About CM

Elements that Distinguish Community Managed Systems from Other Models for Service Provision

The following four elements can be identified to some extent or other in community managed systems.

• Collective community control of the system
• Collective community operation and maintenance of the system
• Collective community ownership of the water supply system
• Collective community contribution to costs (operating and capital)

Control is the key

Each of these four elements must be addressed to achieve successful community management, but we would argue that it is control and ownership that are the defining characteristic of a community managed system. In particular, if the community has control then it can be said to be managing its system. Can such control happen without ownership? There is no absolute answer. It will be very difficult to control something where the ownership is not clear. If the ownership is clear, but resides outside the community (for instance with government) it will be possible to exercise real control over some decisions, but only with difficulty over others. For instance, the community may have the power to decide on limits for water use even where it does not own the system. It will however be impossible to use plant and machinery as collateral for raising money on the open market if ownership rests outside the community. We would argue that legal ownership should rest with the community, but we acknowledge that, where there is a strong ethos of public (government) ownership, or where government has yet to develop sufficient trust in communities and their management abilities, this is likely to be politically impossible.

Control, operation and maintenance

There is an important distinction to be made between control and operation although the two are often assumed to be synonymous, and in practice carried out by the same people. Put simply control means the ability to make strategic decisions about how a system is designed, implemented, and managed: to select service levels, set tariffs and, if desired, employ someone else to look after operation and maintenance. Most often control is implemented through management committees or boards. Operation is the day to day maintenance of the system and can be carried out either by the community itself - especially in simpler systems - or by a paid professional. For example operation by a professional under guidance is common in more complex systems in much of Latin America.

We believe that the essence of community management lies in control rather than operation and maintenance, because control covers the decision making powers that puts a community truly in charge. Therefore, a system where a private sector operator carries out the operational management, under the control of a committee selected by the community is a community managed system. One where an outside agency pays the community to undertake certain routine maintenance activities while maintaining strategic decision making powers for itself is not.

Ownership

Ownership is at the root of successful community management. It is also one of the vaguest and most overused buzzwords of the sector, perhaps second only to demand - for which it is often seen as a vital ingredient. Frequently, what it refers to is a ‘sense of ownership’ brought about by contributions to planning, construction or capital costs. It is frequently reduced to a box to be ticked once a community has contributed 5% or 50% to capital costs, or contributed their labour (‘sweat equity’) to system construction. They have paid for it, so now they are supposed to feel that they own it, even if nobody has given them any legal rights over the system. In many cases the community has not been given sufficient legal status to own the source or the system, and cannot therefore protect it. The point of a sense of ownership is that community members behave as if they do own it, and people who own things (particularly poor people) do their best to protect them. If communities have no legal status or legal ownership their ‘sense of ownership’ will soon be exposed and will evaporate.

Contribution to costs

Cost recovery is one of the most debated topics in the sector. We argue that a cash contribution to capital and operating costs is not an essential feature of community management. It is possible to imagine a system where a donor finances implementation and where grants and subsidies cover operation and maintenance costs, but where the community still owns and controls the system. Something like this is being realised in South Africa which is implementing a ‘free basic water’ policy through community managed systems. However this is the exception. In practice, in most developing countries the community meets at least the operational costs. Ensuring that communities are capable of collecting, managing, and using revenues is an essential part of ensuring sustainability.

Whoever pays, it is critical that all costs, implementation, operation and maintenance, and eventual replacement are clearly identified and that responsibility for meeting them is clearly assigned. The exact mix between community and external sources will vary according to the context. What is less clear is whether an initial contribution to capital costs - as is now insisted on by the World Bank and other donors - plays any role in increasing ownership, or whether it serves as yet one more barrier to trying to reach the poorest.