Global WASH Cluster

Implementing Accountability and Quality Systems in countriesConcept Note – draft 1Purpose of this documentThis document aims at:

Harmonizing as much as possible the different views the members of the Global WASH Cluster Technical Working Group on Accountability and Quality have when speaking of accountability and quality of the humanitarian WASH response in countries;

Providing National Humanitarian WASH Coordination Platforms (NHWCPs) with a flexible and adaptable framework to: 1) help them guiding the WASH partners to improve their accountability to affected populations; 2) develop and implement a quality assurance system of the humanitarian WASH response at country level;

This document is NOT a guideline that National Humanitarian WASH Coordination Platforms (NHWCPs) should comply with to set up and implement an accountability and quality assurance system. NHWCPs remains free to set up an such systems that suits best their context as long as it is fir for purpose.

BackgroundEnsuring that the WASH partners can provide to the affected populations a humanitarian response complying with minimum standards of quality has become a priority for the humanitarian WASH community. In order to address this challenge and establish accountability and quality assurance systems1, recommendations were drawn up during the meeting jointly organized by the Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG) and the Global WASH Cluster (GWC) in Brussels last October 20172.These recommendations were developed around two pillars:

1. Agencies active in the WASH sector must initiate actions to improve

1 Accountability and Quality Assurance System refers to a mechanism that is set up and agreed among partners to monitor that their WASH programmes fulfil key requirements on accountability to affected population and quality of the services their programmes offer.

2 See full report: where now for the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene sector’s response in emergencies?June 2018 Page 1

the quality of the programmes they implement in countries3;2. National Humanitarian WASH Coordination Platforms (NHWCPs)

must provide the enabling environment to guide partners and help monitoring the quality of the WASH response (as a sector) in countries4;

They were confirmed at the 23rd Global WASH Cluster meeting held in Berlin in April 2018, and a presentation was delivered by the Coordination and Advocacy Support Team (CAST) of the GWC to outline a conceptual framework under which the issues around quality of humanitarian WASH responses could be addressed.Following this meeting, a Global WASH Technical Working Group (TWiG) on accountability and quality assurance system was established5 to further develop the framework and support National Humanitarian WASH Coordination Platforms to develop and roll out an accountability and quality assurance system adapted to their context, as well as to identify best practices in the WASH and other sectors. This concept note has been established by the members of this TWiG, and validated by the GWC Strategic Advisory Group (SAG).

Objectives of accountability and quality assurance systemsThe design and implementation of an accountability and quality assurance system for the humanitarian WASH response in a given country should aim at ensuring that the response provided by the WASH sector:

Is appropriate and relevant: communities and people affected by the crisis, as well as institutions beneficiating from WASH programmes should have access to water and sanitation infrastructures and services (including in the schools and health-care facilities they are using), as well as receive culturally appropriate key hygiene messages and items that meet their needs;

Is impartial: The targeted communities and peoples and the geographical coverage of WASH programmes should be first based

3 “Invest resources and take responsibility for quality assurance processes including training of own staff and training of local partners; Invest resources to fix bad quality work and ensure the continuity of services noting that the quantity of services provided across the whole sector has masked inadequacies in quality for over 40 years”.

4 “Establish peer-to-peer Quality Assurance review of WASH interventions coordinated by the cluster or SAG”.

5 TWiG established until 2019, with ToRs and a member list validated by the Strategic Advisory Group. Are part of this TWiG: Cluster Coordinators from various countries, IFRC, International medical Corps, NCA, NRC, Oxfam, Relief International, Solidarités international, UNHCR, UNICEF, World Vision International.

June 2018 Page 2

on criteria of WASH-related vulnerability; Is participative: communities and people affected by crisis are

involved and should know their rights and entitlements, have access to information, participate in decisions that affect them, and have the opportunity to provide feedback to WASH partners at all stages of the response;

Is effective and timely: the WASH response should be contextualized, realistically designed, sized and phased so that it is delivered in a timely manner, in line with the capacity of the sector, and partners should adhere to agreed standards;

Strengthens national and local capacities and avoids negative/dependant effects: WASH partners should to the maximum extent possible build their response on local capacities and work towards improving the resilience of communities and people affected by crisis.

Achieving these objectives as one requires a strong coordination and monitoring system of the WASH response so as the programmes of WASH partners complement each other and meet the same requirements. All these aspects of the WASH response should be monitored on a regular basis.

Prerequisites and Assumptions Even if it is complicated, WASH partners can collectively address quality “as one” in countries, and NHWCPs can establish accountability and quality assurance systems for the response. This requires that a number of prerequisites be fulfilled and assumptions made.Prerequisites

WASH partners involved in the humanitarian response commit to comply with the 9 commitments and quality criteria6of the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability, established in 20147;

6 1. The humanitarian response is appropriate and relevant; 2. The humanitarian response is effective and timely; 3. The humanitarian response strengthens local capacities and avoids negative effects; 4. The humanitarian response is based on communication, participation and feedback; 5. Complaints are welcomed and addressed; 6. The humanitarian response is coordinated and complementary; 7. Humanitarian actors continuously learn and improve; 8. Staff are supported to do their job effectively, and are treated fairly and equitably; 9. Resources are managed and used responsibly for their intended purpose.

7 See: https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20Standard%20-%20English.pdf

June 2018 Page 3

WASH partners involved in the humanitarian response agree to comply with the Principles of Partnership8, and are ready to share information on their programmes in a transparent manner, including issues related to the challenges they face to ensure quality of response for the affected population;

WASH partners involved in the humanitarian response must respect the “Do no harm” principle as well as the “no regret” approach in L3 countries;

There is a common understanding among WASH partners of what “accountability and quality assurance system” means and how to apply it (this document);

NHWCPs are set-up and receive the mandate from the partners to address quality of the humanitarian WASH response for the sector.

Assumptions

The Global WASH Cluster can provide to NHWCPs the necessary guidance to set up and roll out accountability and quality assurance systems, respecting the national contexts in which they are operating;

NHWCPs have the capacity and resources to set up and roll out accountability and quality assurance systems in countries, in cooperation with the Government and the WASH partners;

Components of an accountability and quality assurance systemAny humanitarian WASH response is based on inputs that define the capacity of humanitarian WASH sector (including donors). It produces a series of outputs (figure 1), which the quality must be monitored by NHWCPs.

8 Endorsed by the Global Humanitarian Platform, 12 July 2007.June 2018 Page 4

Figure 1: inputs and outputs of humanitarian WASH Response

The setup and monitoring of the WASH response at national level could be articulated around 6 focus areas (see figure 2), responding to 5 key questions that impact the quality of the WASH response. All together, these areas can be considered as the key elements of an accountability and quality assurance system NHWCPs can develop to monitor the response provided by the partners.

Figure 2: articulating the different focus areas of the accountability and assurance system[green: what is systematically monitored by NHWCPs, orange: what is sometime monitored by

NHWCPs, red: what should be more systematically monitored]

1. Do the partners reach the targeted population that they have committed to reach when they defined the Humanitarian WASH response? Not reaching these targets would mean failing to provide the minimum response level WASH partners have collectively committed to provide. Therefore, the WASH sector/cluster objectives that are set-up in the Humanitarian Response Plan with their associated indicators must be regularly monitored by NHWCPs. They usually are and are reported in the humanitarian dashboard.

June 2018 Page 5

2. Do the partners provide all the WASH services defined in the Humanitarian WASH response Plan to all? All the sub-domains of the WASH response that have been defined in the sector / cluster response plan (water, sanitation, hygiene, etc…), must be deployed in all the targeted geographical zones and for all the population identified a as the most vulnerable. Monitoring the response in term of geographical coverage and targeted population is one of the requirements that NHWCPs should meet. They usually do using the 5 Ws (what, where, who, when, for whom);

3. Do the WASH partners respect minimum commitments to ensure the protection, safety and dignity of the affected populations in the design, implementation and monitoring of their programmes? The Global WASH cluster partners have agreed on 5 WASH Minimum Commitments for the Safety and Dignity of Affected Populations to be respected in all their humanitarian WASH programmes so as to ensure that the distinct assistance and protection needs of the affected population are met. These commitments, centred on people, aim at improving the quality and efficiency of the WASH response programmes in every context, and at ensuring that key issues are taken into consideration by all partners, such as gender, gender based violence, child protection, disability, and age. The respect of these minimum commitments all along the humanitarian programme cycle reinforces the accountability of the WASH partners to the affected population9 and should therefore be reflected in the programmes of the WASH partners. NHWCPs have a key role to play to guide partners and monitor how partners respect the 5 minimum commitments (see annex 1).

4. Do the partners have the capacity to take corrective actions where necessary and possible, or at least open a dialogue with the beneficiaries of their programmes, when they do not meet the aspiration of those beneficiaries? The existence and the regular use

9 (i) Consult separately girls, boys, women, and men, including those with disabilities, to ensure that WASH programs are designed so as to provide equal access and mitigate incidences of violence; (ii) Ensure that girls, boys, women, and men, including those with disabilities have access to appropriate and safe WASH services, (iii) Ensure that girls, boys, women, and men, including those with disabilities, have access to feedback & complaint mechanisms so that corrective actions can address their specific protection and assistance needs; (iv) Monitor and evaluate safe and equal access and use of WASH services in WASH projects; (v) Give priority to girls (particularly adolescents) and women’s participation in the consultation process

June 2018 Page 6

of a feedback and complaint mechanism by the partners implementing WASH programmes is therefore an indicator of their commitment to quality. Such mechanism should be set up at the level of the WASH partners, as a component of their own multisectoral programmes, as partners are more likely to have the authority and resources to respond to concerns. The responsibility of NHWCPs should therefore ne limited to encourage all partner having WASH programmes to develop such mechanism and monitor their existence and use. The Global WASH cluster has already developed guidance to support NHWCPs to address feedback and complaint mechanism (see annex 2);

5. The fifth focus area is the component WASH practitioners are most immediately thinking of when referring to quality. It deals with the quality of the WASH services10 delivered to the affected population. Are the quality of WASH services meet minimum programmatic and technical standards that have been agreed among the WASH partners? Partners can either refer to national standards or to the Sphere standards, depending on the context. For each emergency situation partners should systematically establish technical guidance and programmatic frameworks to frame their response. The quality of the WASH services embraces four main areas: relevance (or appropriateness), quantity, reliability and safety (see figure hereunder);

10 Quality of the WASH services includes both the quality of the WASH infrastructure as well as the quality of the operation & maintenance of the infrastructures that are built.

June 2018 Page 7

6. WASH programming modalities is the sixth focus area that should be considered. WASH programming modalities include many aspects. As a minimum, WASH partners should consider:

how they are involving national and local authorities in the design and implementation of their programme (and respect their leadership when it is relevant);

how they are articulating different implementation modalities (direct implementation, in kind support, market-based programming, technical support, community engagement), and;

how they are phasing the response depending on the constraints and opportunities linked to the national context.

All these six focus areas are key elements of a comprehensive accountability and quality assurance system for a WASH response. Of course, these focus areas will be considered differently depending on the type and the phase of the emergency (sudden onset, protracted, initial response, second phase…).

Role of GovernmentsNational WASH sector leads have the primary responsibility to develop an accountability and quality assurance framework under which the partners should implement their response, monitor the response and enforce corrective actions when required.

June 2018 Page 8

Role of National Humanitarian WASH Coordination PlatformsThe role of National Humanitarian WASH Coordination Platforms in setting up or reinforcing and implementing an accountability and quality assurance system is threefold. They must:

1. Create the enabling environment so that the system is set up (usually, through the setup of a specific Technical Working Group or TWiG) or reinforced (when national systems exist for instance), developing a Strategic Operational Framework (SOF), fostering the establishment of feedback and complaints mechanism, establishing and disseminating technical standards, working with other sector to embed key components of the quality system within the humanitarian response11, developing of the quality assurance framework itself12;

2. Organise regular quality monitoring exercises so that partners take corrective actions when required. This can be done through different mechanisms: ad hoc or planned field visit of program, peer-to –peer review, humanitarian action review, mandate given to specific partners, use partners’ reports on quality of their program to evaluate the quality of the overall response, and share best practices related to their specific contexts;

3. Propose collaborative solutions to address observed issues (such as strengthening the capacity of national or international partners in specific areas, mobilizing additional resources) or advocate to relevant level if the observed quality issues are caused by external factors (logistic constraints, access and security issues for instance).

It is of the utmost importance that the guidance and monitoring modalities must be agreed by all and adapted to each context.In addition, NHWCPs should organize periodic evaluation exercises to assess if the used modality provides the desired impact, and assess its effectiveness in delivering aid, and its cost efficiency. This periodic evaluation exercises are also part of a comprehensive accountability and assurance quality system.11 For instance accountability to affected population or feedback and complaint mechanisms are often

better addressed at intercluster level than at cluster level.12 Engaging donors in countries in the early stage of the development of the SOF could be strategic to

align their funding strategy and practices with the quality assurance framework of the National WASH Cluster and get their support to enforce it, once it has been designed and agreed among partners.

June 2018 Page 9

Role of the Global WASH ClusterThe Global WASH Cluster should be able to: 1) provide the necessary support and incentive to NHWCPs to develop their accountability and quality assurance systems, 2) monitor their performance in implementing them, 3) guide on where to identify technical resource person, 4) advocate at national and global level for corrective actions when required, and 5) compile the experience from the different NHWCPs to learn and disseminate lessons.

Strategic Guidance to partnersThe humanitarian response of the WASH cluster / sector is usually included into the Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) that is developed under the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator. The primary objective of this document is to advocate for the humanitarian response in a given country and to mobilize resources. It must be completed by a document that aims at providing the necessary programmatic and technical guidance to the partners and that can be used as a reference document. The Strategic Operational Framework (SOF), developed under the leadership of the WASH sector / cluster Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) differs from the HRP in that it outlines all ‘operational’ aspects of how the national WASH sector / cluster works in furtherance of a collective ideal. This document is a single ‘frame of reference’ useful for all WASH sector / cluster partners and should provide the guiding principles that should help partners to define their accountability and quality framework.

Monitoring the WASH response

What is the monitoring for?

A quality monitoring framework, in a given country, should help partners as well as the NHWCP to understand how the WASH response implemented in this country is complying with the quality requirements set-up by the partners themselves. The idea is not to evaluate the quality of partner’s programmes, but to monitor the situation and help partners and NHWCPs to take corrective actions where necessary.What could be the mechanisms to monitor the quality of the WASH response?

The monitoring mechanism and frequency should be proposed by the NHWCP and reviewed by the SAG. It is context specific. Several possibilities exist from Government-led formal monitoring and evaluation exercise to the set-up of a specific Technical Working Group with a June 2018 Page 10

specific mandate, peer-to-peer exercises carried out among partners, humanitarian action review organised by the Cluster Lead Agency, external monitoring (include 3rd party?). Any mechanism, as long as it has been agreed by the partners and endorsed by the SAG, and piloted by the NHWCP to ensure that results are discussed and corrective actions taken, can be implemented. It is important to repeat that the monitoring exercise is a field based exercise, requires transparency and mutual accountability among partners.How to report results

Again, partners and NHWCPs should decide how they will share and report their results and take corrective action. At the global level, there is a need for the Global WASH Cluster CAST and Headquarters of WASH partners to understand the situation, the nature of the problems the partners may face in term of quality of the response and the possible underlying causes (lack of capacity, specific technical or contextual challenges, lack of funding…) in order to provide adequate support and advocate as necessary. This is where NHWCPs have a key role to relay the information and underline what areas the partners should focus on in the specific context. Partners must also be ready to share the results of their monitoring reports with the NHWCP, where relevant.

Implementing the accountability and quality assurance system as a routine exercise and at scale.The capacity of the GWC TWiG and UNICEF as the CLA, to create a momentum and get accountability and quality assurance addressed in a more systematic way is key. A step-by-step, bottom-up, approach will be applied to scale up the implementation of the accountability and quality assurance systems across countries and get them roll out on a routine basis over 2018 and 2019. Possible steps are summarized in the table below.Their implementation will of course depend of the resource the GWC is able to mobilize. Steps could include:# Action Timeframe1 Agree among GWC TWiG and SAG members on the scope,

objectives and mechanisms for accountability and quality assurance systems

Semester II of 2018

2 Inventory and review the existing initiatives and the best practices around accountability and quality assurance in different countries undertaken by key partners and NHWCPs as well as in other sectors (shelter...)

Semester II of 2018

3 Select countries eligible (among the GC priority country list) Semester II June 2018 Page 11

to receive priority support from GWC TWiG / CAST / FST to develop an accountability and quality assurance system

of 2018

4 Provide methodological support to set up in the selected countries accountability and assurance system including developing / reviewing SOF, and monitoring mechanisms

Semester II of 2018

5 Identify challenges and develop global action plan to improve accountability and assurance of the WASH response

Semester II of 2018

6 Mainstream Quality of Response in the objectives of the GWC SP during the MTR exercise, as well as in partners’ planning for 2019

Semester II of 2018

7 Develop a first-draft guidance document to provide to NHWCPs guidance on how to set-up and roll out accountability and quality assurance system

Semester I of 2019

8 Implement plans in selected countries, monitor results Semester I and II of 2019

9 Adjust guidance document and develop a strategy to mainstream quality of response into CLA procedures (PCAs, Monitoring of Results, CCCs…)

Semester II of 2019

END

June 2018 Page 12

Annexes 1: 5 WASH minimum commitments for the safety and dignity of the affected population

June 2018 Page 13

Annexe 2: WASH Accountability Booklet

June 2018 Page 14