Current problems and impacts on Accountability

Updated - Friday 23 July 2010

2010: The problems

Accountability mechanisms tend to be relatively weak (both long and short routes).
Low levels of ‘voice’ means direct accountability does not work well (we ask communities to complain more as well as doing everything else!). Neither indirect accountability with politicians only close to issues, in time and space, at election time and stretched capacity within authorities, providers, regulators etc.
Access to accurate and up to date information (by both consumers and other levels and agencies in government) is often very limited.
Monitoring indicators that are available, rarely give an accurate picture of service delivery.
There is more upwards accountability e.g. to central governments and donors (but linked to budgets rather than services), than downwards to users.
Sector and broader governance reforms e.g. decentralisation and SWAps have created new interfaces where checks and balances to ensure accountability are new, non-existent or relatively weak.
Significant efforts being made to invest in ‘social’ accountability although often pilots that are not yet scaled up.
Many still equate actions to improve governance with overheads and a waste of scarce financial resources or ‘someone else’s job’.
Where users are not closely involved in decision-making on how money is used, there can be high costs due to poor decision-making and corruption (e.g. sanitation cases in South Africa and India).

Money spent is not well targeted enough (to the poor and those without services)
Poor performance, failure of systems and erratic services
High levels of corruption/ misuse of funds, and a danger than corruption will become embedded at new levels
Many people are not willing to pay for the level of service they receive

Strengthened direct (consumer-provider) and indirect accountability (where authorities and regulators hold providers accountable) mechanisms.
Communities and others have more oversight over the way investments are made on their behalf.
Culture of accurate and timely reporting and open access to information nurtured in the sector.
Better indicators on service levels developed and used e.g. the financial status of community water providers (with money available for short term and regular operations) can often be a good indicator of management and service.
Established checks and balances at the local and sector level (e.g. effective regulation in both urban and rural areas) improve decision-making and prevent corruption
Scaled-up social accountability programmes that are viewed as a basic and vital sector investment

Clear separation of service delivery functions (the day to day operation and management of water services) from those related to service authority (overseeing the actions of those providing the service), and greater reach of regulators.
Professionalisation of the sector, especially through capacity development and including key regulatory, monitoring, reporting and planning functions.
More incentives and dis-incentives put in place that are focused on improving service delivery outcomes.

Efforts are better targeted to the most needy households and communities.
Systems are repaired faster, and maintained more often resulting in less breakdowns and more reliable services
Less money is mis-used and decisions are better. It is more difficult to be corrupt, or make decisions that are not cost effective, where information is available on costs and service levels and accountability mechanisms are in place.
Higher levels of cost recovery, contributing to improved O&M etc