Port-au-Prince, Haiti: Restructuring public water services in shanty towns

Actors

The Port-au-Prince project is unique to the other focus projects in that the provider / operator is the public utility (CAMEP) and no international private sector stakeholder is a formal partner in the project. The partnership is between the CAMEP, the GRET (a French NGO), the local water committees in 37 shantytowns, and the communities themselves. Technical assistance had been received by CAMEP from different multinational water companies in the past. A second tier of interested stakeholders would include small-scale water providers and the donor community (primarily the French Development Agency, AFD and the European Union).

Project Description

The project provides water through standpipes connected by a gravity flow system to water towers. Community water committees provide overall management. The water committee hires a standpipe manager to operate the system and collect payment. The standpipe itself is constructed by CAMEP with community support. They operate for a few hours a day at pre-set times. Water committees pay for the bulk water and retain some money for maintenance and the funding of other local development projects.

Context

Haiti has long struggled both economically and politically. However, the economy has apparently been more stable recently and national elections were held in November 2000 (these, not expected to impact the project, were postponed from earlier in the year). There is also a move to decentralise responsibility for water down to the lowest possible level (including to community water committees). A regulatory body may follow. Discussions have also been recently held about bringing the private sector in to assist CAMEP with specific functions. Such privatisation options remain a possibility for the medium to long-term future.

Project Beneficiaries

Port-au-Princes population has increased tenfold in thirty years to two million inhabitants. Unemployment is high and prospects for work in the shantytowns incredibly low. At the beginning of the project, violence was commonplace in the shantytowns. Cost recovery is quite high, partly due to community involvement, partly due to the nature of the bulk sale and the pay-as-you-go system (standpipes are much cheaper than informal water vendors and safer than heavily polluted local watercourses). Around 600,000 people in 37 communities have now benefited from the project.

Objectives and Structures of Partnership

The broad theme is to provide regularised, affordable and sustainable water services to poor households. The accompanied development of social infrastructures is seen as a significant channel for meeting broader development objectives (including community empowerment). CAMEP & GRETs relationship evolved from experiment to a Memorandum of Understanding. Following this MoU, CAMEP issues subcontracts for GRET to take on specific activities in specific communities. Contracts between individual water committees and CAMEP specify the committees roles over financial and administrative elements of the standposts.

Roles and Responsibilities

CAMEP has direct responsibility in the city for infrastructure investment, expansion and operations and maintenance of the system. It provides the water to bulk meters, undertakes billing, contracting, & social engineering work. GRET co-ordinates the social engineeringand conducted training for CAMEP staff. Water Committees hire the operator, and decide upon infrastructure - local residents also contribute construction labour.

Community Liaison

CAMEPs participation is primarily through the Low Income Users Unit. This unit has seen its profile (and professionalism) increase markedly over the recent few years. It liases with 37 Water Committees created to manage the water service. These constituted themselves by integrating the leaders of all primary organisations in the community (i.e., political parties, churches, youth groups, networks of notables, etc.). They manage the finances of the water sales and smooth occasional conflicts. With a margin obtained from selling water, they finance small collective infrastructure projects (playgrounds, meeting rooms, footbridges, wastewater channels, bathing facilities, etc.), enhancing and reinforcing their legitimacy. Typically they have also received training in financial and accounting techniques.

Communications and Feedback

Consensus building appears to occur informally through discussions at several levels between the organisations. The forceful leadership of both CAMEP and GRET are very supportive of the project. Decision-making occurs via negotiation of the subcontracts. Joint workshops have also served to build consensus. The professionalisation of the CAMEP Low Income Users Unit has served to change the original dynamics, which relied on informal contact between GRET & CAMEPs leaders. Relationships have thus institutionalised significantly.

Evolution and Institutionalisation

The role of CAMEP has changed significantly as the professionalism, skills and priority of the Low Income Users Unit have increased - CAMEP are now the primary lead actor. GRET, as original instigators, have effectively worked their way out of day-to-day activities, becoming mainly an advocate and watchdog. Water committees have become significantly more powerful (& politicised) - their expectations have altered accordingly.

Results

37 communities (representing some 600,000 people) now effectively manage significantly less expensive, regularised water services. Safeguards ensure that communities are able to participate and voice their needs. Project financing relies on almost full cost-recovery and on grant funding from the EU and AFD (Agence Franaise de Developpement). Twenty percent of tariffs finance future investments. Other results include reduced vandalism & fewer illegal connections, decreased violence, greater empowerment, more solid community representation, etc.

Strengths

Clear incentives for CAMEP and Water Committees; solid commitment; clear roles and responsibilities; clear champions; healthy competition; integration with other community programmes via the committees; the overcoming of enormous social challenges within communities; the bringing together of all major community power groups; enhanced debate regarding community development.

Next Steps and Replicability

What the nature of GRETs current role should be is now an issue. A project extension will involve GRET working with CAMEP's Low Income Users Unit to develop and manage sanitation components in the 37 shantytowns. There is high demand from currently unserved communities for expansion, though CAMEP has committed itself to consolidating and enhancing the benefits in the current areas before embarking on further replication (though the increase from an original 14 to 37 communitites suggests great potential). How such replication will be funded is a question. The ability of committees to sustain projects and expectations also remains to be seen. Potential private sector participation is another issue.

Wider Lessons

Wider lessons relate to the:

• contrasting determinations of success & different visions of when a project is completed
• changing role of NGO from implementer to watchdog cum advocate
• importance of strength and commitment of individuals & champions
• benefit of very clear roles and contributions of each partner.

Synopsis content update: 07 August 2001