenditure in rural sanitation.

The percentage of countries that have clearly defined procedures in laws or policies for participation by service users and communities in planning programs is high for every region (Figure 17). The region that has the highest percentage of countries that do not have clearly defined procedures in law or policy in planning programs is Caucasus and Central Asia. Few countries for the region of Latin America and Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia and South East Asia have not answered the question (figure 17).

Figure 18. Percentage of countries that have low, moderate or high level of participation of the service users in rural sanitation.

Figure 17. Percentage of countries that have defined procedures in law or policy for participation by service users and communities in planning programs in rural sanitation.

Over 40% of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East, Caucasus and Central Asia and Latin America and Caribbean report having low level of particiaption of the service urser in rural sanitation (Figure 18). For the regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia and South East Asia, over 80 % of the countries report having moderate or high level of participation (Figure 18).


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

No

No Answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Low

Moderate

High

No Answer


Figure 19. Percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanism in rural sanitation exists for few, some or most of the population served in rural sanitation.

%

Figure 19 represents the percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanism in rural sanitation exist for few, some or most of the population served. For the region of North Africa and Middle East, over 40 % of the countries reports that complaint mechanism exist for less than 25 % of the population served. Almost half of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East reports that effective complaint mechanism exist for some or most of the population served, where the majority of those countries have effective complaint mechanism for some of the population served. For the remaining regions, the amount of countries where effective complaint mechanism exist for a few of the population served is relatively low, with less than 25 % of the countries. For the region of Caucasus and Central Asia, the amount of countries where effective complaint mechanism exist for most of the population served is highest with a percentage of over 35 % together with the region of Latin America and Caribbean. The amount of countries that do not know how much of the population served can access to effective mechanism complaints is approximately between 30-40 % of the countries for the region of Latin America and Caribbean, Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 19).

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Few (less than 25% population served) Some (between. 25-50% population served)

Most (more than 50% population served) Unknown

No answer


Figure 20. Percentage of countries that report the results of their internal monitoring against required service standards to the regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions in rural sanitation.

The amount of countries that do not have any reporting of results from internal monitoring is high for the region of North Africa and Middle East and Caucasus and Central Asia with a percentage of 50 % (Figure 20). Although the same patterns is true for the remaining regions, the percentage of countries that have reported results from internal monitoring and where it has triggered and not triggered a corrective action is between 40 % and 50 % (Figure 20).

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




3.1.2 Urban areasLevel of responsibility

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Policy and plan costed and being partially implemented

Implementation plan developed based on approved policy

National policy formally approvedand gazetted through formal public announcement

No national policy or under development

No answer


Figure 21. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in urban sanitation.

The level of implementation of the national policies and plans for each region can be deduced from figure 21. The region where most countries have policies and plans costed and partially implemented are North Africa and Middle East and Caucasus and Central Asia, with over 40 % of the countries and Sub-Saharan Africa with over 60 % of the countries. The region of North Africa and Middle East and Caucasus and Central Asia has the highest amount of countries where policies and plans are fully implemented with funding and regularly reviewed while Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest amount of countries with fully implemented plans and policies (Figure 21).

Level of answerabilityFigure 22 and 23 represents the percentage of countries that have few, some or most performance reviews respectively customer satisfaction reviews of urban formal service providers made public for sanitation. The results from figure 22 shows that many countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East and Caucasus and Central Asia have more than 75 % of the countries where some or most of the urban formal service providers where made public in sanitation. Over 50 % of the countries for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia and South East Asia report having less than 25% of the urban formal service providers made public in sanitation (Figure 22).

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Few (less than 25% of providers) Some (between 25-75% of providers)

Most (more than 75% of providers) No answer


Figure 22. Percentage of countries having few, some or most of the performance reviews made public in urban sanitation.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Figure 23. Percentage of countries having few, some or most of the customer satisfaction review made public in urban sanitation.

The results from figure 23 shows that the majority of countries for all regions except for the region of Latin America and Caribbean have less than 25 % of the customer satisfaction reviews of the urban formal service providers where made public in urban sanitation. However, the region of Caucasus and Central Asia have approximately 40 % of the counties reporting more than 75% of the customer satisfaction reviews of the urban formal service providers where made public in sanitation (Figure 23).

Figure 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 represents the percentage of countries for each region that have available expenditure reports and the type of expenditure for sanitation in urban areas. For all regions, the availability of expenditure report is high and for the region of North Africa and Middle East, all countries report having expenditure report available. Additionally, the majority of countries, for all regions that have expenditure reports available, report having expenditure from external and national funding.

Unavailbale 14 %



8%


59%

No answer5%

Unavailable6 %



6%

Expenditure from external and na-

tional funding53%

No answer24%

Unavailable 13%

Only Governement ex-penditure

25%


38%

No answer25%

Figure 26. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Latin America and Caribbean and the type of expenditure in urban sanitation.

Figure 24. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and the type of expenditure in urban sanitation.

Figure 25. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and the type of expenditure in urban sanitation.

For the region of Latin America and Caribbean, 25% of 88 % of the countries that have expenditure report, have not answered the type of expenditure and 25 % reports having government expenditure only. As such, a relatively small amount of countries report having expenditure from both external and national funding (Figure 26). Similar results can be seen for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia (Figure 27).

For the region of North Africa and Middle East the majority of countries, with a percentage of 71 %, report having expenditure from external and national funding and 29 % of the countries report having government expenditure only (Figure 28).

Figure 29 represent the percentage of countries that have clearly defined law and policies for participation by service users and communities in planning programs in urban sanitation. Over 60 % of the countries for all regions report having a clearly defined law and policies in urban sanitation.

Between 40 % and 70 % of the countries for all regions, report having moderate level of participation of the services in urban sanitation (Figure 30). Only the regions of North Africa and Middle East and Latin America and Caribbean lack of high level of participation of the service users in urban sanitation. For all regions, except for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia, the percentage of countries that have low level of participation of service users in urban sanitation is around 30 % (Figure 30).


29%


71%Figure 28. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of North Africa and Middle East and the type of expenditure in urban sanitation.

Unavailable 17%



50%

Figure 27. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia and the type of expenditure in urban sanitation.

Figure 31. Percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanisms in urban sanitation exist for few, some or most of the population served in urban sanitation.


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Few (less than 25% population served) Some (between. 25-50% population served)Most (more than 50% population served) UnknownNo answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Low

Moderate

High

No Answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

No

No Answer


Figure 30. Percentage of countries that have low, moderate or high level of participation of the service users in urban sanitation.

The results from figure 31 shows that the majority of countries for all regions except for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia and South East Asia have effective complaint mechanism for most of the population served, with a percentage of 60 % to 70 %. Almost 30 % of the countries for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa report having lack of knowledge when it comes to access of effective complaint mechanism for population served (Figure 31).

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




Figure 32. Percentage of countries that reports the results of their internal monitoring against required service standards to the regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions in urban sanitation.

Over 35 % of the countries for all regions except for the region of Latin America and Caribbean do not report results from internal monitoring in urban sanitation. Only Latin America and Caribbean as well as North Africa and Middle East have around 60 % of the countries where internal monitoring in urban sanitation is reported and where it also triggers corrective actions (Figure 32).

3.1.3 Schools and Health facilities Level of responsibilityThe majority of countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East report fully implemented policies and plans of sanitation in schools. The region of Latin America and Caribbean has the highest percentage of countries reporting lack of national policies for sanitation in schools or under development, with 40 % of the countries that do not have no policies and plans or under development (Figure 33).

Similar results are shown for the level of implementation of policies and plan of sanitation for health facilities (Figure 34). The region of North Africa and Middle East together with the region of Caucasus and Central Asia show a high percentage of countries with fully implemented plans and policies for sanitation in health facilities. At the same time, the region of North Africa and Middle East also shows a relatively high percentage of countries that lack of national policies or policies under development. The region of Latin America and Caribbean also shows a relatively high percentage of countries that lack of national policies or policies under development for sanitation health facilities (Figure 34).

Figure 33. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in sanitation in schools.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






No answer


3.2 Drinking-waterLevel of responsibilityFor the sector of drinking water, the percentage of countries with more than one leading ministry/institution is over 60 % for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. For the region of Latin America and Caribbean and Caucasus and Central Asia, the majority of countries report having one leading ministry/institution for the drinking-water sector. Only the region of North Africa and Middle East, have countries reporting having no leading ministry/institution (Figure 35).

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Countires with one leading ministry/institutionCountries with more than one leading minsitry/institutionNo leading ministry/institutionNo answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Policy and plan costed and being partially implemented Implementation plan developed based on approved policyNational policy formally approvedand gazetted through formal public announcementNo national policy or under developmentNo answer


Figure 36. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 of donors involved in drinking-water.

Figure 35. Percentage of countries having one or more than one leading ministries/institutions in drinking-water.

Figure 36 represent the percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 donors in the sector of drinking-water. Only for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia, over 60 % of the countries report having between 1-10 donors in drinking-water and over 50 % of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East report having more than 11 donors (Figure 36).

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-1011 +0No answer


Figure 37. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 donors in drinking-water that allocates funding through a signed agreement responsive to government defined priorities.

For the region of Caucasus and Central Asia and Sub-Sahara Africa, the majority of countries, with a percentage of over 50% report having between 1-10 donors that allocates funding through a signed agreement responsive to government defined priorities (Figure 37). For the region of North Africa and Middle East, around 40 % of the countries report having more than 11 donors that allocates funding through a signed agreement. The percentage of countries that have not answered the question is relatively high for every region, with percentage ranging between 15 % to 60 % (Figure 37).

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-10

11 +

0

No an-swer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-10 11 +

No answer


Figure 38. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in drinking-water that do not pass through the national budget.

Regarding the amount of donors that do not pass through the national budget, the majority of countries for all regions have not answered, with a percentage over 50 %. Only the region of Sub-Saharan Africa show that approximately 40 % of the countries report having between 1-10 donors that do not pass through national budget (Figure 38). Similar results can be deduced regarding the number of donors using targeted budget support as the number of donors that do not pass through national budget. Over 60 % of the countries give no answer to the number of donors in drinking-water using targeted budget support and between 5 % and 15 % of the countries for the region of Latin America and Caribbean, Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have no donors using targeted budget support (Figure 39).

Figure 39. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in drinking-water using targeted budget support.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-10

11 +

0

No answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1-10

11 +

0

No answer


Figure 40. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in drinking-water using general budget support with specific objectives or performance indicators.

Figure 40 also show similar results as figure 38 and 39 regarding the total number of donors using general support with specific objectives or performance indicators. The majority of countries for all regions have not answered the question and only a relatively small percentage of countries report having between 1-10 donors that use general budget support with specific objectives or performance indicators (Figure 40).


Figure 41. Percentage of countries that reports having community based service providers reporting results of internal monitoring against required service standards in drinking-water.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



percentgae of countries

Figure 42. Percentage of countries where informal service providers that reports the results of their internal monitoring against required service standards to the regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions for drinking-water.

Figure 41 and 42 represent the percentage of countries where community based respectively informal

service providers reports the results of internal monitoring against required service standards in sanitation. The results that can deduced from both figure 41 and 42 is that over 40 % of the countries for all regions, except for Caucasus and Central Asia, report that community based providers and service provider do not report results from internal monitoring against required service standards. Over 20 % of the countries for the all regions except for North Africa and Middle East have not answered the question regarding the reporting of internal monitoring from informal service providers (Figure 42).

3.2.1 Rural areasLevel of responsibility

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not reported Reported but does not lead to corrective action Reported and triggers corrective action

No answer


Approximately 40 % and more of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East, Caucasus and Central Asia and Southern Asia and South East Asia report having plan and policies fully implemented. For the region of North Africa and Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, over 50 % of countries report having policy and plan costed and partially implemented (Figure 43).

Level of answerability

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






No answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Figure 45. Percentage of countries, for each region, having few, some or most of the customer satisfaction reviews in rural drinking water made public.

Figure 44 and 45 represent the percentage of countries having few, some or most of the performance reviews respectively the customer satisfaction reviews made public. Result from figure 44 shows that over 50% of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East, Latin America and Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa have few performance reviews of the rural formal service providers made public. However, the region of North Africa and Middle East has the highest amount of countries where most of the performance reviews of the rural formal service providers is made public (Figure 44).

The results from figure 45 also shows that the majority of countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East, Latin America and Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa have few customer satisfaction reviews of the rural formal service providers made public. The amount of countries that have not

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


percentage of countires

answered the question is for the region of Latin America and Caribbean relatively high, with a percentage of 30 % (Figure 45).

Figure 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 represent the percentage of countries for each region that has expenditure report available and the type expenditure for rural drinking-water. The majority of countries for all regions except for the region of North Africa and Middle East, where all surveyed countries have expenditure reports available, show that expenditure reports are available. Common to all regions is that the majority of the countries that have expenditure reports available, have expenditure from external and national funding. Additionally, over 30 % of the countries for all regions, report having government expenditure only (Figure 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50).

Figure 47. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and the type of expenditure in rural drinking-water.

Unavailable11% Only Governement expen-

diture11%External funding from non

ODA and ODA5%


funding62%

No answer11%

Figure 46. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and the type of expenditure in rural drinking-water.

Unavailable13%


31%



38%

No answer13%

Figure 48. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Latin America and Caribbean and the type of expenditure in rural drinking-water.

Unavailable17%



50%

Figure 49. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia and the type of expenditure in rural drinking-water.

Unavailable18%


29%



funding29%

No answer18%


29%


funding71%

Figure 50. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports is available for the region of North Africa and Middle East and the type of expenditure in rural drinking-water.

Figure 51 and 52 represent the percentage of countries having clearly defined procedures in law and policy for participation by service users and the extent of participation of service users in rural drinking-water.

Figure 51. Percentage of countries that have defined procedures in law or policy for participation by service users and communities in planning programs in rural drinking-water.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

No

No An-swer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Low

Moderate

High

No Answer


Figure 52. Percentage of countries that have low, moderate or high level of participation of the service users in rural drinking-water.

The results that can deduced from figure 51 is that over 75% of the countries for all regions have defined procedures in law and policy for participation by service users and communities in planning programs in rural drinking-water, where North Africa and Middle East has 100 % of the countries reporting clearly defined procedures in law and policy.

Regarding the level of participation of the services users in rural drinking-water, over 70 % of the countries for all region report having a moderate or high participation level (Figure 52). Only the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia have approximately 30 % of the countries reporting having a high level of participation of the service users in rural drinking-water (Figure 52).

Level of enforceabilityFigure 53 represent the percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanism in rural drinking water exist for few, some or most of the population served. Around 70 % of the countries of North Africa and Middle East report having access of complaint mechanism for 25% to 50 % and more than 50 % of population served. 50 % of the countries for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia report having access to complaint mechanism for most of the population served. For the region of Latin America and Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa around 30 % of countries report not knowing the amount of population served that have access to effective complaint mechanism (Figure 53).

Figure 53. Percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanism in rural drinking-water exist for few, some or most of the population served.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not reported Reported but does not lead to corrective actionReported and triggers corrective action No answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Few (less than 25% population served) Some (between. 25-50% population served)Most (more than 50% population served) UnknownNo answer


Figure 54 represent the percentage of countries that reports the results of internal monitoring against service standards to the regulatory authorities and if the reporting trigger to corrective action in rural drinking-water. Between 30% and 50 % of the countries for all regions report the results and the reporting triggers a corrective action. Only the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia has more than 40 % of the countries not reporting internal monitoring (Figure 54).

Figure 54. Percentage of countries that reports the results of their internal monitoring against required service standards to the regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions in rural drinking-water.

3.2.2 Urban areasLevel of responsibility

The level of implementation of national policies and plan in urban drinking-water is represented in figure 55. For the region of North Africa and Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, around 50 % of the countries report having policy and plan partially implemented. The percentage of countries that have national policies and plans fully implemented is over 40 % for the region of North Africa and Middle East and Caucasus and Central Asia. Only the region of Latin America and Caribbean, Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have between 5% to 10 % of the countries reporting that they do not have a national policy or that it is under development (Figure 55).

Level of answerabilityFigure 56 and 57 represent the percentage of countries having few, some or most of the performance reviews respectively the customer satisfaction reviews made public. The results from figure 56, shows that over 70 % of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East and Caucasus and Central Asia have some or most of the providers of performance reviews were made public. Only the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa show that around 50 % of the countries have less than 25% of providers for the performance reviews made public (Figure 56).

Results from figure 57 show that less than 50 % of the countries for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and Latin America and Caribbean have less than 25% of providers of satisfaction reviews were made public. For the region of North Africa and Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, around 50 % of the countries have less than 25% of providers of satisfaction reviews were made public. Only the region of Caucasus and Central Asia show that around 80 % of the countries have some or most of providers of satisfaction reviews were made public (Figure 57).

Figure 55. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in urban drinking-water.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






No answer


Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Figure 57. Percentage of countries, for each region, having few, some or most of the customer satisfaction reviews for urban drinking water made public.

Figure 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 represent the percentage of countries that have expenditure reports available and the type of expenditure. The results from figure 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 are similar to the results from figure 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50, which shows the expenditure for drinking water in rural areas. This means that a majority of countries for all regions have expenditure reports available. Only the region of North Africa and Middle East is the expenditure reports available for all surveyed countries (Figure 62). The type of expenditure that the majority of countries have is from external and national funding. Many countries, for all regions, report having government expenditure only.

Unvailable14%



3%


62%

No answer8%

Figure 58. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and the type of expenditure in urban drinking-water.

Figure 59. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and the type of expenditure in urban drinking-water.

For the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia, 25 % of the countries have not answered what type of expenditure they have and only 15% report having government expenditure only (Figure 59).

Unvailable6%



6%


53%

No answer24%

Unvailable13%


25%


38%

No answer25%

Figure 60. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Latin America and Caribbean and the type of expenditure in urban drinking-water.

Figure 61. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia and the type of expenditure in urban drinking-water.

Unvailable17%



50%


29%


71%

Figure 62. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of North Africa and Middle East and the type of expenditure in urban drinking-water

Figure 63 and 64 represent the percentage of countries, for each region, that have clear defined procedure for law and policy for participation by service users and communities and the extent of participation in urban drinking-water.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

No

No Answer

Percentgae of countries

Figure 63. Percentage of countries that have defined procedures in law or policy for participation by service users and communities in planning programs in urban drinking-water.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Low

Moderate

High

No Answer


Figure 64. Percentage of countries that have low, moderate or high level of participation of the service users in urban drinking-water.

The results that can be deduced from figure 63 is that all countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East have clear defined procedures in law and policies by service users and communities in planning programs in urban drinking-water. The majority of the countries for the remaining regions also show clear defined procedures in law and policy in planning program in urban drinking-water (Figure 63).

Figure 64 shows that the majority of countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East and Caucasus and Central Asia have moderate level of participation of the service users in urban drinking-water. Additionally, the regions of North Africa and Middle East and Latin America and Caribbean have approximately 40 % of the countries reporting low participation level of the service users in urban drinking-water (Figure 64).

Level of enforceabilityFigure 65 represent the percentage of countries, for each region, the amount of population served that have access to effective complaint mechanism. Over 50 % of the countries for all regions report that more than 50 % of the population served have access to effective complaint mechanism. Only the region of North Africa and Middle East and Southern Asia and South East Asia have less than 30 % of the countries were less than 25 % of the population served have access to effective complaint mechanism (Figure 65).

Figure 66, show that over 50 % of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East, Caucasus and Central Asia, Latin America and Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa reports results from internal monitoring and where the reporting triggers corrective actions. Approximately 20 % of the countries for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa do not report results from internal monitoring in urban drinking water (Figure 66).

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




Figure 65. Percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanism in urban drinking-water exist for few, some or most of the population served

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Few (less than 25% population served) Some (between. 25-50% population served)Most (more than 50% population served)UnknownNo answer


Figure 66. Percentage of countries that reports the results of their internal monitoring against required service standards to the regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions in urban drinking-water.

3.2.3 Schools and Health FacilitiesLevel of responsibility

The level of implementation for drinking-water in schools varies between the regions (Figure 67). Less than 30 % of the countries for all regions have fully implemented national policies in sanitation for schools. Around 30% of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East and Latin America and Caribbean lack of national policies or national policies are under development. However, 40 % of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East but also for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa have national policies partially implemented (Figure 67).

The level of implementation of drinking-water in health facilities is generally high for all regions except for Latin America and Caribbean, with around 60 % of the countries reporting having national policies fully or partially implemented or approved (Figure 68). The region of North Africa and Middle East has the highest percentage (around 55 %) of countries reporting having fully implemented national policies.

Figure 67. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans for drinking-water in schools

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






No answer

percentage fo countries

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






No answer


Figure 68. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans for drinking-water in health facilities

3.3 Sanitation and Drinking-water Level of responsibilityThe results presented in this section are about coordination between actors for both drinking-water and sanitation.

Sub-Saharan Africa





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes Developing No

Percentgae of countries

Figure 69. Percentage of countries where formal mechanism exists to coordinated the work of different organizations with responsibilities in drinking-water and sanitation.

The results from figure 69 show that all the surveyed countries for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia have a mechanism to coordinate the work of different organisations involved in drinking-water and sanitation. Furthermore, the majority of countries for the remaining region also show that a mechanism

to coordinate different organisation exist. However, a relatively large percentage of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East report having no mechanism of coordination for different organisations (Figure 69).

The following figures 70, 71, 72, 73 and 74, show the coordination process for each regions for the countries that have reported an existent coordination mechanism for different organisations involved in drinking-water and sanitation.

The coordination process include all ministries and government agencies that directly or indirectly influence sesrvice delivery

The coordinations process include non-government stakeholders

The coordination process apply evidence-based decision-making, including consideration of agreed indicators

The coordination process base its work on an agreed sectoral framework or national plan

The coordination process documented

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No No answer


Figure 70. Percentage of countries for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa reporting occurrence of different type of coordination processes.






0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No No answer


Figure 71. Percentage of countries for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia reporting occurrence of different type of coordination processes.






0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No No answer


Figure 72. Percentage of countries for the region of Latin America and Caribbean reporting occurrence of different type of coordination processes.

Figure 73. Percentage of countries for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia reporting occurrence of different type of coordination processes.






0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes No No answer

percentage of countires






0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No No answer


Figure 74. Percentage of countries for the region of North Africa/Middle East reporting occurrence of different type of coordination processes.

The majority of countries for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa, Southern Asia and South East Asia, Caucasus and Central Asia and North Africa and Middle East report having included all ministries and government agencies and non-governmental stakeholders, applying evidence based decision making, based the work on agreed sectorial framework and document the coordination process (Figure 70, 71, 73 and 74). For the region of Latin America and Caribbean show that many countries have not specified the type of coordinated processes and some countries have not included non-governmental stakeholders, evidence based decision making, documented the coordination process or based the work on agreed sectorial frameworks (Figure 72).

3.4 Results from open-ended questionsIn this section, results deduced from open-ended answers from question A1, C1, C2 and B2 are presented regionally for both drinking water and sanitation.

Regarding the implementation of national policies and plans for drinking-water and sanitation (Q. A1), many Sub-Saharan African countries report having approved national policies and adopted. Some countries have plan and policy documents in place that can give an orientation in the sector of sanitation and drinking water and other countries have documents but they are not accessible to the service providers. Few countries have standards that force stakeholders and service providers to achieve good drinking water and sanitation facilities and few countries report having financial problems with low funding. Additionally, the need to develop a stand-alone policy is also a reason behind the lack of implementation for some countries. For the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia, many countries have not commented the level of implementation of policies and plan but some countries states that policies and plan needs to be updated and that guidelines need to be more developed. Other countries report a need to increase training and dialogue for both sectors and some countries report having a single policy and plan for both sectors. The few countries that has added additional information regarding the level of implementation of plans and policies for the region of Latin America and Caribbean state that decrees exist for sanitation and drinking-water and that plan and policies exist at municipal level. The same statements can be derived from the countries for the region of Caucasus and

Central Asia. The general comments that can be deduced from the countries of North Africa and Middle East is that plans and policies exist for sanitation and drinking-water or that a policies and plans are under development.

Most countries for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa that have an effective complaint (Q. C1) mechanism report having media, municipal, communal or local administrations through formal communication for complaint, call centers and mail. Committee meetings are also reported as a way of leaving complaints. The same mechanism is reported for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia, Latin America and Caribbean, Caucasus and Central Asia and North Africa and Middle East. Additional compliant mechanism that is reported by some countries are collection of signature that is send by letter to the local government and complaint addressed to both private service providers, such as companies, and public service providers, such as local authorities.

Different other ways of reporting results of internal monitoring against service standards to the regulatory authorities and regulate has been stated (Q. C2). The countries of Sub-Saharan Africa report collecting results from internal monitoring through national investigations, reports from NGO´s, periodic revenue that is prepared by the village administration and web sites. Some countries for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia, report that problems related to sanitation and drinking water has to be announced through media, before local authorities take action. Also, reporting and regulation can be done through review meetings and by looking at projects that NGO´s is handing over. Some countries for the region of Latin America and Caribbean report that monitoring and regulations are done by companies responsible for drinking water and sanitation but also from service providers that gives information in a regular basis. Additionally, urban operators and national food agencies are example of service providers that report to the regulatory authorities that is stated by some countries for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia. The North African and Middle Eastern countries report that the main concerned ministries and institutions are monitoring annually the drinking water and sanitation sector. Also, regular meeting with stakeholders and report from service providers are other ways of reporting results to regulatory authorities.

For the countries for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa that do not have expenditure report available (Q.B2) states having for instance sectorial revenues, expenditure reports at the ministry in charge with investments plans, reports at the national services of drinking-water or reports from water and sewerage companies. Some countries for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia report having expenditure reports available through individual projects, implementing agencies, UN agency and NGO´s or through specific projects. Latin American and Caribbean countries report having expenditure reports through integrated systems of management and system of water supply and sanitation, financial departments and through the secretary of sanitation. For the region of Caucasus and Central Asia, countries report having expenditure reports through programs, ministries, regional and local organizations. Additionally, the countries of the region of North Africa and Middle East report having expenditure reports available through the government or national monitoring system for national budget. Reports can also be available through the donor’s contribution to the water and sanitation sector for some countries in the region f North Africa and Middle East.

4. DiscussionThe different accountability components that are evaluated in this report for the sanitation and drinking water sector show some differences in the results depending on the sector and depending on if the survey has been done for rural or urban areas (Table 4 and 5).

Table 4. Table showing the main results of accountability from the sanitation sector.

Accountability

ComponentSanitation Rural Sanitation Urban Sanitation

Responsibility

- Over 40 % of the countries for all regions except for Latin America and Caribbean have

one leading ministry. Latin America and Caribbean have over 70 % of the countries

having more than one leading ministry.- More than 50 % of the countries for all

regions, except for Latin America and Caribbean as well as Southern Asia and South

East Asia, have between 1-10 donors involved in the sanitation sector.

Furthermore, over 40 % of the countries in Southern Asia and South East Asia report

have more than 11 donors involved in sanitation and the same percentage of

countries for Latin America and Caribbean give no answer.

- Over 40 % of the countries except for Latin America and Caribbean have between 1-10

donors and over 30 % of the countries for all regions do not answer. The percentage of

countries that do not respond to the number of donors that do not pass trough national

budget, that uses targeted support and budget support is over 50 % of the countries. - The level of implementation of policies and plans in sanitation is similar for schools and

health facilities. Over 50 % of the countries of North Africa and Middle East have fully

implemented policies and plans. Approximately 30 % of the countries of Latin America and Caribbean have no policies or

policies are under development. The remaining regions show a moderate level of implementation where most countries have

partially implemented policies or policies approved.

- Approximately 50 % of the countries for the region of

Caucasus and Central Asia report fully implemented national

policies and plans. - The region of Latin America and Caribbean show the lowest level

of implementation as less than 40 % of the countries have either fully or partially implemented

national policies and plans. - The remaining regions show a good level of implementation where more than 50 % of the

countries report having partially or fully implemented national

policies and plans.

- Good level of implementation of plans and policies for the region of North Africa and Middle East but also for Caucasus and

Central Asia, as all surveyed countries report having policies and plans either

fully or partially implemented. - For the remaining regions, the level of implementation is lower, as 60 % of the countries report having either fully or

partially implemented policies and plans or just formally approved.

Answerability

- Approximately 50 % of the countries for all regions except for

the region of Caucasus and Central Asia have few of the

performance reviews and customer satisfaction made

public. The region of Caucasus and Central Asia have over 60 % of the countries reporting having some or most of the performance

reviews made public. However, the region of Caucasus and

Central Asia do not show a high amount of customer satisfaction reviews made public. In contrary,

the availability of expenditure

- The amount of performance reviews that are made public is high for the region

of Caucasus and Central Asia and Latin America and Caribbean, but low for the region of North Africa and Middle East,

Southern Asia and South East Asia and for Sub-Saharan Africa. The amount of

customer satisfaction reviews that are made public is low for all regions.

- As for the availability of the expenditure reports, all regions have the majority of

countries reporting that expenditure reports are available.

- While all regions have a majority of countries reporting having defined policies and law for participation by

reports is for all regions high, with a percentage between 80 % and

90 %. - Regarding the asset of clearly

defined law and policies in participation of the service users in rural sanitation, over 60 % of

the countries for all regions report having clearly defined law and

policies. - The participation level of service

service users and communities in planning programs, the participation level of the

service users in urban sanitation is moderate for all regions.

Enforceability

- Over 50 % of the countries for all regions do not report internal monitoring from community based service providers.

- The same results are true for internal monitoring reported from informal service users with the exception of Caucasus and Central Asia, where around 30 % of the

countries do not report internal monitoring.

- Only the region of Caucasus and Central Asia show that most or some of the population served

have access to effective complaint mechanism. The other regions

show in comparison to Caucasus and Central Asia, that most

countries report having either few of the population served access to complaint mechanism or that the amount of population served is

unknown. - Regarding the internal

monitoring, over 40 % of the countries for all regions except for Latin America and Caribbean state

having no internal monitoring reported.

- The access of effective complaint mechanism is accessible for most of the population served for most countries for all regions except for Southern Asia and

South East Asia as well as for Sub-Saharan Africa.

- Not many countries report internal monitoring for the region of Caucasus and

Central Asia, Southern Asia and South East Asia as well as for Sub-Saharan

Africa. For the region of North Africa and Middle East as well as for the region of

Latin America and Caribbean, more than 50 % of the countries report internal

monitoring which also triggers corrective actions.

Table 5. Table showing the main results of accountability for the drinking-water sector.

Accountability

ComponentDrinking-Water Rural Drinking-Water Urban Drinking-Water

Responsibility

- 60 % of the countries for Southern Asia and South East Asia as well as for Sub-Saharan

Africa have on leading ministry. - Over 70 % of the countries for the region of

Latin America and Caribbean as well as for Caucasus and Central Asia have more than

one leading ministry/institution and 10 % of the countries in North Africa and Middle East

have no leading ministry. - Around 40 % of the countries for all regions except for North Africa and Middle East have

between 1-10 donors involved in drinking-water. Over 50 % of the countries for North Africa and Middle East have more than 11

donors.

- Around 40 % and more of the countries report for all region, except for Latin America and Caribbean and Sub-Saharan

Africa, having fully implemented policies and plans. Sub-Saharan

Africa as well as North Africa and Middle East have more than 50 % of the countries reporting partially implemented policies and plans.

- The region that has the best level of implementation of

national policies and plans is Caucasus and Central Asia.

- Over 40 % of the countries in North Africa and Middle East and Caucasus and

Central Asia have fully implemented policies and plans. Around 50 % of the

countries in North Africa and Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa report having

policies and plans partially implemented.

- Low frequency of answers, with over 50 % of the countries for all region that do not give

an answer to the number of donors that is allocated through signed agreement, donors

with targeted budget support and donors with specific objectives.

- Less than 30 % of the countries for all regions have fully implemented national

policies in schools and health facilities. For drinking-water in schools, 30 % of the

countries in North Africa and Middle East have no policies or policies under

development. The same region shows that 55 % of the countries have fully implemented

national policies in health facilities.

Answerability

- Over 30 % of the countries for all regions have few of the

population served performance reviews made public. Caucasus and Central Asia has the highest

level of population served, with a percentage of over 60 %, where

some or most of the performance reviews is made public. The same results are true for the amount of

customer satisfaction reviews made public.

- The availability of expenditure reports is for all regions good.

Over 80 % of the countries have expenditure reports available for

all regions. - Over 75 % of the countries for all

regions report having clearly defined law and policies for

participation by service users and community in planning programs. - The participation level is for all

regions moderate, where approximately 70 % of the

countries have either high or moderate level of participation.

- Over 70 % of the countries for in North Africa and Middle East and Caucasus and

Central Asia have some or most of performance reviews made public. The other regions have between 50-60% of

the countries where some or most of the of performance reviews made public.

- Around 50 % of the countries in North Africa and Middle East, Southern Asia and

South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have few of the customer satisfaction

made public. The region of Caucasus and Central Asia have around 60 % of the countries where some or most of the

customer satisfaction are made public. - The results concerning the availability of

expenditure reports are similar to the results from rural area.

- Over 70 % of the countries for all regions have clearly defined procedure in law and

policy for participation in planning programs. The region of Caucasus and Central Asia has 80 % of the countries

where the participation is moderate. The regions of Southern Asia and South East Asia as well as Sub-Saharan Africa have

less than 25 % of the countries where the participation is low.

Enforceability

- Over 40 % of the countries for Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and Middle East and Southern Asia and South East Asia do not

report internal monitoring from both informal and community based service

providers. - For the region of Latin America and

Caribbean and Caucasus and Central Asia, between 30- 50 % of the countries report

internal monitoring and only around 15% do not trigger corrective action from both informal and community based service

providers.

- High amount of population

served that has access to complaint mechanism for North Africa and Middle East as well as

for Caucasus and Central Asia. For the region of Latin America and Caribbean together with Sub-

Saharan Africa, around 30 % of the countries do not give an

answer to the question. - Less than 30 % of the countries

for all regions report internal monitoring which also triggers

corrective action.

- Around 50 % of the countries for all regions report that most of the

population served have access to complaint mechanism.

- Over 50 % of the countries for all regions except for Southern Asia and South East

Asia report internal monitoring which also triggers corrective actions.

4.1 Accountability in Sanitation General provisions The clarity of roles in the sanitation sector is expected to be good for most regions and countries. This can be deduced from the number of leading ministries involved in the sector that each country report. As the majority of countries report for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa having one leading ministry or institution responsible for the sanitation sector, the level of clarity is likely to be high. This is due to the fact that one leading ministry or institution is often a sign of a clear distribution of work and responsibilities among all involved parties. The opposite of this, such as having more than one leading ministry or institution in the sanitation sector, can therefore lead to reduced level of clarity of the distribution and responsibilities which could result in confusion and disorganisation in the work of developing a better sanitation sector.

The efficient coordination is one aspect that facilitates accountability. In the report, information about the number of donors in the sector and how they operate is given by the surveyed countries. For all of the regions except for the region of Latin America and Caribbean, more than 50 % of the countries report having between 1- 10 donors involved in the sanitation sector, while between 30 % and 70 % of the countries for the region of Latin America and Caribbean, Southern Asia and South East Asia together with Sub-Saharan Africa have more than 11 donors. In the context of coordination, a fewer number of donors is easier to coordinate than a bigger number. As such, the level of coordination is easier if there is a manageable amount of donors involved in sanitation. This can give an indication of a better coordination level for North Africa and Middle East as well as for Caucasus and Central Asia than for Latin America and Caribbean, Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, it is easier for governments and parties involved in the sanitation sector to coordinate donors if they pass through national budget or if the donors allocate their support through signed agreements, since the countries get in direct contact with the donors.

The level of answerability for sanitation is further discussed in detail by subsector for rural and urban areas.

Another level of accountability is enforceability, the existence of control, oversight and regulatory procedures. For all regions, over 50 % of the countries do not report internal monitoring from both community based and informal service providers, which can be described as a platform for taking corrective actions that can improve service delivery. As such, the regulation level and therefore the level of enforceability is generally moderated as more than half of the countries do not report internal monitoring.

The level of implementation of national policies and plans, which related to the level of clarity of work distribution and duties, differs in schools and health facilities between the regions. As over 50 % of the countries for the region of North Africa and Middle East have fully implemented policies and plans for schools and health facilities, the level of responsibility can be considered as high. For the region of Latin America and Caribbean the level of responsibility can be considered as low since only 30 % of the countries have fully implemented plans and policies for schools and health facilities. The remaining regions show a moderate level of responsibility in schools and health facilities.

Rural and Urban sanitation The responses given for sanitation in rural areas are similar to the answer given for sanitation in the urban areas. Some differences can be distinguished between the areas and between the regions and are presented in this section.

The results of accountability for rural sanitation level show that more work has to be done to improve the level of answerability and enforceability especially.

The level of clarity in the sector for rural areas can be considered as moderate for all regions since over 50 % of the countries report having either fully or partially implemented policies and plans, except for Latin America and Caribbean. The region of Caucasus and Central Asia has the best level of implementation, since approximately 50 % of the countries report that the implementation of plans and policies for rural areas are fully implemented. The region of Latin America and Caribbean show a rather poor level of clarity since less than 40 % of the countries report having fully or partially implemented policies and plans. Different reasons can explain a poor level of implementation of national policies and plans, such as in the case of Latin America and Caribbean. From the results from the open-ended answers, known problems behind a poor level of implementation can be unclear making of national policies and plan, lack of accessibility of documents, lack of funding, poor guidelines and/or poor training and dialogue in the sector. As such, the opposite reasons of those mentioned in the open-ended answers, can be part of the explanation behind a good level of implementation of policies and plans in rural sanitation. Hence, it is difficult to analyse the level of implementation with the answers given, since every country interpret the definition of e.g. fully or partially implemented. Furthermore, the level of implementation should also be analysed by monitoring the results of performed implementation. The implementation level of urban sanitation is generally better, as over 40 % of the countries for all region, except for Latin America and Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa, that have fully implemented plans and policies. Additionally, for the region of North Africa and Middle East together with Sub-Saharan Africa, over 50 % of the countries report having partially implemented policies and plans. Similar to the implementation of rural sanitation, the region of Caucasus and Central Asia have the best implementation level for urban sanitation.

Regarding answerability, Caucasus and Central Asia is the only region having countries reporting a high availability of information regarding performance reviews. A little more than 60 % of the countries reporting having some or most of the performance reviews made public. However, Caucasus and Central Asia show a lower result regarding the customer satisfaction reviews. The remaining countries show that over 50 % of the countries have few performance and customer reviews made public. As, such the level of accessible information for the public is generally low. However, the availability of expenditure reports is very high for every region, with over 80 % of the countries report available expenditure reports. At the same time, results also show that if expenditure reports are not available, other sources can give financial information, such as from sectorial revenues, UN agency and NGO´s and also from ministries in charge of investment plan. Therefore, the level of accessible information can be considered high regarding the expenditure reports. It seems that some information is available but others are not. At the same time, the results do not clarify the extent of accessible information, e.g. expenditure reports. This means that it is not evident if the expenditure reports are publicly available, disseminated and known by the stakeholders. Nonetheless, the availability of this kind of information is potentially facilitating increased transparency. The results from rural sanitation concerning the availability of expenditure reports are similar to the results from urban sanitation. The amount of countries that have few of the

performance reviews made public is less for rural sanitation than for urban sanitation, with only 30 % of the countries having few of the performance reviews made public, compared to 50 %. Caucasus and Central Asia remains the region with the highest level of implementation even for urban sanitation.

The amount of countries that have clearly defined law and policies for participation by service users is over 60 % for rural sanitation and over 80 % for rural sanitation. The results apply to all regions for both areas. However, the level of participation is low for urban sanitation, with 40 % of the countries report low participation of service users, for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia, Latin America and Caribbean, North Africa and Middle East. Only the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have over 80% of the countries reporting high to moderate participation level in rural sanitation. The level of participation for urban sanitation is better, with approximately 70 % of the

countries for all regions having either high or moderate level of participation. As, such the level of engagement is generally higher for urban sanitation than for rural sanitation. Nonetheless, the level of engagement can be considered as moderate since the level of participation is relatively low compared to the amount of countries having defined law and policies for participation by service users. As such, there must be a missing component in the mechanism of getting service users involved in planning program if the law and policies for participation are clearly defined. For the regions where the participation is high, the wide application of Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) methodologies in those regions might be related factor. Looking at the level of answerability for both rural and urban sanitation, it can be deduced that both areas need to improve the level of answerability and that urban sanitation has a higher level of answerability than rural sanitation.

The level of engagement of service users is again highest for Caucasus and Central Asia for rural sanitation, where over 80 % of the countries report having most or some of the population served access to effective complaint mechanism, where the main methods used for reporting complaint are through call canters, meeting and written letters. The remaining regions show that a majority of the countries report having either few of the population served access to complaint mechanism or that the amount of population is not known. For urban sanitation, Caucasus and Central Asia still show a majority of countries reporting high amount of population served having access to effective complaint mechanism. The region of North Africa and Middle East show similar results as Caucasus and Central Asia. Additionally, around 30 % of the countries for Latin America and Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa do not give an answer. As such, the level of control is low for most regions, except for Caucasus and Central Asia, and for urban and rural sanitation. The reporting of internal monitoring for rural sanitation is generally low where only less than 30 % of the countries for all regions report internal monitoring that triggers corrective actions. The level of regulation is slightly better for urban sanitation than for rural sanitation, where over 40 % of the countries report having no internal monitoring. This means that around 50 % of all countries report internal monitoring that triggers and not triggers corrective action. This is true for all regions except for Latin America and Caribbean, where 50 % of the countries report internal monitoring that triggers corrective actions. At the same time, the countries that do not have service providers reporting internal monitoring state other sources where similar information can be attained, such as through national investigations, reports from different NGO´s, periodic revenues, meetings and other companies involved in the sector. Additionally, there is also an amount of countries that do not answer the question. Consequently, the level of enforceability is difficult to evaluate. However, the level of enforceability is higher for urban sanitation than for rural sanitation, but is

generally low for the sanitation sector, particularly in Sub-Sahara Africa and Southern Asia and South East Asia.

4.2 Accountability in Drinking-waterGeneral provisions The level of clarity for the drinking-water sector for the region Southern Asia and South East Asia together with Sub-Saharan Africa is high with 60 % of the countries reporting having one leading ministry. As such, the region of Latin America and Caribbean, Caucasus and Central Asia have over 70 % of the countries reporting having more than one leading ministry and the region of North Africa and Middle East have around 10 % of the countries reporting having no leading ministry. As one leading ministry is an indication of clear defined work distribution and responsibility, the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia together with sub-Saharan Africa show the best level of clarity in the drinking-water sector. Otherwise, the level of clarity is for the remaining regions low, which can be compared to the level of clarity of the sanitation sector that have a better level among the involved parties for all regions.

While looking at the level of coordination, the evaluation of responsibility for the sector of drinking-water can be further analysed. Over 50 % of the countries in North Africa and Middle East report having more than 11 donors involved in the drinking-water sector and over 40 % of the countries for the remaining regions report having between 1-10 donors. Regarding the amount of donors that is allocated through signed agreement, that uses targeted budget support and donors with specific objectives, a high frequency of no answers is true for all regions. As such, it is difficult to evaluate the level of coordination for the drinking-water sector in general. However, it can be pointed out that the level of coordination is generally low because many countries for all regions report having more than 11 donors, which is more difficult to coordinate than few donors, and also because the rate of responses is low. The result concerning the rather low level of coordination in the drinking-water sector can be compared to the level of coordination in the sanitation sector, where the coordination results are generally better.

As such, the level of responsibility for the drinking-water sector is lower than the sanitation sector for all regions. Additionally, the level of implementation and thereby the level of responsibility in schools and health facilities for the drinking-water sector is also low, as less than 30 % of the countries for the majority of regions report having fully implemented national policies and plans. Only the region of North Africa and Middle East show a better level of implementation in both schools and health facilities. Accordingly, North Africa and Middle East have around 55 % of the countries reporting fully implemented national policies and plans in the health facilities and only 30 % of the countries have no policies or the policies are under development in schools. Compared to the level of implementation of sanitation in schools and health facilities, the level of implementation of drinking-water is lower. However, the region of North Africa and Middle East remain the region with the highest level compared of implementation even though the level of implementation is lower for drinking-water than for sanitation.

The level of answerability for the drinking-water sector is further discussed in detail by subsector for rural and urban areas.

The level of enforceability in the drinking-water sector is generally low for the drinking-water sector compared to the sanitation sector. This can be deduced from the level of regulation, where over 40 % of

the countries do not report results from internal monitoring from community based and informal service provider for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and Middle East, Southern Asia and South East Asia. As for the region of Latin America and Caribbean together with Caucasus and Central Asia, between 30 and 50 % of the countries report internal monitoring but only around 15 % of the countries report internal monitoring that leads to corrective actions. The level of enforceability of the drinking-water sector can therefore be considered as low.

Rural and Urban drinking-water The results concerning the level of responsibility, answerability and enforceability in drinking-water show both similarities and differences between rural and urban areas.

The level of implementation for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia is highest for both rural and urban drinking-water as over 40 % of the countries report having fully implemented national policies and plans. The region North Africa and Middle East also show a good level of implementation in drinking-water for both urban and rural areas as around 50 % of the countries report having fully or partially implemented national policies and plans. The general implementation level of drinking-water is higher for rural areas than for urban areas, since approximately 40 % of the countries for all region in rural drinking-water report having fully implemented policies and plan while 40 % of the countries in urban areas for Caucasus and Central Asia and North Africa and Middle East report having fully implemented policies and plans. As such, the level of clarity and thereby responsibility is for both urban and rural drinking-water low, but higher for rural drinking-water.

The level of available information is in contrary to the level of implementation higher for urban drinking-water than for rural drinking-water, even though the amount of countries that report available expenditure report are around 80 % for both rural and urban drinking-water. As such, over 70 % of the countries for Caucasus and Central Asia, North Africa and Middle East have some or most performance reviews made public in urban drinking-water. The remaining regions have around 55 % of the countries reporting some or most of the performance reviews made public. This can be compared to more than 30 % of countries for all regions in rural drinking-water reporting having few of the performance reviews made public. Similar results regarding the amount of customer satisfaction reviews made public can be deduced for urban ad rural drinking-water. As the evaluation of answerability continues by analysing the level of engagement, it can be deduced that over 70 % of the countries for all regions have clearly defined law and policies for participation in planning programs for both rural and urban drinking-water. The participation level in planning programs is higher for rural drinking-water than for urban drinking-water, as 70 % of the countries for all region for rural drinking-water have either high or moderate level of participation compared to urban drinking-water where Caucasus and Central Asia is the only region having around 80 % of the countries where participation is moderate. As such, the level of answerability is higher for rural drinking-water than for urban drinking-water. Additionally the level of answerability can be considered the same for drinking-water and for sanitation.

Hence, the level of regulations is higher for urban drinking-water than for rural drinking-water. This can be deduced from the fact that approximately 50 % of the countries for all regions report having most of the populations served access to complaint mechanism and that over 50 % of the countries for all regions except for Southern Asia and South East Asia report internal monitoring that triggers corrective actions for urban drinking-water. For rural drinking-water, the response rate is low since around 30 % of the countries for the region of Latin America and Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa, do not give any

answer to the question concerning complaint mechanism and that less than 30 % of the countries for all regions report internal monitoring that triggers corrective action. Consequently, the level of enforceability can be considered as low.

4.3 Accountability for both Sanitation and Drinking-waterResults regarding the existence of formal mechanism to coordinate the work of different organizations with responsibilities in drinking-water and sanitation show that the over 55 % of the countries for all regions has such a coordination mechanism, which indicate a good level of responsibility in general for both sectors. However, of the countries reporting the existence of coordination mechanism that organize different involved parties, report using different coordination process. Such processes can be the documentation of coordination, coordination based on agreed sectoral framework or national plan, evidence-based decision making, including non-governmental stakeholders and include all ministries and government agencies that directly or indirectly influences service delivery.

For the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia and South East Asia, over 70 % of the countries report having all processes included in the coordination process. Latin America and Caribbean has the lowest percentage of countries using all the mentioned processes, with a percentage of less than 50 %. Caucasus and Central Asia together with North Africa and Middle East have approximately over 60 % of the countries reporting using all the processes mentioned above.

5. Conclusion The level of answerability and enforceability are the accountability components that need most improvement for both sectors and for both rural and urban areas. The sanitation sector shows a better level of responsibility and enforceability in general than the drinking-water sector, but the level of answerability can be considered the same for both sectors. The rural areas for sanitation show a lower level of the accountability regarding all evaluated components than for the urban areas. For the drinking-water sector, the rural areas show a higher level of responsibility and answerability than urban areas. However, urban areas show a higher level of enforceability than rural areas in the drinking-water sector. Nevertheless, the differences between rural and urban sanitation are small. Additionally, throughout the report, the region of Caucasus and Central Asia shows in many of the accountability components the best level compared to the other regions, except for the level of engagement and regulation in the sanitation sector and responsibility in the drinking-water sector.

The sanitation sector shows in general, a good level of clarity, but donors seem not to be helping to facilitate the coordination. Most of the policies and plans are in place and followed and accessible information is officially there, but it is difficult to know how accessible the information are to the wider public. Additionally, it can be deduced that there is a low level of participation except for CLTS areas and that the enforceability is quite low, with very limited number of complaints triggering corrective action. Looking at the level of accountability regionally, North Africa and Middle East is the regions that show the best level of clarity together with Caucasus and Central Asia. Latin America and Caribbean show the lowest level of coordination and clarity in general but show a good level of regulation compared to the other regions. As such, Southern Asia and South East Asia together with Sub-Saharan Africa show the best level of engagement. Additionally, Sub-Saharan Africa shows a good level of clarity and control.

The drinking- water sector shows similar results as the sanitation sector, with lower level of accountability. The clarity level and coordination level is generally low. The availability of information is moderated, with exception for the expenditure reports but the level of engagement is considerably good for both rural and urban drinking-water. The level of enforceability for the drinking-water sector is also generally low. Regionally, North Africa and Middle East has the best level of coordination. North Africa and Middle East, Caucasus and Central Asia, Southern Asia and South East Asia as well as Sub-Saharan Africa show the best level of clarity. Caucasus and Central Asia show the best information together with North Africa and Middle East. Southern Asia and South East Asia also show the lowest level of regulation.

6. Recommendations GLAAS questionnaire could be made sharper in terms of accountability, so that we can get a

better picture of how the accountability looks like. However, we can get a basic picture of accountability. Geographical coverage starts to be representative in some regions, but in others conclusions cannot be extracted.

Donors need to improve their practices to support the water and sanitation sectors. Most of the countries have a substantial number of donors and most of them do not use the country systems to channel their support.

Sort out roles and responsibilities at national level. Several countries refer to a large number of institutions leading the sector (especially in water), which in turn facilitates confusion of roles and fights about power in decision-making. Efforts at national level should be put to avoid these situations.

Access to information for the public need to be ensured. Government’s report a wide existence of expenditure and monitoring reports; but anecdotal evidence from several countries suggest that these reports are not available to the public in general. Similar conclusions arise from Joint Sector Reviews.

Shorten the gap between policies on participation and real participation. Policies are in place, but participation ranges in general from moderate to low and more important, the degree of the influence on people´s participation in decision making (beyond taken participation) is unknown.

Develop effective complaint mechanisms that foster reaction from service providers and government. In around half of the countries these complaint mechanisms officially exist for most of population served (especially in water), but there is no data on the extent of how these complaints are attended.

Strengthen regulatory functions especially in Sub-Saharan, Central Asia and South East Asia. In terms of internal monitoring to regulatory bodies triggering corrective action, less than around 40 % of the countries have reports that triggers corrective action.

7. References

UNDP Water Governance Facility/UNICEF (2015) “WASH and Accountability: Explaining the Concept” Accountability for Sustainability Partnership: UNDP Water Governance Facility at SIWI and UNICEF. Stockholm and New York. Available from www.watergovernance.org

UNDP Water Governance Facility/UNICEF (2015) “Accountability in WASH: A Reference Guide for Programming” Accountability for Sustainability Partnership: UNDP Water Governance Facility at SIWI and UNICEF, Stockholm and New York. Available from: http://www.watergovernance.org/Accountability-for-Sustainability

United Nation, Classification of countries by major area and region of the world, 2012Available from: http://www.unep.org/tunza/tunzachildren/downloads/country-Classification.pdf

World Health Organization and UN-water, 2014, UN-water global analysis and assessment of sanitation and drinking-water (GLAAS) 2014 report: investing in water and sanitation: increasing access, reducing inequalities.

http://www.unep.org/tunza/tunzachildren/downloads/country-Classification.pdf

http://www.watergovernance.org/Accountability-for-Sustainability

http://www.watergovernance.org/

Accountability report_final draft

Documents

Transcript of Accountability report_final draft