WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE POLICY BRIEF Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review Context and Objectives attention over the past decades. The Demand-Responsve Approach  of the 1990s proved insufficient to address Context and Rationale sustainability (World Bank 2012). Since the 2000s, more The recently issued baseline for the Sustainable emphasis has been placed on postconstruction support, Development Goals (SDGs) states that 844 million peo- diversification, and professionalization of rural ser- ple in 2015 remain without access to basic water ser- vice providers, including the role of the private s ­ector vices and 2.1 billion without safely managed drinking (Lockwood and Smits 2011). A new paradigm for rural water, the large majority of those living in rural areas water service delivery is emerging, recognizing wider (WHO and UNICEF 2017). The reportedly low func- governance  systems, the enabling environment, polit- tionality rates of rural water supplies of between 60 to ical economy aspects, life cycle costs, and the crucial 70 percent show that access gains remain fragile and role of local institutions (Whaley and Cleaver 2017). at risk (RWSN 2010). With the adoption of the SDGs, Against this backdrop, a better understanding of the governments have committed to achieve universal and underlying factors for rural water sustainability becomes equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water an imperative. This policy brief summarizes the key find- for all by 2030. This means closing the urban-rural and ings from a multi-country sustainability assessment of equity gap and delivering higher levels of services, in rural water service delivery models conducted in 2016–17. terms of quality, accessibility, and reliability. The SDGs thus pose a triple challenge: to reach unserved, mostly Aims rural population groups; to raise service levels; and to This assessment used a case-study approach to iden- sustain existing and future services. tify good practices and challenges towards building The issue of weak sustainability of rural service sector capacity and strengthening sustainable service provision  is not new and has received widespread delivery models for rural areas. It  does not focus on 1 the critical planning, design, and implementation ­provinces of Zhejiang and Shaanxi), Ethiopia, China ( phase of developing rural water supply facilities, but Ghana, Haiti, India (states of Punjab and Uttarakhand), rather analyzes the long-term ongoing service deliv- Indonesia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Morocco, Nepal, ery approach for rural water. The added value of this Nicaragua, the Philippines, Tanzania, and Vietnam. assessment lies in: The countries cover a wide range of access levels to improved and piped water services. • The development of a comprehensive analytical frame- work to analyze and operationalize a more sustainable The assessment is based on desk review using avail- service delivery approach for rural water supply able secondary data and literature, and for nine out of the 16 countries, in-country qualitative data collection • Documenting a rich set of cases and good practices by local or international experts. Primary data collec- informing the global body of sector knowledge tion at the level of water schemes was not part of the • Indentifying a set of policy recommendations to scope of the study.1 sustainability of services depending on improve the ­ sector development stage and rural service delivery Analytical Framework and the Building context Blocks of Sustainability The analytical framework is based on five building Approach and Analytical Framework blocks, representing a set of optimum conditions for Country Selection and Methodology sustainability of rural water service provision: institu- A diverse spectrum of 16 countries were selected based tional capacity, financing, asset management, water on socioeconomic development, wealth, regional resources management, and monitoring and regulatory representation and presence of World Bank oper- ­ oversight. The building blocks were identified from pre- ations:  Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil (state of Ceará), vious research, specifically the Sustainable Services at FIGURE 1. Analytical Framework to Understand Sustainability of Rural Water Country context: economic development, population growth and urbanization, decentralization, geography and hydrology, aid dependency Sector governance: political prioritization, aid e ectiveness, private sector participation, human rights and inclusion, institutional arrangements and service delivery models, service levels National sector level Water resources management Monitoring and regulation Service authority level Institutional capacity Asset management Financing Service provider level Community-based management Direct local government Public utility provision Private sector Supported self-supply 2 Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review Scale project,2 and validated through consultation with to the five building blocks. This scoring was done at two World Bank staff. The framework recognizes three insti- levels: at sector level and for each service delivery model tutional levels: national level (legislation, policy, and the in a country. This allows for an analysis across coun- establishment of national authorities), service authority tries and service delivery models to determine common level (authorities with responsibilities for delivering ser- trends, strengths, and weaknesses. The scoring method- vices, often local governments) and service provision ology, questions and evidence for each of the 16 countries level. At the service provider level, five main manage- is available in the main report (World Bank 2017) and the ment models were distinguished: community-based country working papers.4 management, direct local government provision, pub- lic utility, private sector provision, and supported self-­ Emerging Good Practices: Findings and supply3 (see  ­ figure  1). In this assessment, the term Lessons “service delivery model” refers to the management Diversification of Service Delivery model and the full complement of national and local Models in Rural Areas policies, capacities, regulations, and financing required While the community-based management model optimal service provision. to facilitate ­ remains the dominant service delivery model, dif- A Scoring Method to Assess Progress ferentiation of service delivery models depending toward Sustainability on local context was found, as illustrated in figure 2. Each country’s progress in establishing the conditions urban Examples include urban utilities integrating peri-­ for sustainable rural water services was assessed using a and denser rural areas in their service areas; aggre- pertaining normative scoring, based on a set of questions ­ gated management models for multiple rural centers; FIGURE 2. Different Segments of Rural Water Service Delivery Highly dispersed rural populations Rural villages and growth centres Service levels: basic, typically water points, either public or Concentrated peri-urban populations and private rural towns Service levels: piped networks Service providers: with standpipes, in transition to household connections Service levels: piped water Community-based organizations, mostly waterpoint user groups; Service providers: networks with household Self-supply (individual, shared by connections, in transition to 24–7 Community-based organization and households); Occasionally local aggregated management forms; Service providers: government provision Small-scale private providers; Expanding public utilities; Challenges: Direct local government provision Professionalized (private) operators Provision of continuous public Challenges: Challenges: funding for ongoing support; Limited pool of private operators Transparency in process of Financing of capital maintenance and limited market potential; incorporation of rural areas; and even operating costs; Capacity development and Financial sustainability of High cost of monitoring; support needs to transition to providers resulting of expansion Governments shifting to household connections; Charging to rural areas; Tari adjustments "supported" self-supply models tari s for higher service levels; for higher service levels; Need for Increased complexity of monitoring regulatory oversight and regular monitoring Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review 3 and delegated management arrangements to the pri- financial sustainability were: i) realistic demand fore- vate sector in small towns and surrounding rural areas. casts and flexible design standards, ii) investments in communications to transition to metered house con- Good Practices for Each of the nections, iii) expanded management models, including Building Blocks utility and private sector models, and iv) use of results- Institutional Capacity based financing to incentivize service delivery focus. Progress on institutional capacity is found where rural Asset Management water has become a development priority, translating into clear mandates for national institutions to plan and Asset management is a relatively new concept in the deliver services in consultation with local authorities. rural water sector. Half of the countries still need to In several countries, national programs moved beyond address issues such as i) clarity around asset ownership, infrastructure and now focus on supporting local govern- ii) first-time inventories and water point mapping exer- ments in fulfilling their mandates. However, local gov- cises, and iii) clearly defining responsibilities for capital ernments often still need to make this shift by prioritizing maintenance—minor versus major repairs—and responsi- postconstruction support and monitoring providers. bility for asset renewal. Asset management of small water Adequate institutional capacity is seen when service pro- schemes, managed by communities or local govern- viders benefit from capacity building programs and can ments, is mostly absent. Better scores for asset manage- access ongoing support or assistance. Some countries ment were found for urban and regional ­ utilities, private have made service provider support a key component of sector models, or multi-­village schemes with aggregated, rural water supply programs, such as in Indonesia, Benin, professionalized management arrangements, such as in Brazil, India, and Tanzania. Services were typically pro- Benin, China, India, Morocco, Nicaragua, and Vietnam. vided by i) local governments, ii) federations or associ- Ghana developed a sound framework with i) clear asset ations of service providers acting as technical assistance ownership, ii) allocation of responsibilities for differ- providers, or iii) higher-tier public entities or utilities. ent asset maintenance categories, iii) financing mecha- nisms, and iv) asset management guidance documents Financing and tools, but lacks operationalization. Some innovative In over half of the countries ­ governments planned financing mechanisms for capital maintenance of rural capital investments in rural water services based on schemes were identified, sourced from tariff revenues sectorwide approaches, with investments co-­ financed and local taxes (China and Ghana). through national and local tax revenues and devel- opment partner transfers. A  common challenge Water Resources Management remains to implement sustainable financing mecha- Most countries have legal frameworks that prioritize nisms for recurrent costs, capital maintenance, and resource allocation to domestic water supply. However, capital replacement. Often rural tariff policies remain in only a few countries sub-basin or local water manage- biased and ill-defined without differentia- urban-­ ment bodies have rural drinking water interests well rep- tion between  operational, capital maintenance, and resented by rural service providers or service authorities. capital replacement costs and lack mechanisms for Good practices were found in India,  Nicaragua, and enforcement. Tariff guidelines that accurately define aquifer recharge and management Nepal, such as: i)  ­ and allocate responsibility for financing different life initiatives by drinking water entities, ii)  integration of cycle costs emerge as good examples to tackle low catchment protection and management in rural water willingness-to-charge by local governments (for exam- programs, and (iii) local planning platforms across mul- ple, in Brazil). Other good  practices for enhancing tiple water users (Nepal). Water safety programming and 4 Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review vulnerability assessments were only found for urban private providers, and iv) mandating oversight of rural utilities serving rural areas. Adapting such approaches providers to a dedicated agency. to a rural context has proved to be challenging. Good Practices from the Service Monitoring and Regulatory Oversight Delivery Models Monitoring is an area that witnessed significant prog- Box 1 summarizes the key findings and lessons from ress in many countries, although wealthier coun- the assessment of the various service delivery models tries have advanced more (China, Morocco, India, in the study sample. Scores for service delivery mod- Philippines, and Nicaragua). Challenges persist in the els in the countries are available in the main report proactive use of monitoring outputs to take remedial (World Bank 2017) and country working papers. measures and improve programming. Good practices are nationwide (or statewide) systems that include Recommendations and Policy Directions indicators on scheme functionality and asset condi- Recommendations tions, service levels, and scheme performance, with To establish conditions for sustainability of rural water indicators revealing which communities have received services, gradual but persistent interventions will be and need support to prevent (further) scheme failure needed, depending on a country’s appetite for reform and (for example, the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation sector capacity. Figure 3 shows a ladder with three stages Information System (SIASAR) in Nicaragua). Although or levels of rural water sector development. It illustrates most countries have defined service standards, how incremental progress can be achieved from basic to regulatory oversight is still nascent in many coun- ­ intermediate, and from intermediate to an advanced stage tries, especially in terms of the development of and of rural water sector development, in a given country. adherence to tariff guidelines. Emerging good prac- tices include i)  national service provider registries This sector development trajectory needs to be put in with light-handed regulation, ii) social accountability the context of the changing landscape of rural service mechanisms at local level, iii) regulation by contract of delivery, as countries will see different population BOX 1. Lessons for Service Delivery Models Community-based management model: Although community management is formally recognized in all countries, the majority of community organizations are neither legally established nor supported by service authorities. However, the model scored higher, especially on institutional capacity and financing, in cases where there is structural support. This would ideally include support for operations and maintenance, financial support on major repairs, and access to administrative and institutional assistance and training opportunities. Such models are found in various forms, but principally through aggregation or federation of service providers and professional supervision. Examples are the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, which is a designated state agency for backstopping of Water Supply and Sanitation Committees, as well as the three-tier support system in Ceará, where i) water supply associations carry out basic daily tasks, ii) activities that require economies of scale are carried out by federations, and iii) the state utility provides monitoring and supervision and takes care of new system development and major rehabilitation. Community organizations responsible for distribution only, with utilities responsible for bulk supply, score better on dimensions of sustainability (Morocco, Ghana). box continues next page Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review 5 BOX 1. Lessons for Service Delivery Models (continued) Direct local government provision: All variants of the local government provision model scored low and were particularly weak in terms of institutional capacity and financing. Water supply units within local government administrations are not corporatized entities and often fail to operate along commercial lines, without the possibility to ring-fence water operations from the general budget. In some countries, the model appears as an interim solution (Benin), while in others, more permanent arrangements are found for various reasons: i) no technical assistance to set up municipal enterprises or joint stock companies or ii) no clear guidance or regulations to delegate to private operators (for example, in Vietnam). Central governments can support direct government provision in several ways, such as with technical assistance for i) project preparation to ensure demand-responsiveness, ii) tariff guidance and ring-fencing budgets, or iii) legal support to transition to other management models. Public utility provision: Public utility provision for rural water was found to exhibit the best conditions for sustainability, although it is present only in China, Morocco, and the Philippines, where rural villages are integrated into their service areas. Public utilities tend to show professional management of water assets, are staffed with more qualified personnel, have better financial capacity and access to funding, and are subject to monitoring and regulation. However, the rural water sector does not present attractive commercial revenue opportunities for such utilities. Obligatory service mandates for rural areas, combined with subsidies as incentives, are used to facilitate expansion. Integrating rural areas under public utilities’ service areas comes with challenges, such as extending billing and collection services and monitoring to remote areas, and ensuring an adequate financial position of the utility. Private sector provision: This model consistently scored well on financing, and to some extent on asset management and monitoring. Private sector participation was found through a range of contractual mechanisms, from build, operate and transfer (Bangladesh) to joint stock companies (Vietnam) and lease and concession contracts (Benin). In China, community enterprises commercially manage multi-village schemes. Private sector provision has also successfully mobilized private equity and commercial finance (Benin and Vietnam). Result-based subsidies have been used to leverage private investment. Successful experiences with private sector participation emerge from long-term development partner engagement in the sector to address upstream legal and policy gaps, support due diligence, provide transaction support and assistance to national and local governments, and build capacity of private operators. Private sector models still operate at a small scale or are scaling up, and critical gaps need to be addressed to realize their full potential. Supported self-supply: Ethiopia is the only country with a supported self-supply program. In a few countries, supported self-supply is a de facto model, receiving limited support from national entities and service authorities (Vietnam, Brazil). This interest reflects the recognition that in dispersed settings, communal systems may not be feasible. In Bangladesh, where two-thirds of the rural population use individual supplies, there is no formalized support, despite the pressing need to improve water quality. In spite of efforts to promote supported self-supply as a formal model, there is a remarkable lack of documentation, which is critical to convince policy makers of the benefits of this model for remote and dispersed communities. 6 Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review FIGURE 3. Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced Stage of Sector Development towards Sustainable Rural Water Services Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review Less sustainable services More sustainable services Advanced level Institutional capacity: All institutional roles and mandates clearly defined, including at Intermediate level di erent tiers of sub-national government, without overlap or duplication National investment plan and financing strategy addresses full Institutional capacity: life-cycle costs of service delivery Institutional nodal entity designated; more coherent national Diverse range of management models in place for all segments planning in place that recognizes need for postconstruction of rural populations, such as utility management, supported self- support and recurrent costs supply, and private sector arrangements Recognized service providers in place and include a Regular and well-funded postconstruction support systems, range of management models including capacity development and skills training in place Contracts and agreements in place between service Sector invests in further policy development, research, learning, providers and service authorities and innovation Basic level Capacity development and postconstruction support Financing: systems under development, with some training programs for service providers and service authorities Financing mechanisms enable full life cycle costs to be met, especially capital maintenance and postconstruction support Institutional capacity: Financing: Clear tari policy and guidelines in place, including subsidy Focus on provision of infrastructure only with unclear roles Financing mechanisms identify both capital and recurrent mechanisms to protect poorest and responsibilities costs, but inadequately funded Revenues from tari enable full operational cost-recovery, plus No formal service providers in place; largely voluntary Service providers supported to determine adequate tari s capital maintenance and increasing share of capital management entities Tari s covering operational costs, with increasing share replacement, tailored to local conditions as per guidelines No national planning; parallel and largely uncoordinated of capital maintenance, but no coherent framework applied Public funds used in a targeted manner to attract private finance; programs with little involvement of decentralised government Fiscal transfers allow decentralized governments to provide service providers have access to commercial loans and private Limited and ad hoc investments in capacity building partial support to service delivery, such as capital maintenance equity is mobilized No systematic postconstruction support in place for service Limited or no investment of private capital or use of Asset management: providers commercial loans Roles and responsibilities clearly de ned and tools and guidance in place and used for e ective asset management Financing: Asset Management: Service authorities and service providers plan for asset renewal Financing mechanisms limited to capital investment Asset ownership clearly defined; assets mapped and and finance capital maintenance based on asset life cycle costs Tari s collected below operational costs inventories developed and contractual responsibilities Limited fiscal transfers to support decentralized service Roles and responsibilities of operators and service Asset management: Water resources management: delivery authorities clearly defined, but limited financing and tools available for e ective asset management National, basin, and local level water resources management Asset management: mechanisms function effectively Water resources management: Little or no recognition of full life cycle functions and asset Rural water service providers and service authorities participate Legal frameworks and national, basin, and catchment water in local water management platforms (present at scale) ownership not well defined resources management bodies in place Service providers implement water source and catchment Lack of clarity on responsibilities for asset maintenance; ‘fix Local water management initiatives and platforms piloted protection and water safety measures on failure’ approach Limited coordination among entities responsible for water resources management and rural water service delivery Monitoring and regulatory oversight Water resources management: National monitoring frameworks include explicit targets and Monitoring and regulatory oversight No water resources management framework in place measures for sustainability National monitoring frameworks in place and being updated Regulatory oversight exercised by mandated entities and Regular monitoring of service delivery and performance of Monitoring and regulatory oversight capacity building provided to operators to strengthen compliance service providers and service authorities is benchmarked 7 Fragmented monitoring efforts with limited focus on access Regulatory frameworks in place, but there is not yet at-scale Regulation by contract well developed for private sector and beneficiaries to support to service providers Consumers able to hold providers and authorities to account No oversight or accountability mechanisms in place Limited accountability between consumers and providers through citizen feedback mechanism segments develop at different paces, namely i) remote With the adoption of the SDGs, adequate service deliv- dispersed populations, ii) rural villages and growth ery models for remote and dispersed rural populations centers, and iii) peri-urban and rural small towns. The need to be put in place. Without new approaches, there biggest leap for many lower and lower-middle income is a danger that remote and dispersed rural populations country governments will be to respond to the demand will be left with stagnating service levels, whilst denser for higher service levels from a growing middle class, agglomerations will benefit from professionalized ser- and the transition to metered household connections. vice provision. While self-supply is a de facto model in The country cases show that aggregation of rural service all countries, governments would best adopt supported delivery can result in economies of scale, greater scope, self-supply as a policy for remote and dispersed popu- and more professional provision, either through public lations with a focus on improving water quality aspects. utilities, private sector operators, or well-­supported fed- What interventions to prioritize for which segment erated community-based providers. Future rural water of the rural population will depend on the stage of policies must ensure that a wider range of rural provid- rural water sector development in a country. Table  1 ers will be more effectively supported and monitored. includes key interventions that country governments TABLE 1. Overview of Key Interventions for Different Service Delivery Contexts Stage of sector Highly dispersed rural Rural villages and growth centers Peri-urban and small towns development hamlets From basic to • Allocate public funding • Register and legally recognize • Define policies and targets for integration intermediate for maintenance support service providers, with clear asset of peri-urban and rural areas under utility • Develop policies for ownership management supported self-supply in • Professionalize service providers • Support utilities in rural asset inventories, well-defined areas for transition to metering through adjustment of business plans, and • Develop monitoring postconstruction support customer communication system for functionality • Promote regular tariff payments for • Develop incentives and financing strategy and density of access higher level services and metering to integrate peri-urban and rural towns • Conduct asset inventories and build • Optimize public-private partnerships capacity of local governments on (PPP) asset management • Establish regulatory oversight with • Develop financing policy and tariff regular tariff adjustments guidelines • Develop technical assistance facilities From intermediate to • Establish program for • Initiate service provider performance • Improve customer orientation of service advanced supported self-supply, benchmarking, linked to structured providers (small-town and larger utilities) including accreditation of postconstruction support • Implement business and performance suppliers, and targeted • Prepare local government annual improvement plans (financial, household subsidies maintenance and medium-term commercial, and technical issues) • Allocate public funds for asset management plans and ring- • Support service authorities in project improving water quality fence budgets preparation, tendering, and supervision of and communications • Define regulatory oversight and PPP contracts • Establish pooled support introduce clustering for attractive • Increase access to commercial financing and financing mechanisms PPP contracts • Scale-up use of targeted subsidies to for major capital • Introduce service contracts with leverage private financing maintenance by local service providers to strengthen governments • Mainstream water resources management oversight and protection practices • Expand monitoring • Execute local water resources system for all providers management initiatives 8 Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review could prioritize for each of the segments in order to encouraged to take to improve the sustainability of transition from basic to intermediate and from inter- rural services. The underpinning message is that mediate to an advanced stage. national governments need to continue to play a major role and cannot discharge state responsibilities for essential services to rural citizens, communities, Future Policy Directions and weakly funded, low-capacity local governments. Box 2 summarizes key policy directions that govern- National governments are required to step up their ments—with the support of development partners—are engagement in policy, financing, and technical support BOX 2. Policy Priorities to Improve the Sustainability of Rural Service Provision Institutional capacity 1. Develop enabling policy and define institutional arrangements and functions for service authorities and rural service providers. Specifically: • Assign functions for postconstruction support to and monitoring of rural service providers and technical support to local governments, in line with decentralization policy • Define clearly the roles and responsibilities of different tiers of sub-national government • Formalize (a wider range of) management models in policies and develop policies for integration of rural areas under service areas of existing utility companies 2. Develop systems with sustainable funding flows for postconstruction support and technical assistance to rural service providers, including: • Technical and financial support, especially with respect to major repairs of rural water assets • Management and institutional support to ensure that (community-based) service providers keep functioning • Monitoring mechanisms to ensure that postconstruction support is effectively delivered by designated technical assistance providers or local governments Financing 3. Adopt a financing policy and implement a tariff guideline for rural water that distinguishes the different life cycle cost elements of the full cost of service provision, with: • Different segments (geography, management model) having a different level of cost recovery through tariffs—that is, the full costs are funded through a different mix of taxes, transfers, and tariffs • Identification of sources of funds and responsibility for major repairs, capital maintenance, and asset replacement, combined with earmarking mechanisms (for example, maintenance funds, earmarking taxes) • Social pricing for the most vulnerable groups to ensure affordability box continues next page Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review 9 BOX 2. Policy Priorities to Improve the Sustainability of Rural Service Provision (continued) Asset management 4. Formalize asset ownership through legal frameworks and support service authorities—when assigned as asset holders—in the management of assets, through: • Asset inventories and asset condition assessments on a regular basis • Capacity building measures using asset management tools, and the gradual introduction of medium-term asset management plans Water resources management 5. Strengthen representation of rural drinking water users’ interests in catchment and local water ­management platforms, especially in water scarce areas, through: • Participation of service authorities and service providers in local water management bodies • Programs to support service providers to engage in catchment protection and water safety planning Monitoring and regulatory oversight 6. Develop a comprehensive monitoring system for rural water services, and allocate resources for its ­operation and usage to inform planning and strengthen regulatory oversight. Such a system would: • Include a basic set of indicators to monitor service levels, functionality and water facility condition • Be gradually expanded to monitor service provider performance and effectiveness of service authority or technical assistance providers • Be used to strengthen regulatory oversight in terms of adherence to service level standards, compliance with drinking water, and tariff-setting in line with guidelines domains to make a dent in the triple challenge of rural 2. http://www.ircwash.org/projects/triple-s service provision: reach the unserved, raise service 3. “Self-supply” refers to situations where households, or small clusters levels, and sustain existing and future services. of households, provide their own solutions to water supply. This study refers to “Supported self-supply” is used when the approach is formally recognized by the government and programs of structured Notes support are in place to accelerate and improve service delivery under this model. 1. In parallel, the World Bank commissioned a study to better define metrics for rural water sustainability to inform sustainability moni- 4. Country Working Papers are available upon request through toring under its operational engagement. Results will be published AskWater@worldbank.org. in 2018. 10 Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review WHO (World Health Organization) and UNICEF (United Nations References Children’s Fund). 2017. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Lockwood, H., and S. Smits. 2011. Supporting Rural Water Supply: Moving Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. Geneva: WHO and UNICEF. Towards a Service Delivery Approach. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing. World Bank. 2012. Review of World Bank Support to the Rural Water RWSN (Rural Water Supply Network). 2010. Myths of the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Sector in India (1911-2011). Washington, DC: Supply Sector. St. Gallen, Switzerland: RWSN. World Bank. Whaley, L., and F. Cleaver. 2017. “Can ‘Functionality’ Save the Community ———. 2017. Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Management Model of Rural Water Supply?” Water Resources and Rural Models: Findings of a Multi-Country Review. Washington, DC; World Bank. Development 9: 56–66. Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-County Review 11 © 2017 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Some rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. This work is subject to a CC BY 3.0 IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses​ by/3.0/igo). The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content. It is your responsibility to /­ determine whether permission is needed for reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you have questions, email pubrights@worldbank.org. 12  SKU W17056