Date post: | 25-May-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | irc |
View: | 415 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Water for Life: Promoting Accountability
Monitoring WASH Services & the Enabling Environment Long After Implementation
Susan Davis, Improve International
IRC Symposium on Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery
April 2013
We will discuss…
• Why we need to promote accountability• Outcomes of pilot ratings in Honduras • How the evaluation has helped the
organizations• What we learned about the process and the
criteria • Barriers to implementation • Plans to scale up and sustain initiative
WHY DO WE NEED A WATER & SANITATIONSUSTAINABILITY RATING?
780 million+++
783 million people without access to improved source of water (JMP)3 billion without access to safe water (UNC) 4 billion without access to safe, permanent, in home water (AquaFed)
2.5 billion+++ 2.5 billion people without adequate sanitation (JMP)4.1 billion lack access to improved sanitation (UNC)
35-50% water and sanitation systems that fail within a few years of construction
Less than 5% water systems that are visited at least once post-construction
Less than 1% water systems that receive ongoing long-term post construction monitoring
Our strategy of trust isn’t working.
1981
USAID, 1981. The Role of Women as Participants & Beneficiaries in Water Supply & Sanitation Programs
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0%
Angola
Benin
Burkina
Faso
DRC
Camer
oon
Ethi
opia
Cote
d'Ivoire
Guine
a
Libe
ria
Malaw
i
Mad
agas
car
Mali
Moz
ambi
que
Niger
Keny
a
Sier
ra Leo
ne
Niger
ia
Ugand
a
Zambi
a
Zimba
bwe
Non-functioning water points in AfricaSOURCE: UNICEF, May 2007
2007
Water Points Now
Failed Impaired Failed + Impaired0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sierra LeoneSwazilandGhanaTanzaniaLiberia
A need for different language: “Services Monitoring & Services Evaluation”
• M&E usually means just during the project timeframe
• Few incentives or resources to pay attention over time
• We propose “services monitoring” – several governments are launching now
• And “services evaluation” which is where this initiative falls – regular evaluation at points several years post-implementation
• The only way to prove sustainability
Who will a WASH Sustainability Rating help?People lacking access to water & sanitation
Will have services that last. Increased accountability and better targeted investments will ultimately result in more effective and sustainable programming for poor communities.
Governments, Banks & Donors
Will be able to use project sustainability ratings to target their funds towards high performing organizations
Implementing organizations
Can learn from each other and be rewarded for facilitating sustainable WASH services
HOW DOES THE RATING SYSTEM WORK?
The WASH Rating System: Trust but Verify
Self-Assessme
nt
Forum Member
DeskReview
Field Visit
Rating/Certificati
on
Peer R
eview
The WASH Rating
• Currently voluntary• Higher standards than nonprofits would
normally pursue• Gives organizations an incentive to maintain
high standards• Based on similar self-regulatory systems
implemented in other sectors (e.g., Fair Trade)
What is the rating based on?Key Domain Variable Score
A. Organizational
structure
Collaboration or coordination with other water and sanitation organizations
blue
Organization is concerned with improving water and sanitation program quality
blue
Organization is sustainable and maintains solid business practices greenB. Water Services
Water system after construction blueWater fee payment greenWater board policy green
C. Sanitation Most people in the community have access to a sanitary toilet greenToilets are well-used in a sanitary manner and users are satisfied
with the toiletsgreen
Users have replacement strategy for toilets not connected to sewage system
blue
D. Hygiene Education
All households in community have convenient access to a safe water supply
green
Household water use is sufficient to meet all needs for consumption/hygiene
blue
Households demonstrate increased health and hygiene awareness over time
green
E. Project design & construction
The community has legal authority for the water source and water system
blue
Water quality is tested and treated appropriately greenWater system is appropriately designed and well-constructed blueToilets/sanitation system is appropriately designed and well-
constructedblue
F. Water system Long-term O&M
System is well-used and users are satisfied with the system greenRepairs are addressed quickly and system undergoes routine
maintenanceyellow
User fees are paid by beneficiaries & system is financially self-supporting
blue
G. Water source protection
An active water source protection or environmental education component exists in the community green
H. Community commitment & management
Community makes a financial contribution to the capital cost of the project
blue
A competent local water board is created and functions effectively
blue
THE PILOT RATING OF HONDURAN NGO
COCEPRADIL, an NGO in Lempira, Honduras
Independent experts and peer evaluators inspect a spring.
Video: https://improveinternational.wordpress.com/programs/accountabilityforum/
Community of San Francisco, Honduras
•20 year old system•Regular tariff payment by users•Positive and increasing bank account balance
Extreme Problem
s Identifie
d
Some Expectations Met
All Expectations
Met
High Expectations
Met
WASH Sustainability Rating Given to COCEPRADIL:
FUTURE PLANS
Overcome Barriers to Implementation
• Building knowledge and confidence of this tool with governments & donors
• Concerns from organizations
• Acceptance of standards• Obtaining required
information• Start up funds
DSK – Bangladesh April 2013Participating peers: Water.org, WaterAid, Water For People, CRS (invited)
Conduct More Ratings
Create incentives: online resource for governments, banks & donors
washratings.org
WASH Ratings
South America
West Africa East Africa
Southern Africa
Southeast Asia
providing independent ratings of international WASH projects
Central America
Create incentives: develop special fund to invest in programs with green or blue rating
washratings.org/honduras
WASH Ratings: Honduras
13
2
45
1. COCEPRADIL
2. Agua Org A
3. Agua Org B
4. Agua Org C
5. Agua Org D
Establish Governing Board
Reviews performance
standards
Permanent and
rotating members Guides WASH
Rating/Forum Operations
Governing
Board
Ensure adequate financialresources
Secures WASH sector
endorsements
Potential Board
Composition
4 rotating WASH funding organizations
5 rotating certified implementing organizations
2 government (water ministry) and WASH research institution representatives
1 independent evaluator representative
Governing Board Members
Discussion Questions• Is the life span limited to the duration of a project? No. In fact only considering 5 plus years after implementation• Are they integrated in country-led monitoring systems?Possibly can be, but this is evaluation vs. monitoring • Who is the long term owner of the frameworks and the
information gathered with them? We hope that ultimately this will be country-led initiative (either by Government or National Water Network)• What are the incentives beyond the project to use the
frameworks? More funds to high performing organizations; more confidence could lead to greater investment in the sector
For more information
Susan – [email protected] – [email protected]
www.improveinternational.org/programs