Reflections on Water Witness’ Global Evidence Review. Part two: a lack of social accountability is good accountability

Pastoralist grazing lands in Ethiopia.

Yes, you may want to read that title again – how can a lack of social accountability mechanisms for civil society be a good thing for water services? 

The puzzle of accountability

In one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, a vital piece of evidence was that a dog didn’t bark. The fact that something was missing was the clue that was needed to solve the crime. I want to argue that the presence of social accountability measures is a sign of failure rather than success. This may sound counterintuitive: surely people demanding their rights, media campaigns and report cards are a good thing? They are and they are needed, but they are a sign that other (more efficient?) methods ensuring basic service delivery have failed. When regulators, funders, organisations and politicians are not performing well enough, then we may need to take to the streets to protest. 

I don’t want to spend time complaining to my water supplier (though I have, when they did not fix a leak for several days). I don’t want to have to write to my MP (though I have, when they failed to deliver their promises). I don’t want to write to newspapers and broadcasters to highlight issues (though I have, to correct poor reporting). I want to spend my spare time reading books, meeting friends, going for a walk, not taking part in citizen action. 

A lack of social accountability does not imply that accountability is missing. It might be that social action is not needed. Do we need to enable public participation for its own sake? The data collected in the report can be interpreted in two ways. A lack of evidence of social accountability may imply that activities need support and people’s voices need strengthening, or it may be that services are good, rights are being observed and we don’t need public debates.

Accountability is about communication.

 If we consider the water sector as a system, then communication provides some of the links between elements of the system. These links enable information to flow, data to be shared and different perspectives to be observed. These links create feedback loops, (hopefully) correcting poor performance (negative feedback) and encouraging successful initiatives (positive feedback). When these links break or are insufficient, then alternative methods of connecting the elements of a system are needed. Ideally regulation, democratic oversight, routine reports and auditing provide the necessary channels, but when these are not working, then we have to find alternative routes to connect the elements of the system. 

So, if the need for wide scale social accountability is a sign of weaknesses in the system, what are the signs of a successful system? What are the links that we should be looking for and perhaps strengthening? They may not be labelled as “accountability” but they do provide feedback mechanisms and are (perhaps?) more efficient and effective than community based methods. In fact, if they are working really well, then feedback is not needed. 

Ensuring feedback loops work

Government managed services have a long feedback system. If you are receiving poor service from a national water utility, you can vote at the next election for a candidate who promises to improve the service. This is a long and fragile feedback mechanism. Social accountability, lobbying members of parliament, may improve matters but the route from water user back to water provider is convoluted. “New Public Management” and decentralisation initiatives aim to reduce the length of the feedback loop, so the water supplier becomes more accountable to the user. Introducing key performance indicators is one element of this, especially if those indicators are focused on the users, such as satisfaction surveys. The results of these indicators need to link to the water supplier, so staff bonuses and promotion criteria need to closely reflect meeting targets for these indicators. Connection rates, debt levels, number of complaints can all be used to judge the performance and hold the water supplier accountable. 

Not all accountability measures are labelled as such. We do need to feedback loops that are short and responsive. A well-run water sector is unobtrusive. There are no media campaigns, citizen report cards or external investigations. The views of users are actively sought out. Users pay their bills on time. Issues are never raised in Parliament. No one writes to their MP. No dogs bark.

Brian Reed is a freelance WASH capacity builder with over 30 years of experience in the sector.