assessing sustainability in wash · 10/22/2015 · organisation tool intended frequency country...
TRANSCRIPT
ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY IN WASH USAID SUSTAINABILITY INDEX TOOL
UNC Water and Health Conference
27/10/2015
Ryan Schweitzer
EMERGENCE OF SUSTAINABILITY TOOLS
2005 2015
2010
UNICEF
Sustainability
Check developed
RWSN meta review
60-80% functionality
Development /Pilot
application of SIT
Beginning of global
financial crisis
USAID Water
Strategy
DGIS sustainability
clause (ESARO)DGIS sustainability
compact (WCARO)
USAID/Rotary
Alliance pilot
starts
SIT
(Water II)
SIT
(GLOWS)
SIT
(CRS)
Comparative
analysis
Guiding
document
2012
IOB evaluation
European Court of
Auditors review
SIT
(UNICEF)
TOOLS MAPPING AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT
• Two mapping exercises, over
220 tools reviewed:
1. Sustainability assessment tools; 2013
2. Broader mapping of WASH sustainability tools; 2014
• On-line survey to assess use
of and demand for tools;
2014
AGUACONSULT/TRIPLE-S TOOLS MAPPING (2013)
Organisation Tool Intended frequency Country experience
AGUASAN (network) Sustainability Assessment
Tool
Initial detailed assessment
then 3-4 years
Kosovo, Haiti, Nepal, Mali
Dutch Water Alliance Sustainability Monitoring
Framework
Unspecified Ghana, Uganda, South Sudan
UNICEF Sustainability Check Annual during programme implementation
Mozambique, Zambia, Rwanda, Malawi, Madagascar (plus 6 other)
USAID–Rotary Int’l Sustainability Index Tool 3,5,and 10 years following implementation
Philippines, Ghana, DR, Kenya, Tanzania, Liberia, Ethiopia, Indonesia (plus replicated by CRS)
WSA ToPPES Annual Ghana
USAID – ROTARY SUSTAINABILITY INDEX TOOL EVOLUTION
• Demand driven – USAID and Rotary International
- take account of factors and drivers ‘beyond the
project’ (district, national)
- Combine qualitative and quantitative evidence
- Include significant ‘rigorous’ evidence base
• Pilot test – Rotary Intn’l and USAID partnership
(Dominican Republic, Philippines, Ghana)
• Developed tool/guiding document
• GLOWS
WASH SUSTAINABILITY INDEX TOOL
• Purpose: To assess the sustainability of the water,
sanitation, or hygiene services and to identify critical
constraints or drivers.
• Scope: the WASH services provided by or resulting from
the interventions implemented under a project or
programme.
• Process: outcomes of the SIT assessment to feed into
partner/mission/sector dialogue or planning processes
SIT METHODOLOGY
• Data collection and analysis is “siloed” by intervention type
• Indicators are derived from literature and best practice
• Indicators are grouped into 5 factors
• Indicators target sustainability issues at a particular level
(national, regional, district, village)
Institutional Management Financial
Technical Environmental
WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT SIT – LINKS OPERATIONAL WITH POLICY
Policy/
enabling
environment
Decentralised government/private sector at local level
Operational systems and interventions supported by
the programme
National/
Regional
District
Service Level
ADMINISTRATIVE LEVELS – EXAMPLE ETHIOPIAWASH SIT Level Level in Ethiopia Stakeholders
Centralized Service
Authority or Ministry (SA)Federal Steering Committee
Technical Team
Coordination Office
Regional States
(Killioch)
Steering Committee;
Technical Team;
Coordination Office
Zone Steering Committee;
Technical Team;
Coordination Office
Decentralized Service
Authority (SA)Woreda Woreda Cabinet
WASH Team
Health Extension Workers
Service Provider (SP) Kebele/Kushet Health Post-Health Extension Workers
WASH Committee Members
Handpump caretaker(s)
School Administrator(s)
Health Development Army
Service Users (SU) Kushet Household
SIT INTERVENTION FRAMEWORKS
1. CRS- community reticulated water systems
2. RWH- household rainwater harvesting
3. WPS- water pan system
4. WSP- water source protection
5. WWT- waste water treatment
6. HHS- household sanitation
7. HWT- household water treatment
8. HWP- hand washing promotion
9. SWM- solid waste management
10. WASH- WASH entrepreneur
CONCLUSIONS AND STRATEGIC REFLECTIONS – SIT AND OTHER SIMILAR TOOLS
Pros Cons • Can drive modification in programme
design and remedial actions
• Flexible design allows for contextualisation and is open source
• Provides ‘credible’ evidence base for sector dialogue
• Shifts focus of attention onto sustainability of services and not just delivery of outputs
• Leads to promising take up of principles and elements of checks in Rwanda, (potentially) Mozambique and Ethiopia (UNICEF)
• Relatively complex/heavy process
• Still confusion over purpose: ‘functionality
versus sustainability’?
• Perception as ‘project’ instrument; limited
relevance for (local) government
• Relies on DP engagement with sector
processes
• No clear trends – needs repeated
applications and analysis to validate
LOCATING THE SIT IN BROADER SECTORSECTOR MONITORING
SYSTEMS AND NATIONAL PROCESSES
UNICEF Bottleneck
assessment Tool
(BAT)
WSP Service
Delivery
Assessments (old
CSO)INTEGRATEDSUSTAINABILITY CHECK
STAND-ALONE PROJECT MONITORING
INSTRUMENTS
NARROW FUNCTIONALITY
CHECKSector M&E
systems
Global WPDX
data set
Donor and INGO
M&E systems
USAID –
Rotary
SIT