In this module we continue examine ways to ensure the sanitation infrastructure investments are used to deliver actual services and are sustainable. In it we look at tools for assessing the strengths and weaknesses in the institutional, regulatory, budget and monitoring sanitation service situation at the city level. This information can be used to identify and prioritize what exists and can be improved, and what needs to be newly developed. Political economy analysis can help in this process by explaining why the situation is as it is, what drives or impedes progress and how to find win-win solutions. To deliver quality sanitation services city-wide, finance is used to provide sanitation services for people. Along the whole sanitation service chain this will include: first of all, the development of an enabling environment at the city level, and this is need to develop the sanitation services, and to sustain the services over time and throughout the city. Each of these three pillars has a number of building blocks, and these include policy, planning and budgets for the enabling environment; expenditure monitoring, ensuring equity, and monitoring outputs for the developing services pillar; and maintenance, expansion of services and ensuring actual user outcomes are needed for sustaining the services. These pillars apply across each part of the sanitation service chain. A policy, institutional and regulatory situation assessment can be undertaken in many different ways. One way is to use a City Service Delivery Assessment tool. This is a participatory tool that enables multiple stakeholders to work together to identify and build consensus on where the major institutional constraints are for improved urban sanitation. By answering together a number of preset key questions about each of the building blocks and based on solid evidence, a traffic light score can be assigned across the whole sanitation chain and for all aspects of sanitation service delivery. Such a graphic provides a useful focal point for multi stakeholder discussion and consensus building and it immediately shows up strengths and weakness, which can be used to develop a priority intervention plan that can then be implemented alongside the development of the sanitation infrastructure itself. But such an assessment does not explain why the current situation exists or how to change it. For that, we will look in a moment, to political economy analysis. But before we do that, here is an example of a City Sanitation Delivery Assessment from Balikpapan in Indonesia, which was conducted in 2014. In the diagram we can see that there was no effective planning of sanitation services and consequently no budgets were allocated. And the reason for this was because no institution had responsibility for the entire sanitation service chain, although there was responsibility for a sludge treatment works. There were no government sludge emptying services; there was no regulation of the private sector and there was no output monitoring of what existed. Three private sector vacuum truck operators provided a reasonable emptying service to the households they could reach and those who could afford to pay. Given the density of housing in the poorer areas, and the consequent difficulty of access, often the tankers could not reach the poorest households. The private operators often dumped the sludge indiscriminately or, in one case, dispose of it on the operator’s private land, much to the annoyance of his neighbors. Some of the results achieved appear to be quite good, but this was attributed partly to the rather low demand for sludge emptying services and to the private sector’s ability to meet most of the low demand. However, around 25% of the latrines in the city were found to overflow directly into drains and waterways, and the sludge that was collected by the trucks was rarely taken to the sludge treatment plant. The postscript to this is that since the Service Delivery Assessment was carried out in 2014, the sanitation institutional roles have been clarified and regulations have been developed; the treatment plant is now used by all three private sector emptying services; and the local government is piloting a scheduled emptying service, and the quality of the city’s onsite sanitation services are in the process of being improved. Political Economy Analysis enable us to look at the key interests that may provide support to, or be obstacles for, certain choices and developments in sustainable sanitation service delivery. Political Economy Analysis or PEA can be used to enable a city’s stakeholders to identify the obstacles and opportunities to providing improved sanitation services and to develop ways to overcome the identified hurdles and leverage opportunities. Political Economy Analysis first maps out the institutions involved, not only the formal sector, which is government or the larger private sector, but also the informal institutions such as manual pit emptiers and artisans. Following the mapping, the Political Economy Analysis looks at how these institutions and systems provide incentives. Such as, influence, political power, connections, networks, money, personal or family opportunities to the different stakeholders. Which are the identified individuals, groups and organizations involved in sanitation service provision. In turn, these incentives exert influence throughout the sanitation service chain in both formal and informal ways. Formally though government action and behavior. And informally through contacts, personal networks and vested interests. This Political Economy Analysis structure enables us to answer questions related to the existing sanitation service chain in a city. Questions such as: Who decides? Who benefits? Can things change? And by understanding these questions, stakeholders can begin to look for commonalities between interests, and how the involved groups and individuals could be mobilized around these commonalities to improve the sanitation services delivery. Often you, and many of the city stakeholders will know how the formal and informal systems and institutions work, or at least they will know a good part of them. By carrying out a political economy analysis around the agreed priority issues, those are the issues identified previously in the city service delivery assessment or another approach, the important tacit knowledge of many of these different local stakeholders can be captured and put into a systematic form. For example it can surface and answer questions such as who is really responsible for which aspects of sanitation? What is actually happening along the sanitation service chain? Are there gaps and are there overlapping responsibilities? All of this will help form the basis of a dialogue between the different stakeholders to identify win-win solutions and scenarios. For example, the need to negotiate much clearer formal roles and responsibilities, or the identification of a role for manual pit emptiers once more hygienic emptying services are put in place. But this discussion will only happen if the Political Economy Analysis is carefully researched and articulated in a frank, but appropriately sensitive, way. Invariably Political Economy Analysis reveals vested interests and informal power structures which can raise very sensitive issues. The term Prognosis for Change may be a term that is useful and is less controversial. So, the Political Economy Analysis or Prognosis for Change should be an iterative process which allows participants to return to the issue and discuss more options. And when win-win solutions are found these can be used for advocacy with the key stakeholders. So, to sum up: Effective policy, institutional, budget and monitoring systems are needed for improved urban sanitation services. An initial assessment can be undertaken in many different ways, but participatory tools can enable multiple stakeholders to work together and build consensus on priority actions. Political Economy Analysis helps us understand why the situation is the way it is, and what interests are driving and impeding progress, and how to work with stakeholders in order to identify win-win outcomes. Finally a key takeaway from this module is that all stakeholders need to be part of building consensus about the policy, institutional, and regulatory arrangements for poor inclusive city wide sanitation services. Including both formal and informal aspects. These will be the basis of the accountability structure, which is needed to ensure sustainable sanitation services.
