Evaluation e-Library (EeL) cover page

4.2Challenges & Constraints

Both government and communities are faced by a seemingly overwhelming need for basic urban services and limited resources to provide them.

Local governance is developing within a confused legislative framework overseen by a national and provincial government with a weak capacity to administer or develop policy. There is an absence of a policy framework for urban management and at the same time, new structures and approaches for decentralisation are being introduced. It represents a very fluid, yet open, framework for programme implementation.

4.3Effectiveness, Inclusiveness and Sustainability

As indicated above, the LUPP experience has been effective and influential. It will be important for LUPP to complete an assessment of the extent of community participation within the forums, to understand who is participating and who is not, particularly amongst the poorest and socially excluded, including women. Also to seek to assess the effectiveness of such forums as a means for addressing poverty. Whilst attribution will be difficult, for example, is it possible to note any difference from neighbouring administrations where such participation does not exist? Such assessments will be powerful tools to influence future urban poverty and governance programmes.

In terms of sustainability, in addition to some evidence of local demand for replication, the MAT has proposed a programme for pilot decentralisation in 41 municipalities. With the support of UNDP, pilot decentralisation projects will be undertaken in 4 municipalities including Kilamba Kiaxi. A USAID, Municipal Development Project, which has also been influenced by the FAS model, is also using a municipal development fund for community-driven municipal development plans. The USAID’s MDP is to be implemented by the same LUPP partnership of DW, CARE and SCUK in 5 municipalities all outside of Luanda²¹. The World Bank-funded FAS has been piloting a Municipal Capacity Building Programme in 9 Municipalities and has undertaken some joint work with LUPP in Kilamba Kiaxi.

Both LUPP and UNDP have been undertaking training through IFAL the local public administration training institute.

There is thus a number of influences on the course of the decentralisation process although much of the piloting is taking place outside of Luanda in more rural municipalities. Whilst UNDP is taking the lead on the governance processes, LUPP has been pre-eminent in promoting an urban poverty perspective.

It has also been noted that the establishment of the various forums is also high risk. The Municipal Administrator of Kilamba Kiaxi expressed concern that the KKDF raised expectations and had the potential to frustrate them. He remarked that without support from LUPP the KKDF will become an ‘empty space for moaning’. Fernando Pacheco on the other hand felt that the process was sustainable but fragile. He felt that LUPP was not the only catalyst for the development of these types of dialogue spaces and that there is experience within the provinces. He noted however that the LUPP experience is more structured, has worked faster and is more influential.

In interviews, the Vice-Minister of MAT, the KK Municipal Administrator, and Mr Pacheco all felt that the continuation and replication of support for municipal forums was vital at least until the forthcoming elections, particularly the local elections expected in 2008. The forums were an important contribution to the development of a culture of democracy and the development of a mature civil society.

5Service provision – impact & replicability

Discussion of each service includes LUPP’s achievements, inclusiveness, impact, sustainability and replicability.

5.1Water

A total of 73 standposts have been constructed during LUPP (22 in LUPP2) for a total population of 74,000.

In the case of SCSP, community management is undertaken through 63 water committees (CAs) which in two communes have been federated and formally ‘legalised’ or gazetted as associations (ACAs). The CAs (two monitors) are appointed for each standpost from within the local community and paid a small stipend to operate, monitor and collect a user charge. The CA/ACAs are now largely independent from DW and deal directly with the water provider, EPAL as needed. In the case of LURE, the water monitors are appointed from the area-based development committees, the ODAs.

During LUPP2, the programme reached a common position on tariffs and payment system using pre-paid coupons. Users are charged Kz5 per 25 litres which is 4 or 5 times cheaper than the price from private water vendors. Hygiene education training is given to CAs and more widely within the community. According to studies by SCSP, consumption has doubled from 7 litres per capita/day to 15 litres and distance travelled to collect water has halved from almost 200 metres to less than 100 meters. The health impact is not known but anecdotal evidence is that during the recent cholera epidemic, incidence of the disease was lower in areas served by the standposts.

During discussion, ACAs indicated that with irregular supply of water, the pre-paid system (which is considered to be more transparent) was causing some difficulty. Users were paying in advance but if water from the standpost was unavailable, they then had no money to purchase from a private vendor. Further, if water consumption from the standpost is too low due to irregular supply, there was insufficient money to pay the CAs, or for maintenance.

Revenue from the standpost is allocated to EPAL (35%). The remaining 65% is allocated to the Municipal administration, to the CA/ACAs or ODAs for maintenance and development. One new standpost has been developed by one ACA in NK from such revenue.

The model developed through LUPP has been demonstrated to be financially, technically and institutionally viable and sustainable. The model has been presented at a discussion seminar with EPAL and agreed in principle for the new EU programme which will be developing 350 standposts for a musseque population of 1.3m.

Discussion with EPAL and EU for this evaluation revealed that the LUPP model is likely to be adapted both in terms of user charges and community management. Due to a GoA-fixed ‘social’ tariff for water supply within the musseques (much lower at Kz32 per cubic meter), the EPAL/EU programme will not be charging an economic price for water and will directly contract monitors from the community. This rather dilutes the model established by LUPP. Unfortunately, whilst EPAL (and apparently MINEA) understands the commercial prospect for water supply in the musseques and the potential of charging an economic price (still 5 times lower than the private vendors’ price), the GoA is not yet willing to legislate for a higher tariff²². In the same interview with EPAL, the community management model was regarded as too expensive.

Clearly, further work is required to persuade GoA of the suitability of the LUPP model and continued support or institutionalisation of the ACA model is at risk. Possible engagement of LUPP partners in the EU programme may assist this, but LUPP itself could provide more evidence of the poverty and health impacts of the improved water provision, as well as more developed arguments on the tariff issue. It is understood that DW have completed in 2004 an update of the 2002 baseline study of Hoji-Ya-Henda and are in the process of completion of a study on the informal water sector. This will compare the “value chain” delivery system of informal water with the LUPP community model through standposts, water committees and ACAs and will give convincing data to demonstrate the potential economic impact of the model. Unfortunately there has been no systematic monitoring of poverty or health impacts, or any assessment of differential access and affordability from within the user community.