Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation

Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

Module Description Printable Course Material

Module 1 is the first of two modules in Cluster I: Politics of Water and Sanitation. This Cluster
focuses on building an understanding of the politically challenging context in which WSS
utilities operate, and in which reform must take place. Module 1 provides a brief
introduction to this course, and to the WSS sector, before focusing in on the many political
considerations that make sector reform difficult.

Module Objectives
After completing this module, participants should be able to:
List the key material this course will cover
Describe the implications of treating water as a human right, including expectations
about low tariffs and universal access
Explain why water and sanitation utilities services and tariffs should be regulated
Identify at least three reasons why politicians may be tempted to intervene in utility
operations
The Module comprises several components, all of which are important for building an
understanding of the Modules key messages. These components are outlined below.

1. Introduction
In the following pages, you will find key reading material for Module 1: Political challenges in
providing water and sanitation services. The reading material is followed by questions for
you to answer to gauge your comprehension. The reading is designed to complement the
multimedia presentation and other content within this module.

2. Why is water so political?

There are many reasons why the water and sanitation sector is charged with politics.
Firstly, water and sanitation is political for social reasons. In fact, many people view water as
a basic human right, particularly because water is essential for survival, health, and
productivity. They believe that this right should be extended to all, particularly those in poor
communities, who have inadequate access to water and sanitation services and suffer as a
result.
Water is also political for economic reasons. Water and sanitation utilities are often natural
monopolies, and need to be regulated to ensure that they are meeting social objectives and
not charging high monopoly prices. However, regulation can be difficult to get right, and
more often than not, the issue is that prices are too low, and not too high.

Finally, water is political for a range of governance reasons. Many people believe that water
and sanitation services are public goods, and should be provided by the government ideally
at a low, affordable price, or even for free. Such government systems are not always
constructed in response to accurate consumer demand and willingness-to-pay assessments
and efficiency considerations. When things go wrong, political intervention is pervasive
even when changes are made to try to keep it out. Furthermore, such intervention generally
comes from a short-term perspective which are easier to implement than long term reform
plans. Each of these areas of concern is further discussed in the reading sections below.

Page 1 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

Printable Course Material

3. Understanding some key challenges in WSS: Social concerns
Safe water consumption, and appropriate
drainage and sanitation, have large positive
impact on population health - and thus,
indirectly, on important societal indicators such
as educational achievement and economic
productivity. For example, in areas where
sanitation services are sub-standard, drinking
water may become contaminated, resulting in
an increased incidence in water-borne disease.
Diarrheal episodes are often caused by the
consumption of unsafe water sources, and
cause not only great discomfort, but also mean
that sufferers miss days of school, or cannot go
to work. Studies indicate that the incidence of
diarrheal episodes is much lower in
communities with safe water sources, adequate
toilets, and functioning wastewater drains.
In a similar vein, in communities where in areas where water services are sub-standard,
people may need to travel long distances to collect drinking water. This task often falls on
women and girls to perform, meaning they are less likely to go to school or obtain paid
employment.
Accordingly, providing appropriate basic water and sanitation
services is important for societal health and productivity. In fact, it is
so important that many peopleincluding those in the United
Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rightsview
clean water and adequate sanitation as human rights. This may lead
to the expectation that water should be provided free or at very low
cost, and that governments should be fully responsible for managing
water and sanitation service provision.
Interestingly, however, historically more emphasis has been placed
on clean drinking water than on sanitation. For instance, the Water and Sanitation Program
(2010) noted that demand for sanitation has traditionally been weaker than for water and
other services, but also observed that demand increased when people were given more
information on the health benefits of appropriate sanitation, alongside a selection of
rewards and sanctions, an affordable mix of technologies, and a long-term strategy of
engagement and promotion.
Case example: Demand for Sanitation in Brazil
In Brazil, demand for sewerage investments in high-density urban informal settlements
(favelas) has historically been driven not by favela residents themselves but by downstream
middle-class and elite communities. [] There is evidence, however, that near-universal
access to electricity and water supply has made room for sanitation to move up the list of
poor Brazilians priority demands. Sewerage investment in informal settlements is now
perceived as a key part of the transition from favela (slum) to bairro (neighborhood) and
from social exclusion to cidadania (citizenship).
Source: WSP Global Sanitation Team (2010)

Page 2 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

Another perceived implication of the water as a human right view (see Common
Printable Course Material
Misunderstandings about the Human Right to Water and Sanitation) is that water and
sanitation services must be made available to all
people, no matter the cost to the government. In
practice, this can be difficult to achieve, especially in
poor communities that may be technically difficult
to service, and that may have low ability to pay for
services. As a result, poorer communities often
receive poor quality water and sanitation services. In
fact, data suggests that although access to
sanitation services has been steadily improving for
wealthier sub-groups in poor countries, it has
improved little for the poorest (see graph).
Frequently, utilities view low-income consumers as
unprofitable, and do not want to extend service into
their areas. Even where services are available, low-
income consumers may not be able to afford high
connection fees or tariffs. In many areas, people rely on vendors selling water in containers
or from trucks. In some areas, people may even resort to illegal connections, or obtaining
water from leaking pipes, which can be a health hazard.
Aside from financial imperatives, utilities may also decline to serve poor consumers for legal
reasons. For instance, the Human Development Report (2006) observed that many utilities,
to secure returns on their investments to expand the network, will provide water only to
households with formal property titles. Yet more than a billion people live in formally
unauthorized urban and peri-urban areas in developing countries. With 80%90% of
population growth expected in urban areas in developing countries, this is a service delivery
constraint that will tighten over time. Abidjan, Cte dIvoire, the most prosperous city in West
Africa, has more than 80 unauthorized residential areas. An estimated quarter of the
population of Ouagadougou resides in unauthorized areas, making them ineligible to receive
basic water services. As urbanization draws more people from the countryside into informal
settlements, failure to recognize residency rights could become an increasingly important
barrier to the realization of the Millennium Development Goal for water. Indeed, this problem
is already implicated in the falling urban coverage rates for some cities.
Unfortunately, the result of low
access to utility services can often be
that the poor pay more for water:
water delivered through vendors is
often 1020 times more costly than
water provided through a utility. For
example, in Barranquilla, Colombia,
the average price of water is $0.55
per cubic meter from the utility and
$5.50 from truckers. Because many of
the urban poor do not have a utility
Source: Human Development Report, 2006
connection, they end up paying much
more than residents of much wealthier cities, such as London and New York (see graph). Not
only is this discriminatory, it suggests that willingness-to-pay for water in poor areas is
actually likely to be high enough to make it worthwhile for the utility to serve these
customers, even if it is slightly more costly to do so. Furthermore, it highlights the fact that,
outside of utility-provided services, there is a large market in alternative water provision

Page 3 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

(including through unauthorized re-sale). Such a market may be threatened byand

Printable Course Material
therefore resistutility reform programs that would increase the utilitys coverage area and
hence market share.
Inadequate service quality and access levels are often at the heart of the needs and concerns
expressed by consumers, NGOs and citizen action groups. In response, governments may
pressure utilities to provide universal access to services, even where service is not
commercially viable. As Gomez-Ibanez (2007) observes, The usual objective of SOE reform is
to encourage the firms to behave in a more business-like manner, emphasizing commercial
goals rather than what are often called non-commercial, social or political goals. Commercial
goals include providing quality services that consumers value and producing those services
efficiently so that costs can be recovered at reasonably affordable prices. A common non-
commercial goal for infrastructure SOEs is to promote universal access by, if necessary,
charging tariffs well below costs and extending service into unprofitable territories. Other
non-commercial goals include reducing unemployment by hiring more workers than are
needed or by locating plants in lagging regions, supporting suppliers by paying more than the
market rate for labor or other inputs, and stabilizing the macro-economy by restraining price
increases during recessions or periods of inflation. Balancing these non-commercial or social
imperatives with commercial imperatives can be a key challenge for reforms, and may
require innovative policy and institutional solutions to ensure that the utility remains
financially viable.

4. Economic concerns
Providing adequate water and sanitation services requires a substantial investment in
infrastructure, as well as financing to cover on-going operation and maintenance costs.
However, different stakeholders have different incentives regarding how these costs should
be allocated.
Substantial capital costs of assets and
network structure of piped water and
sanitation services tends to result in the
water utilitys monopolistic nature. This
can create an opportunity for utilities to
push tariffs up, recovering their full and
sometimes inefficient costs (as well as,
potentially, a tidy profit) from the
consumers it chooses to serve. To limit this
opportunity, governments either directly
manage utilities, or impose some form of
external regulation on them, requiring that
they meet certain service obligations and
are limited to specified tariff levels.
Regulation can be an appropriate solution
for balancing utility business needs and
broader social, environmental, safety, and
consumer-protection concerns (see diagram). However, designing a good regulatory regime
can be difficult, and requires strategic decisions around the type of regulatory structure to
establish (e.g. an independent regulatory body vs. a service contract), and what regulation
should cover. As the table below shows, there are political arguments both for and against
regulating certain utility activities as part of a sector regulatory regime (rather than

Page 4 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

controlling them through different policy or regulatory functions, or not regulating them at
all).
Function
Setting drinking water
standards
Setting effluent discharge
standards
Monitoring utilitys response
to consumer complaints
Setting service coverage
targets
Controlling tariff structure (in
addition to the average tariff)
Specifying performance
aspects such as asset
conditions and efficiency or
performance targets (e.g.
NRW or staff per-connection
ratios)
Source: Groom, Halpern & Ehrhardt (2006)
Arguments for including
in sector economic
regulation
Essential part of the
service specification
Essential service
specification for
wastewater services
Monopolies have little Helping consumers deal
incentive to treat
customers well
Complaints on billing and
service standards can
provide information for
monitoring utility
performance
Monopolies may limit
service by charging high
prices, so regulation is
required to make them
offer widespread service
Monopolies may price
discriminate in unjustified
ways or set inefficient
tariff structures
To keep costs at efficient
levels and to ensure that
service is sustainable,
operating efficiency and
asset serviceability may
need to be controlled
directly
Printable Course Material
Arguments against
including in sector
economic regulation
Health issue, best dealt with
by health authorities and
experts
Environmental issue, best
dealt with by environmental
authorities
with merchants is an
economy-wide function and
requires an economy-wide
response (such as a
consumer affairs bureau for
all sectors)
Extending service to un-
served areas is a policy
decision involving social
objectives and subsidies
Tariff structure may be used
to ensure cross-subsidies
and achieve social
objectives
The provider should be
given the incentives to
provide good service at
reasonable cost, and then
investment and operating
decisions should be left to
provider management

Page 5 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

A key problem that many countries experience with regulation is thatPrintable

there may be pressure
Course Material
and scope for governments to go too far in limiting tariffs. The Human Development
Report (2006) explains that In many utilities tariffs are set far below the levels needed to
meet the overall costs of operation and maintenance. In effect, this delivers a subsidy to all
households with private tap connections. On the other side of the balance sheet, the shortfall
between revenue and cost will be reflected in transfers from government, rising debt,
reduced spending on maintenance or a combination of the three.
Unlike with other sectors, such as electricity service provision, water utilities can gradually
be starved of resources, particularly, if there is inadequate income to cover maintenance
costs. However, this is unlikely to be detrimental to service levels in the short term. Instead,
services may decline gradually over a long timeframe before a total shut down occurs.
Unfortunately, once services drop to the levels that the government is sufficiently concerned
(or pressured) to intervene, the utility may be substantially in debt, or require large
investments in new infrastructureproblems that require a large injection of cash to solve.
Kingdom and van Ginnekan (2008) describe this situation in the following way: Most utilities
are locked in a vicious spiral of weak performance incentives, low willingness to pay by
consumers, insufficient funding for maintenance leading to deterioration of assets, and
political interference. The vicious spiral is largely a consequence of ineffective political
institutions coupled with the monopolistic nature of the sector. Politicians often prefer to
abstract the short-term value of the utility through patronage and are reluctant to set cost
recovering tariffs or efficiency targets necessary for long-term sustainable service provision.
Utilities have been allowed to give priority to protecting the members of their organization or
political masters over service improvement. Corruption is a persistent challenge in the sector,
ranging from petty corruption at the consumer interface, through collusion between
contractors, and kickbacks in contracting. Consumers, especially the poor, have lost out.
Ultimately, the only sustainable solution for ensuring consistently high-quality water and
sanitation service provision is working to ensure that full, long-term costs are recovered.
These costs can be limited by improving the utilitys efficiency, but must still be recovered
through consumer tariffs, or another secure form of financing, such as a guaranteed
government subsidy.
However, as the Human Development Report (2006) notes, Water tariffs are intensely
political. From a commercial perspective revenues from tariffs generate profits for
shareholders and capital for future investment. But tariff policies designed to optimize profits
can minimize social welfare and generate political unrest. An example of this occurred in
Cochabamba, Bolivia (see box below).
Case example: Political Explosiveness of Tariff Increases in Cochabamba, Bolivia
Under the 1999 Drinking Water and Sanitation Law, the Bolivian government authorized
privatization of water provision and ended subsidies, awarding a 40-year concession to a
consortium of foreign companies. After this agreement was signed, not only did customers
have to pay more for their water, but peasants in surrounding areas had to start paying for
water that had previously been available for free from public standpipes. The price
increases were supposed to contribute to the capital costs of building a new dam and
purification plant. Protests led to the repeal of the 1999 law, the collapse of the concession
and a court case initiated by one of the companies against the Bolivian government.
At least three important lessons emerge from examples like this. The first lesson is that
transparency matters. No credible attempt was made by the government, the companies or
the donors and international financial institutions that supported the deals to gauge public
opinion or consider the views of the poor. One consequence was that there were no
provisions for protecting the customary rights of highly vulnerable indigenous peoplea

Page 6 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

factor that became politically explosive. Printable Course Material

The second lesson concerns the tension between commercial and social imperatives.
Companies undertake concessions to generate profits for shareholders. But raising tariffs to
finance profits and investments can damage water security for poor households. It also
raises the probability of a political backlash that reflects the critical importance of water in
the community. Efforts to protect profits by raising tariffs to cover the debt liabilities
created by hard-currency borrowing and currency depreciation were socially and politically
unsustainable.
The third lesson is arguably the most important. The complexity of increasing access by the
poor was hugely underestimated. If the problem had been properly assessed, public
finance and subsidized connections would have figured more prominently.
Source: Human Development Report (2006)

5. Governance concerns
Although full, long-term cost recovery is essential for sustainable water and sanitation
service provision, it is not easy to achieve. As discussed above, many people view water as a
universal right, and as a good that should be publicly provided. Accordingly, it can be
politically difficult to place any price on water and sanitation serviceslet alone a price that
reflects the services true costs. There are many instances where government moves to
increase tariffs to cost-recovery levels, or to introduce private sector participation into
service provision in the hopes of improving commercial viability, have precipitated popular
dissent and even riots (see the Cochabamba case study above as an example).
These political pressures have led governments to intervene in the planning and delivery of
water and sanitation services. Many systems are planned and built based on technical
standards and hypothetical demand forecasts for prescribed service types, rather than on
the willingness on ability of customers to pay. Likewise, service areas and service quality are
often limited by public funding constraints, rather than reflecting actual consumer demand.
Furthermore, consumers are generally all offered the same service, at a standard price,
resulting in many being totally un-served because of cost or technical constraints.

Page 7 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

Case Examples: Political Interference in Planning Printable Course Material

In Senegal, many high-ranking politicians are supporters of investing in the expansion of the
sewerage network and costly treatment plants, whereas many technical sector specialists and
bureaucrats have been increasingly convinced by examples of onsite sanitation and
condominial systems that successfully work in poor semi-urban areas of Dakar. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that this experience echoes the situation in many other countries.
However, bureaucrats in Senegal have limited power compared to politicians. This lack of
influence over technological discussions by engineers and bureaucrats has limited the
adoption of large-scale onsite sanitation and condominial systems and has undermined efforts
to expand sanitation provision to the countrys poor outside the reach of the network.
In Brazil, a discourse of modernity shared by popular and elite actors has favored investment
in modern sewerage over other forms of sanitation provision. Moreover, the engineering
community has initially resisted the condominial sewers technology; it was simply not what
they have been trained in. However, the resulting high costs of increased sanitation access
and the bias away from pro-poor investment have been partially offset by the use of
innovative low-cost sewerage technologies such as the condominial approach.
Source: WSP Sanitation Global Practice Team

Often, the government manages the utility directly, as a type of governmental department.
But the problems of political intervention are not limited to these types of water and
sanitation service providers; even when the utility is a separate (and nominally commercial)
government-owned enterprise, managed by private operators, or privately-owned, pressure
may be exerted to ensure that political interests are met.
In most developing countries, central government stakeholders can exert a great deal of
influence on utilities. In decentralized systems, local government stakeholders may also have
influence, drawing power from the central government. However, this seldom means that
overall influence is reduced; rather, one agenda is substituted with another. In addition, new
problems may be createdas Kingdom & van Ginneken (2008) point out: WSS
decentralization was often the by-product of a wider reform of the state. As a result, local
governments found themselves in charge of service delivery while lacking the capacity to step
up to their role. In many countries, the change from service provision and hierarchical control
to a facilitating role immobilized line ministries and other central government agencies.
These capacity problems, combined with unclear responsibilities, often blocked the potential
to render governments more accountable to citizens.

Page 8 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

Printable Course Material

Case example: Effects of Decentralization on Sanitation Service in Indonesia
In Indonesia, rapid decentralization gave greater administrative independence to local
governments and moved financial resources and responsibility for the provision of many
public services (including water and sanitation) directly to the district level. However, the
effects of the lack of clear responsibilities at national level are compounded by a lack of
clarity over the roles of different levels of local government and of different institutions
within local governments. Furthermore, responsibilities of local agencies may vary between
different districts and cities as there is no national policy on institutional configuration or
allocation of responsibilities for sanitation between local bodies at the local level. [] This
reduces accountability for sanitation service delivery. It is unclear to ordinary members of
the public whom they could approach and/or complain to. This contrasts to electricity
suppliers, for instance, where advertised hotline numbers enable clients to contact
providers directly when there is a problem.
A further key issue faced due to decentralization in Indonesia is the increasing practice of
redistricting, through which local politicians can petition for districts to be split into smaller
administrative units through a mechanism called pemekaran. In theory this should facilitate
better service delivery, more equitable resource distribution, and more representative go-
vernment. While redistricting has increased revenues, local budget generally give priority to
free education, (curative) health services, and the construction of new government offices
to house newly formed local administrations. These easily crowd out sanitation and other
public health promotion issues. This bottom-rung perception of sanitation is entrenched by
an attitude among most local governments that responsibility for sanitation rests with
others: NGOs, the private sector, or, despite decentralization, the national government,
and most importantly perhaps, with individual households.
Source: WSP Sanitation Global Practice Team

Aside from playing a role in the planning and provision of services, there are multiple other
ways in which governments may interfere in the water and sanitation sector. WaterAid
identifies the following common examples:
Rewarding political supporters with jobs in the water utility when they are not the
best people for the role
Influencing the award of contracts to companies connected to politicians or parties
Directing new investments to well-served but politically sensitive communities
rather than to poorly-served areas that vote for another party or do not vote at all

Page 9 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

Going for glamorous high technology engineering schemes (e.g. projects

Printable to Material
Course reverse
river flows or reservoir construction) instead of more basic but more appropriate
and cost effective repair and maintenance options
Not providing services to informal settlements where unpopular groups may be
settled
Ignoring the needs of sanitation in favor of drinking water services
Reducing tariffs or making promises to do so, in order to win elections or for short-
term gain.
Of course, political influence in the water and sanitation sector is not completely
unrestrained; politicians are not totally immune to the sensibilities of the people that elect
them to power. When consumers become sufficiently unhappy with the way services are
being provided to demand change, governments come under pressure to act. However,
politicians are unlikely to choose the most economically sound and sustainable solutions to
service problems, such as increasing tariffs to cost-recovery levels as part of a
comprehensive utility reform initiative. Reforms may be resisted by the utility, or by
government officials who are benefitting from current sector arrangements. Furthermore,
not only are tariff increases unpopular, they are especially so when they come well before
any improvement in service levels. Government subsidies could help in the transitional
period, but are costly to provide.
The inability to raise tariffs puts cash-strapped utilities in a difficult position, because they
are unable to make the investments needed to improve services without first receiving a
boost in income. In such situations, the most favorable solution may be to borrow a sum of
money to enable a short-term fix of the system, without undertaking any of the unpopular
changes required to address on-going problems.
Thus, a key problem with political influence in water and sanitation service provision is that
it often ensures that only short-term needs are met; in the longer term, consumers end up
worse off because of short-sighted management and financial decisions. Overcoming the
pressure of the relatively short election cycle can be a major obstacle to achieving
sustainable reforms.
Case example: Misguided political interference in Lima, Peru?
Lima is the worlds second largest desert city with a population of approximately eight
million. But unlike the largest desert city, Cairo in Egypt, it does not have a large supply of
water. This has created many problems. The Andean glaciers are shrinking, the water table
is dropping by around one meter a year and a poorly maintained water supply system is
contaminated by wastewater. Interruptions of supply are common and many poor people
do not receive piped water or sewerage.
The municipal service requires a major injection of money to fund improvements. Tariff
increases have been overruled politically on the grounds that they would be harmful to
consumers. In fact, during the mid-1990s, tariffs actually declined. If the water table
continues to drop, turning the water saline, and cross-contamination worsens because of
poor maintenance, will consumers thank politicians for keeping tariffs low?
Source: WaterAid

Page 10 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

Printable Course Material

McKenzie and Ray (2009) highlight the importance of being aware of this political obstacle
in their description of the political economy of water reforms in India, explaining:
In light of the widespread inefficiencies in the Indian water sector, there is clearly ample
scope for reform. However, as in most democracies, any major reform needs to survive
(indeed, be part of) the political process, while even small changes in prices require public
approval. [] The political benefits of water reform are often low, while reform may involve
giving up command of employment and investment in the public enterprise. Changes in prices
and staff layoffs are more visible to the public than improved operating efficiency, reductions
in state subsidies, and small improvements in quality.
The longer reform is delayed, the more difficult it becomes. [For example], water rates in
Delhi remained constant between 1998 and 2004, at rates much lower than other cities and
far below operating costs. In December 2004, tariffs were increased [] Although the Delhi
Jal Board publicly justified the increase in terms of rising costs of production, and with
reference to the fact that prices were much lower than in other cities, the tariff rises were
met with protests. In particular, critics viewed the price rises as laying the ground for
privatization of water, with little apparent recognition that even an efficient public utility in
Delhi would require prices substantially higher than those prevailing pre-reform.
Promoting changes in the water sector therefore requires finding a way to raise the political
benefits of reform efforts, or of increasing the political costs of not reforming.
Material to link in to text (table):
Common Misunderstandings about the Human Right to Water and Sanitation
Misunderstanding Correct interpretation1
The right to water and Water is a scarce and valuable natural resource. It is a social and an
sanitation implies that economic good. This means that those able to pay should do so in order
water and sanitation to ensure the sustainability of water services. However, tariff systems
services should be must be adjusted to the ability of different groups of users to pay. The
provided for free. human right also requires access to a certain quantity of water
necessary for survival - even in return for limited or no compensation.
The latter applies only in exceptional situations, like extreme poverty or
a refugee crisis. As for sanitation, States are not obliged to provide
facilities free of charge. People who are in a position to pay for
sanitation facilities can be expected to contribute financially or in kind.
A State violates the A State compromises the right to water if the government does not

1
United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 15, 2002, and
United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 2006.

Page 11 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

right to water if not undertake targeted steps within its available resources to move as
Printable Course Material
everybody within its expeditiously and effectively as possible towards fully realizing the right.
territory has access to At the same time, it is necessary that the State continues to improve
sufficient and access to and the quality of other basic services, like education or
affordable water of health.
acceptable quality.
The right to water Each country can choose a legal form of service provision - be it public
requires that water and or private, through NGOs or community-based organizations.
sanitation services be Governments have to exercise effective control and are ultimately
provided through responsible for the availability, accessibility, affordability and quality of
public, i.e. state-owned the services. They must ensure that services are delivered in accordance
institutions. with existing national standards and human right obligations.
The right to sanitation Governments are not obliged to build household toilets. The legal
requires States to responsibility lies with the landlords or households themselves.
construct household However, governments have to provide support by creating an enabling
toilets and to provide environment, i.e. framework conditions which are conducive to
access to sewer progressively realizing basic sanitation for all. The human right to
systems. sanitation does not dictate a certain technology.
The right to water A sufficient amount of water resources is not just a question of raw
cannot be fulfilled if water availability, but a question of equitable distribution. The right to
there is not enough water only covers basic personal and domestic needs, i.e. the availability
water for everyone. of at least 20 liters of water per person per day as an acceptable
minimum.
The practical approach States must ensure that service provision complies with the human
to implementing the rights standards. As long as service provision remains informal and thus
right is offered by unregulated, States do not comply with the human rights requirement
informal service to protect consumers effectively from refusal of physical access, from
providers since they unsafe quality or from unaffordable prices, a very common problem of
offer services to those informal service provision.
currently un-served.
Source: GTZ (2009)

Sources
The following sources were referred to in preparing this Required Reading. Readers may
like to view the original source in full to get further information on the topics covered.
Groom, E., Halpern J., & Ehrhardt, D. (2006). Explanatory Notes on Key Topics in the
Regulation of Water and Sanitation Services. WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION SECTOR
BOARD DISCUS SION PAPER SERIES, NO. 6. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
GTZ (2009). The Human Right to Water and Sanitation: Translating Theory into Practice.
Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. p. 2
Kingdom & van Ginneken. (2008). Key topics in public water utility reform. World Bank
Working Paper 44173. pp. 3-7; 9; 47.
McKenzie, D. & Ray, I. (2009). Urban water supply in India: status, reform options and
possible lessons. Water Policy, 11 (4). 442-460.
UNDP. (2006). Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis. Human
Development Report. New York.
WaterAid. Our water, our waste, our town: Supporting civil society to engage in urban
water and sanitation reforms. Part 4: Governance issues and water sector partnerships in

Page 12 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

reforms. Available for free download from: Printable Course Material

www.wateraid.org/uk/what_we_do/policy_and_research/7792.asp
WSP Sanitation Global Practice Team. (2011). The Political Economy of Sanitation: How
can we increase investment and improve service for the poor? Operational experiences
from case studies in Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Senegal. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
pp. 14; 17-30.

Page 13 of 14
 Designing and Implementing Successful Water Supply and Sanitation
Utility Reform
M01: Political Challenges in Providing Water and Sanitation Services

Check Your Understanding Printable Course Material

1. Which of the following are the positive impacts of improved water supply and sanitation?

A. Improved access to higher quality services

B. Increased incomes and consumption

C. Increase in supply of water through vendors

D. Social and gender inclusion

E. Better returns on investment

2. To limit the opportunity of capital cost and network structure of piped water and
sanitation services, governments:

A. Impose some form of external regulation on them

B. Directly manage utilities

C. Enter partnerships with private companies

D. Encourage vendors to set up these utilities

3. How does political influence affect water and sanitation service provision?

A. When consumers become unhappy with the services being provided, decision
makers come under pressure to act.

B. Politicians choose the most economically sound and sustainable solutions to service
problems.

C. Cash-strapped utilities can increase tariffs to raise the resources required to improve
services.

D. Only the short-term needs of utilities are met and consumers end up worse off in the
long term.

Page 14 of 14