The traditional government-led approach to service delivery often makes government itself responsible for representing consumers' interests - in fact, a distinction between the two is not often made, and this is why consumers, especially poor consumers, have been the recipients of services prescribed by officials. Given the undeniable fact that municipalities have their own interests as well, substantial conflicts arise when government is responsible for setting the rules of the game as well as representing consumers. The case studies throughout this book demonstrate ongoing confusion about the distinction between government and consumers, largely because consumers are not organised as a distinctive voice. The Gweru case (see Box 9.5), however, demonstrates through its extensive consultation process that the municipality understood that it could not simply assume that it represented consumers' interests, and to some extent (with the exception of the issue of service standards), it set out to understand the interests of numerous stakeholders including consumers, and act as a broker of interests.
The two fundamental constraints to incorporating consumers into service partnerships are their lack of organisation and skills. As long as consumers remain uncoordinated, individual voices with no understanding of municipal service provision issues, there is no way to meaningfully include them in a partnership. Creating an inclusive organisation - that is operationally and financially viable for the long term - brings many benefits. Perhaps the most important one is that it builds a legitimate role for the people who use the services. This facilitates the development of appropriate solutions and increases the commitment to pay for the services. Poor communities lack capacity, however, and a significant challenge for partnerships is to ensure that skills and organisational development are established to enhance the capacity of these consumers.
Despite the potential value of CBOs, they have their own problems. One is that they may not focus upon representing their communities, but rather only on specific people or factions within a community. This raises the importance of building their capacity to be more open, and also of engaging - and building - other potentially important organisations such as women's groups. Recognition of the heterogeneity of the consumer group suggests that municipal service partnerships should use different approaches for the poor and the non-poor, and that this should be clarified in partnership agreements. This is not easy, however, given that both municipalities and the private sector have established working practices that do not always make this distinction, and do not always allow other actors to enter the partnership. CBOs and NGOs can play an important role in ensuring the sustainable delivery of services and should be included as partners. With notable exceptions, this is a challenge few projects have yet to accept.
Box 6.19 Multilateral Initiatives |
The Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) is a multi-donor technical assistance facility aimed at helping developing countries improve the quality of their infrastructure through private sector involvement. Launched in July 1999, PPIAF was developed on the joint initiative of the governments of Japan and the UK, working closely with the World Bank. PPIAF is owned and directed by participating donors, which include bilateral and multilateral development agencies and international financial institutions. PPIAF was built on the World Bank Group's Infrastructure Action Program and has been designed to reinforce the actions of all participating donors. PPIAF is managed by a small Program Management Unit in the World Bank. PPIAF pursues its mission through two main mechanisms. First, it channels technical assistance to governments in developing countries on strategies and measures to tap the full potential of private involvement in infrastructure. Second, it identifies, disseminates and promotes best practices on matters related to private involvement in infrastructure in developing countries. PPIAF can finance a range of country-specific and multi-country advisory and related activities in the following areas: • framing infrastructure development strategies to take full advantage of the potential for private involvement; • building consensus for appropriate policy, regulatory and institutional reforms; • designing and implementing specific policy, regulatory and institutional reforms; • supporting the design and implementation of pioneering projects and transactions; and • building government capacity in the design and execution of private infrastructure arrangements and in the regulation of private service providers. PPIAF assistance can facilitate private involvement in the financing, ownership, operation, rehabilitation, maintenance or management of eligible infrastructure services. Eligible infrastructure services comprise roads, ports, airports, railways, electricity, telecommunications, solid waste, water and sewerage, and gas transmission and distribution. All of PPIAF outputs fall within the following categories: • Infrastructure development strategies: studies intended to guide governments on options for expanding private sector involvement in infrastructure. This includes national, sub-national and sectoral studies within a country. • Consensus building: activities aimed at building consensus among stakeholders for appropriate policy, regulatory and institutional reforms. • Policy regulatory and institutional reforms: advice on the design and implementation of specific reforms, including studies and drafting of instruments. • Pioneering transactions: support to the design and implementation of particular projects or transactions that are pioneering in some important respect, reflect some measure of innovation, and offer potential demonstration effects. • Capacity building: activities aimed at building government capacity in the design and execution of private infrastructure arrangements and in the regulation of private service providers. • Global best practice: activities focusing on the identification, promotion and dissemination of best practice to the international community in general, rather than to a specific country, on matters relating to private sector involvement in infrastructure in developing countries. For small proposals (involving PPIAF support of US$75,000 or less), applications are evaluated on a rolling basis and the Program Management Unit will aim to notify proponents of the outcome of the evaluation within two weeks of submission. For medium and large proposals (involving PPIAF support of over US$75,000), applications will be batched on a quarterly basis and the Program Management Unit will aim to notify proponents of the outcome of the evaluation within six to eight weeks of the submission deadline. If a proposal is rejected, an explanation will be provided to the proponent. Applications for PPIAF support can come from any source. In the case of country-specific activities, however, the beneficiary government must approve all requests for support. An application form for PPIAF support can be downloaded or completed on- line through the PPIAF website (www.ppiaf.org) or can be ordered from the Program Management Unit. Proposals will be assessed against the criteria specified in PPIAF's charter, which is available on the website or can be requested from the Program Management Unit. Those criteria include consistency with PPIAF's mission, government commitment, additionality, donor coordination, value for money, and environmental and social responsibility. Contact details are provided in Appendix A. |
Source: Adapted from the PPIAF website, www.ppiaf.org |