We are entering the fourth year since government, in 2009, centralised the provision of some services that were hitherto provided by local authorities. These services are primary health and related aspects as well as village water supplies, which were taken over by the Water Utilities Corporation (WUC) while the former was taken over by the Ministry of Health. I want to believe that these were major shifts in the known conventional service delivery systems as known across the world today. I had hoped that the recent budget speech would provide some brief on the impact/effects of this centralization and at least assure the nation that this was a necessary move to take by government. I did not expect a full and detailed account of the value added by this, but a basic indicator that this is the way to go for Botswana was in order. In the absence of such a brief I am still not convinced that we made the right choice.
My first reason to remain pessimistic is based on the international drive for decentralization and pursuit of both good governance and democratic practices that reflects the changing and dynamic role of government in service delivery and citizen engagement. A key component of public service reforms today is the need to not only empower local governments but also to create an environment within which these local governance institutions can be fiscally independent. I mention local governance because this year’s budget points to this centralization move as strengthening local governance in the country. In particular it mentions the 454 villages that have so far been taken over by WUC out of a total of 540 (84%), but there is no mention of the problems that are part of this take over and whether these problems could have been avoided. There is also no mention of the cost of these changes or the value added by these switching from village water supplies by district councils’ water units to WUC.
I am not naïve to suggest that this change would have had neither cost implications nor challenges but I am still convinced that local governments remain the most appropriate units of governance to provide water to citizens. If the principle of subsidiarity is any guide to service delivery points and levels of relevance then for basic services like water, the local authorities remain the best placed levels for provision of this service. Secondly, one of the sources of revenue for local governments is through service fees for providing services like water and its known that in this country local governments have very limited sources of revenue and to strip them of some of these sources is to further entrench their dependence on central government financing. This goes against current trends in both public service reforms at a general level and local government reforms at a more specific level. All of which emphasise the need for local governments to have visible revenue raising sources and become more autonomous fiscally.
Secondly, I am pessimistic because we as a country have adopted a privatization drive that is supposed to ultimately transform our public corporations into profit making private entities. Shouldn’t we then think that the transfer of water services to WUC is only transitional and when WUC ultimately privatise, water services and provision will be a market regulated activity? Issues have been raised on what that scenario will mean in terms of providing this basic need to citizens, amongst which will be a sizeable number of those with limited purchasing power.
The transfer of health services to the central government has also not been assessed or at least the result of any such assessment made public in the budget speech. We have however heard of a number of unpleasant happenings in the health ministry including shortages of drugs, general logistical challenges and many others, and whether these are direct effects of the centralization move is open to debate. I was however hoping that by now the nation should be having an idea of how good the move was and seeing the positive value of these changes in the clinics and health posts that were formerly under local governments. Again the basic question remains, what value did these changes add in government’s efforts to deliver in the health sector? Just like the water fees, health fees of different types were a source for revenue raising at local government level albeit maybe insignificant in the larger scheme of things. In one of the Botswana Television News cast this week, chairperson of one of the district councils in the country lamented the loss of these revenue sources as a result of the centralisations and decried the reduced possible revenue sources which in his view affect councils’ expenditure potential.
We are beginning the fourth year since these changes were effected and I am convinced that we are at a stage where we need to look back and ask; was it the right decision to centralise these services especially in the context of where the world seem to be moving. I accept that it’s not every time that we should be seen to be doing what everybody else is doing, but on matters of improving service delivery and entrenching good governance and democratic practices, we certainly have to walk the talk. I am aware that the budget does point to the effects of the newly approved Local Government Bill of 2012, amongst which effect is the provision that extends the collection of property tax to rural districts. This is a welcome move and it would have been more visible if it was adding on the water and health fees, as revenue sources, instead of maybe filling the gap left by such.
One hopes that we will soon get at least a minimal assessment of what these changes have meant to two things; the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery in the health and water sectors, and the cost implications, especially if these moves have reduced the budgetary requirements of these two arrears. In brief are village water supplies and delivery of health services making more financial and economic sense now than when they were still under local governments?
