Monitoring of water and sanitation services within an integrated decentralised monitoring system: experiences from Ghana

Monitoring of water and sanitation services has for a long time been project driven in the developing world. The need for data to inform subnational planning and delivery of quality services has led to the adoption of decentralised integrated monitoring. However, little is known about the strengths and weaknesses of this approach in the monitoring of water and sanitation services. A case study design in which document reviews were combined with 22 key informant interviews held between March and July 2019 in the Upper West Region of Ghana were used to investigate the research problem. Findings show that integration enhanced the processes for validating and using monitoring data and ensuring downward accountability. However, logistical and financial support and inadequate critical reflection is a major challenge under the integration. The paper calls for special attention to be paid to funding and logistics for monitoring water and sanitation services.

An integrated decentralised monitoring system is operationalised in this study as the overarching governance system at subnational level for regulating monitoring of all aspects of a district's development including water and sanitation. It has a clearly defined process for collecting, analysing, reflecting, communicating and using monitoring data on all aspects of a district's development. An integrated decentralised monitoring system is different from project-based and sector-based monitoring which are specific to a project or sector and concern only the sector or project staff or stakeholders.
Integrated monitoring systems harmonise the different sector and project-based monitoring systems in order to increase the use of country-led monitoring systems to measure results and enhance mutual accountability (Anderson et al. ).
Ghana has implemented modern local government as part of its governance system since 1988. Since its return to constitutional rule in 1992, decentralisation has been guaranteed in Article 35 (60d) of the 1992 constitution. Several legislations were subsequently passed to give boost to the national decentralisation efforts (Akanbang & Bekyieriya ). In the early 1990s, the country also restructured the water sector to improve efficiency in production and distribution. Two key governance outcomes of the reforms were the decentralisation of rural and small-town water systems to the Metropolitan, Municipal, District Assemblies (MMDAs) in line with the national decentralisation process, and the establishment of the Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) to facilitate the provision of safe water and related sanitation services to rural communities and to provide technical assistance to MMDAs (MWRWH ). Under the reform, MMDAs have the responsibility for planning, implementing and managing water and sanitation services in rural and small town communities. They have the responsibility to support the District Water and Sanitation Teams (DWSTs)a multi-disciplinary team made up of three people (hygiene person, technical person and community development person), mobilise funds for the financing of water infrastructure, and provide post project support and continuous hygiene education (TREND/GII/ Transparency International ). The CWSA has officers at the regional level called the Regional Water and Sanitation Team (RWST) that play the role of facilitators and give technical and on-the-job training to the District Water and Sanitation Teams at the MMDA level in project development, procurement and financial management. They also assist communities to undertake water quality testing, buying of quality spare parts and equipment among others (CWSA b). The CWSA head office dedicates itself as facilitators and regulators, providing policy guidelines and setting standards, and providing back-up professional support to RWSTs, mobilisation of funds to support MMDAs and management of national level contracts (CWSA b). service level provided by the facility (based on reliability, accessibility, water quantity and quality); community-based water service provider indicators on governance; operations and financial management; and service authority indicators on support to community-based water service providers and other service authority functions (like planning, budgeting, coordination etc.) (CWSA a). Using the Ghanaian context, this study examines the monitoring system for collecting, analysing, validating and using monitoring data in the rural and small towns water subsector as well as the strengths and weaknesses posed by this integrated monitoring system for monitoring water and sanitation services.

Water and Sanitation Committees and
The justification for the study is that it contributes empirically to strengthening the support for monitoring of water and sanitation services at the subnational level in Ghana. After almost two decades of implementing a decentralised districtwide monitoring system, not much scientific research has gone into examining the effects and implications of this system on water and sanitation services delivery at the subnational level. The water and sanitation sector is unique in that its context is dynamic and uncertain (Wells et al. ) and therefore requires close observation through monitoring. Roche et al. () call for an interaction between global monitoring and subnational monitoring as well as the need for monitoring data to be meaningful to service providers and users who mostly are at the community and subnational level. The ensuing sections of the paper discuss the basis for monitoring in decentralised water and sanitation services delivery, and the approaches and their limitations to water and sanitation monitoring. These have been discussed as pillars for interpreting and discussing the results. The study setting is presented as part of the methods. The conclusion presents the key message of the study.

MONITORING OF WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES -IMPORTANCE, APPROACHES AND LIMITATIONS OF APPROACHES
Water and sanitation monitoring is imperative to tracking the progress in SDG 6, clean water and sanitation for all, and its eight targets at all levels of governance. The data gen- However, decentralised monitoring has the capacity to provide quality, reliable and disaggregated data for informing subnational planning, computing coverage, and enhancing water and sanitation services quality and effectiveness when given the needed research attention.

Study context
The study was conducted in the Upper West Region of

Methods
A case study design was adopted for the study. Case study design focuses on a few participants in order to explore comprehensively, holistically and deeply into a given complex for key informant interviews. However, five planning officers and 15 members of the DWSTs across the region were available for the interviews. In addition, interviews were held with a staff of the Regional Economic Planning Unit, and an Extension Officer of Regional Water and Sanitation Team. These documents, which were discovered through snowballing as well as the author's knowledge and experience of the sector, contain information on the Ghana water sector and on monitoring of water and sanitation services. Data on processes of collecting, collating, analysing, validating and using monitoring information, as well as their strengths and weaknesses, were collected from the informant interviews.
Thematic analysis involving compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting, and concluding (Castleberry & Nolen ) was used to analyse the data. On the actual monitoring process, it was revealed that the steps and guidelines provided by the National Development Planning Commission on the decentralised integrated monitoring were largely adhered to. A DPCU member described the monitoring process as consisting of the following:

Strengths of the monitoring system
'The monitoring process encompasses formation of monitoring team, coming out with a monitoring plan, design of forms/checklists to collect information on the core  The checklist enabled communities to be actively involved in the process which is essential to ownership and sustainability of water and sanitation initiatives. Technology was also used to complement the checklist in data collection.
A member of the DWST had this say on how data on water and sanitation is collected: 'Members of the DWST use questionnaires and checklists as well as smart phones to collect data. The RWST gives logistics and training to us to undertake the monitoring' (Interview with DWST Member, June, 2019).
On data analysis, it emerged that data analysis was done at the department or unit level. In the case of water and sanitation, this was done by the DWST in conjunction with the schedule officer who is often the district planning officer. Data analysis for water and sanitation was mainly Another informant also had this to say on the process of data analysis: 'After the data collection, we sit together in the office as a team to compile the data in order to come up with the coverage rates for the district' (Interview with DWST Member, April, 2019).
The processes of validating monitoring data within the decentralised integrated monitoring system are as follows: • Peer review of data; • Interface meetings between service providers and community members; • District, regional and national review meetings; • Representation of civil society and traditional authorities at review meetings; • Comparing outputs with trial balances.
During the collation process, the DPCU members' quality check on one another's data using the various sources of information that are available. This mode of crosschecking ensured that any observed discrepancies in data were rectified through field visits to ascertain the true situation. A planning officer revealed how this process of validating data helped his/her district to capture reliable data: Interface meetings between service providers and communities were held to disseminate and validate the data with communities that participated in data collection. According to a member of the DPCU, interface meetings were very insightful as they provided a platform for frank exchange of views and ideas: 'Community members pointed out lapses in service delivery to the service providers thus bringing to light many issues that service providers were often not aware of.
Similarly, service providers used the opportunity to educate communities on negative practices they undertake that impacts development negatively' (Interview with DPCU Member, June, 2019).
The CWSA has a system for storing and retrieving water and Another DWST member also pointed to how the decentralised integrated monitoring system helped to resolve water quality issues in his district: 'A point source was identified in the district of which the quality of water was poor. Following from that, a decision was taken to test all wells in the district.
Samples of the water from the point sources were taken by CWSA for further analysis resulting in the capping of some wells' (Interview with DWST member, June, 2019).

Weaknesses of the monitoring system
The issues monitored during the post construction stage are summarised below: • Functionality of facilities; • The existences and effectiveness of the Water and Sanitation Management Team; • Population size in relation to water facility to determine whether the population is under or over served;  An informant at the regional level had this to say on the capacity of districts to implement a decentralised integrated monitoring system in relation to water and sanitation: 'The district assemblies' capacity for data collection, analysis and work planning is weak. In data analysis for instance, due consideration is not given to population growth and functionality of systems in the computation of coverage rates' (Interview with RWST Member, June, 2019).
The RWST staff also had this to say on the capacity of the district assemblies for monitoring: 'DAs are supposed to generate data that will inform planning. However, they are less interested in such activities.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) and therefore monitoring is not a priority for the districts. They are always willing to receive new projects. There is also understaffing leading to overstretching of existing staff. They are generally weak in knowledge and skills with regards to water and sanitation planning and managementsuch that minor issues are even referred to the RWST' (Interview with RWST Member, June, 2019).

Weaknesses in capacity and conditions for monitoring
The readiness of an organisation to plan and implement a monitoring system is critical to its effectiveness (Kusek & Rist ). The organization's readiness includes its ability to perform its roles and responsibilities; incentives and demands for such a system (Richardson ); ability of the organization to sustain systems; availability of technical skills, technology quality of data systems and fiscal resources; and institutional experience (Wells et al. ).
In respect of many of these capacity issues, this research revealed that there remains a major gap. Thus, capacity development for monitoring at the decentralised level is a fundamental requirement to benefiting optimally from monitoring. Tailored training programmes for monitoring would complement government's efforts at profiling monitoring through the establishment of the ministry for monitoring and evaluation.

CONCLUSION
The integration of monitoring of water and sanitation services into decentralised integrated districtwide systems for monitoring has yielded mixed results. On the positive side, it has ensured that processes for validating and using of monitoring data for improving quality of services and downward accountability are available. However, the financial, logistics and capacity situation for monitoring water and sanitation services has further deteriorated. Its objective of enhancing the participation of community level stakeholders in the collection, analysis and use of monitoring data has been short-lived. The study thus recognises the setting up of an institutional framework for involving community level stakeholders in data collection; and with integrity systems for validating and using data as a vital foundation for the development of an effective system for monitoring water and sanitation services. However, this foundation step is not enough for monitoring to contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of decentralized governance processes as well as assure accountability in water and sanitation services delivery. The need for special attention to be paid to monitoring water and sanitation services because of their uniqueness is critical to leveraging funding and logistics in support of their monitoring within a decentralised integrated monitoring system.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.