Tracking Progress towards Outcomes

WSLIC ProjectINDONESIA

PresentersDjoko Wartono

Nilanjana MukherjeeZainal Nampira

Water Week . Washington D.C. February 2004

Presentation Sequence

1. WSLIC project introduction2. Monitoring for outcomes in

WSLIC (sustainability and equity)3. Lessons learned in

institutionalization 4. Lessons learned about support

for long-term sustainability.

1. WSLIC Project introduction

WSLIC PROJECT GOALTo improve the health status, productivity and quality of life of poor communities in under-served rural areas.

Through:- Community and local institution capacity building.- Improving WSS infrastructure. - Improving community health-hygiene behavior.

Approx. 2000 villages in 6 provinces – East Java, West NusaTenggara, South Sulawesi, West Java, West Sumatra, South Sumatra .In districts with high poverty, low WSS coverage and highdiarrheal incidence rates.

PROJECT STRATEGIESTargeting the economical disadvantaged and poverty alleviation.Community choice, demand and decision making drive interventions.At least 20% capital cost and 100% O&M cost of water services borne by users. environmental health promotion integrated with sanitation service improvementGender and social equity in interventions and outcomes.

PROJECT COMPONENTS AND COSTS

Community and Local Institutions capacity building- 32%Improving health-hygiene behavior and services - 13%Developing water infrastructure – 50%Project management - 5%

2. Monitoring for outcomes in WSLIC

What Outcomes?1. Sustainability

of Services

- Technically- Financially- Socially- Institutionally- Environmentally

2. Effective Use of Services

§ Equity of access§ Hygienic use

(improved hygiene practices)

§ Environmentally sound use

Process and Outcome monitoring,and stakeholder actions in response, at 4 phases of the project

1. Baseline data - from situation analysis with interested communities.

2. Process monitoring data – From Community Action Plans developed to seek funding.

3. Process monitoring data – From verification of completed construction works with users.

4. Outcome monitoring data – from outcome evaluation with users, 1 year after construction (and compared to baseline data from Phase 1).

Process and Outcome Monitoring built into Project Process for community empowerment

1. Local Governments publicize project rules and provisions to all villages.

2. Formal letter of interest from communities -shortlisting.

3. External facilitation support for situation analysis, informed choice, planning by communities (baseline data for project MIS).

4. Community Action Plans (CAPs) developed covering 5 components of sustainability: technical/ financial/institutional/social/ environmental.

Process and Outcome Monitoring built into Project Process for community empowerment

5. Pre-funding evaluation of adequacy of CAPs in terms of poverty-targeting, gender equity, sustainability and hygiene improvement (process monitoring data for project MIS).

6. Funds transferred to community account.7. Community capacity building, as agreed in CAPs.8. Participatory monitoring of CAP implementation with

users (process monitoring data for project MIS).9. Participatory evaluation after 1 year of construction

(outcome monitoring data for project MIS).

FLOW OF INFORMATION

CPMU

Province

DPMU PMC

CFT

VIT Communities

MOH MOF WORLD BANK

PROCESS

CENTRAL

PROVINCE

DISTRICT

VILLAGE

3. Lessons learned in institutionalization

Monitoring outcomes and processes imply major institutional changes

Project design process has to include design of outcome monitoring framework and proposed mechanisms. Developing it after the project has begun implementation raises institutional resistances, since conventional input/output monitoring is already under way.

Need buy-in for outcome monitoring from stakeholders and implementers at project launch. Devise appropriate selling strategy to clarify “what’s in it for me” questions at the very start.

What makes process and outcome monitoring attractive to implementing agencies (local govt.)*?

Understanding how it empowers them to control quality of project implementation, now that they have the authority.Actually seeing how the outcome and process monitoring MIS operates (data entry, sample reports and analysis possible at different stakeholders’ levels).

Ease of reporting, communicating and discussingproject progress quantitatively and qualitatively with user communities, local and central government, donors, civil society.

*(As seen during pilots/training with DPMUs)

How effectively are the improved water services being sustained?

0

100

200

300

400

Village A Village B Village C Village D Village E PossibleMaximum Score

Sko

r

System Quality Effective Functioning Effective Financing Effective Management

Minimum score

indicating sustainability

Who has gained access to improved sanitation services?

0

50

100

Village C Village B Village D Village E Village A

% o

f pop

ulat

ion

Upper Class Middle Class Lower Class

Designing an MIS for process & outcome monitoring far from business as usual

MIS specialists involved need to be open to new learning, and to working in multi-disciplinary teams with a range of technical specialists relevant to the project.

Team members developing new information management systems and solutions together need shared belief in core values and principles underlying the project.

4. Lessons learned about long-term support to

sustainability

Who should provide long-term support for sustaining WSS services?

Long-term support needs not fully predictable and usually beyond scope of project designs.Government agencies not financially equipped, and lack sufficient stake in the matter.Those with most at stake – user communities. They are owners, co-investors in construction and financiers of O&M.But, user communities may have limited financial capacity, information, expertise………

Then what ?

The WSLIC experience is showing that when the project process:Did respond fully to user demand, Did benefit the whole community,Built social capital for O&M, Fostered community ownership,

Unexpected community initiatives emerged when sustainability was threatened.

Government agencies needed only to listen well,be ready to learn, and respond.

Initiatives seen in WSLIC1. District-level forum of Village Water-

Sanitation Management Committees. Meet monthly, share information/advice/skills, solve problems for each other (even deny payments to , blacklist and replace bad contractors!), train each other. Invite technical advice from relevant local government departments when needed.

2. VWSCs approach District legislators and Administrative Head and get additional training or funds from emergency relief operations, to repair system damage from natural disasters.

Initiatives seen in WSLIC contd.3. VWSCs request local government departments

for technical advice and feasibility checks for their plans for expansion of systems.

4. VWSCs calculate and set user fees to cover O&M costs, collect them regularly, revise them upwards at first sign of shortfall. Most have started building up savings

5. VWSC Forum select and plants trees to protect spring sources drying up due to illegal logging by outsiders (district administration only needed to recognize their right to do so)

What is making all this possible?

Empowering processes of WSLIC are legitimized and reinforced by:A Supportive sector policy The new national policy for community-based WSES has

redefined sector goals from “coverage” to “sustainability and effective use”.Redefined roles of user communities (decisionmakers, co-financiers, owners of services) and government agencies (facilitators, capacity builders, policy setters).Made social and gender equity in WSES outcomes an essential sector strategy.

Decentralization. Since 2001 this has vested district local governments and lawmakers with the powers to shape their own future.

Challenges aheadScaling up institutional change ( changes of hearts, minds, long-standing culture of deference to higher authorities, rather than being accountable to user communities)Power struggles and gaps in understanding of sector issues, between legislative and executive bodies at district level.Development planning and budgeting proceduresof the top-down, pre-CDD era.Achieving synergies and synchronization of best practices for community-managed WSS, between interventions by multi-sector and sector projects- WSS and other sectors.

Thank you !