Making Institutions more Effective and Accountable

2 Institutional Principle 1 Gov’t Gov’t sets, evaluates & enforces quality of service standards on all providers within its jurisdiction. NGOs CBOs Sanitary wares Housing Societies Sludge tankers WASA PHED H/Hs Ensurer Providers Bidders Separate government’s role of ensuring sanitary rights for all … above that of all the agents that provide sanitary services.

3 Institutional Principle 2 Gov’t Gov’t sets, evaluates & enforces quality of service standards on all providers within its jurisdiction. Ensurer Providers Bidders Retain asset ownership and financing liability together If the provider owns assets ….. then license! If the government owns assets …. then contract! Asset ownership License Agreements Hard: Planning Approval, NoC, O&M license Soft: Social mobilization, quid-pro-quo Contract Agreements Asset ownership NGOs CBOs Sanitary wares Housing Societies Sludge tankers WASA PHED H/Hs

4 Institutional Principle 3 Gov’t Gov’t sets, evaluates & enforces quality of service standards on all providers within its jurisdiction: through contracts (Gov’t owns sanitary assets) or licenses (provider owns sanitary assets). Ensurer Providers Bidders Use arbitration to separate standard setting from provision Asset ownership Asset ownership arbitrator adjudicates on the compliance and resources of all providers to Gov’t standards. a NGOs CBOs Sanitary wares Housing Societies Sludge tankers WASA PHED H/Hs

5 The Decentralization Option LG Govt’s set, evaluate & enforce quality of service standards on all providers within its jurisdiction: through contracts (Gov’t owns sanitary assets) or licenses (provider owns sanitary assets). Providers Bidders Asset ownership Asset ownership arbitrator adjudicates on the resources and compliance of all providers to Gov’t standards. a Province A Policy Making (Ensurer) Service Provision (Ensurer) Provincial departments set, evaluate and enforce non- excludable standards on all LGs within its jurisdiction. R r Arbitrator (i.e. PFC / LGC) adjudicates on the resources and compliance of local governments to provincial standards. NGOs CBOs Sanitary wares Housing Societies Sludge tankers WASA PHED H/Hs

Thankyou

7 Data Sources: PSLM 2006/7, PSLM 2005/6, MICS 2003/4 Sanitation Status in Punjab Rural (65%)Urban (35%) PHED TMA U/C H/Hs Non-gov Rs ??? crore/year No-one safe from poor excreta disposal Sewage in drains Indiscriminate disposal of solid waste Poor hygiene practices especially in rural areas Drains often blocked Weak social capital around sanitation 51% sanitary latrine 44% open defecation 97% with no access to SWM systems 2% SWM 92% sanitary latrine 5% OD 48% SWM 48% without drainage system 48% covered 55% not washing hands after defecation 45% handwashing after defecation 80% h/w 20% not 24% safe consumption of drinking water 17% PWS 48.5% PWS 21% H/P, M/P closed well Rs 17 billion/year 5% not sanitary 44% no SWM 81% handpumps, motorpumps and closed wells 1% 48% open drains 4%44% open 3% 8% 7% w/o Latrine SWM Community Participation Drainage Hygiene Water WASA