IRC Symposium 2013: Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery

Addis Ababa, April 2013

AN IMPROVED EVALUATION FRAMEWORK TO SUPPORT

LOCAL LEVEL PLANNING

R. GINÉ, A. JIMÉNEZ, Ó FLORES & A. PÉREZ

OUTLINE

2

Background

A new evaluation framework for planning

Data collection, combining two sources of information

Data analysis, through simple planning indices

Data dissemination, through ranks and priority maps

Basing decision-making on planning indices

Challenges and Ways forward

3

Decentralization offers the opportunity to define strategies for equity-oriented planning and post-project support. But core challenges that undermine decentralised targeting and prioritization:

Local data is seldom available to support evidence-based planning. It is often WASH non-specific and out-of-date

Allocation procedures prevents the poor from accessing the services Instruments for decision-making support are not easy-to-use

A new approach for local planning is proposed

BACKGROUNDWays

ForwardPlanning

frameworkBackground

Access to data

Establish Criteria

Define Priorities

Establish Budget Guidelines to fulfil priorities

4

NEW FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING

Key Remarks

Planning framework

Background

+

WASH data collection, based on a Water Point Mapping and a Household-based survey

Criteria to select targeted communities based on simple planning indices, instead of employing outdated and WASH-nonspecific data

NAME OF INDEX FORMULA ACTION

Coverage index 250*

Population

IWP ofNumber

Construction of New water points

Functionality Index

100*IWP Total

IWPFunct ofNumber

Rehabilitation of existing water points.

Seasonality Index 100*

FIWP Total

FIWP Round-Year ofNumber

Actions to increase reliability of the source (catchment protection actions, regulation of different uses) and/or finding of additional sources

Management Index 100*

FIWP Total

FIWPMan ofNumber

Management supporting activities (establishment of WUEs and/or support to establishment of tariff collection systems).

Water Quality Index 100*

FIWP Total

FIWP Safe ofNumber

Actions to improve quality of water: catchment protection, protection of WP, etc… If salinity is high and becomes dangerous, check other alternative sources WP.

LOCATIONPopulation

2009

Total Number

WPs

LIST 1

Coverage Index

Rank 1

Priorities

North Kabuoch 5.088 0 0% 1

North Kanyamwa 9.286 0 0% 2

Central Kanyamwa 15.244 3 9% 3

Homa Bay Town 35.816 8 11% 4

Gem Central 22.047 5 11% 5

Gem West 13.193 3 11% 6

West Kanyidoto 10.228 3 14% 7

East Kanyada 37.900 13 16% 8

East Kochia 13.917 5 17% 9

West Kabuoch 10.693 4 18% 10

West Kochia 12.637 5 19% 11

Gongo 9.569 4 20% 12

South Kabuoch 26.332 12 22% 13

Central Kabuoch 19.489 9 22% 14

West Kanyamwa 17.714 10 27% 15

East Kagan 12.012 7 28% 16

Gem East 11.619 7 29% 17

West Kwambwai 15.347 10 31% 18

West Kanyada 16.726 12 34% 19

South Kanyamwa 14.156 11 37% 20

East Kwambwai 16.249 13 38% 21

Central Kanyidoto 6.103 7 55% 22

South Kanyikela 3.180 6 90% 23

West Kagan 8.972 21 111% 24

North Kanyikela 3.103 9 138% 25

5

+

Household survey WASH approach Socio-economic issues

Mapping and audit of all improved waterpoints

In each administrative subunit, a statistically representative sample of HHs is selected to assess WASH issues

Great statistical precision + WASH data

FIELD DATA COLLECTION

Water Point Mapping Mapping of all improved

water points (IWPs)

Key Remarks

Planning framework

Background

Water Points (amongst others) Coverage Functionality Accessibility Continuity of the service Management issues Maintenance issues Water quality Seasonality

6

Households (amongst others) Time to fetch water Water consumption Affordability of water Sanitation Coverage Open Defecation Free Status Latrine sanitary conditions Hygiene practices in the vicinity

of the latrine Point-of-use water treatment Handwashing knowledge

WHAT INFORMATION DO WE GET FROM …

Key Remarks

Planning framework

Background

7

PLANNING INDICESKey

RemarksPlanning

frameworkBackground

Simple indices may be adequate tools for planning and targeting support , as long as they are: defined in collaboration with end users

easy to understand

easy to calculate / assess

easy to disseminate, through ranks and/or priority maps, and most importantly ...

linked to a remedial action, such as construction of new WPs, rehabilitation of non-operational WPs, sanitation promotion campaigns, hygiene promotion campaigns, support to local water and sanitation committees, etc.

8

Coverage Index of Improved Water Points (IWP) To estimate % of population covered by IWPs in a location, according

to the sector standards of service level (1 IWP serves 250 people)

250*Population

IWP ofNumber Index Coverage Location

The index shows those locations where coverage is a priority. And for instance, new construction of WPs could be envisaged to improve water service level

Data source: GRECDH (2011) Homa Bay, Kenya

ONE EXAMPLE FROM WPMWATER COVERAGE INDEX

Key Remarks

Planning framework

Background

The index shows those locations where water quality is an issue of concern. And for instance, actions to improve quality of water and prevent the source from being polluted could be envisaged, such as catchment and source protection, water treatment, etc.

9

Water Quality Index of Functional IWPs (FIWPs) To estimate % of FIWPs in a location with acceptable bacteriological

quality at the time of the test, in relation to total number of FIWPs

100*FIWP Total

FIWP Safe ofNumber IndexQuality Location

ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM WPMWATER QUALITY INDEX

Key Remarks

Planning framework

Background

Data source: GRECDH (2011) Homa Bay, Kenya

10

Water coverage Water quality

Thresholds• High priority (red): < 25%• Priority (orange): 25 – 50%• No Priority (green): > 50%

Thresholds• High priority (red): < 50%• Priority (orange): 50 - 75%• No Priority (green): > 75%

WATER INDICES PRIORITY LOCATIONS & RANKS

Key Remarks

Planning framework

Background

LocationPopulation

2009WPs

Coverage

Index

Coverage

Priority

Coverage

Rank

North Kanyamwa 9286 0 0% High priority 1

North Kabuoch 5088 0 0% High priority 2

Homa Bay Town 35816 8 5% High priority 3

Gem Central 22047 5 5% High priority 4

Central Kanyamwa 15244 3 5% High priority 5

Gem West 13193 3 5% High priority 6

West Kanyidoto 10228 3 7% High priority 7

East Kanyada 37900 13 8% High priority 8

East Kochia 13917 5 9% High priority 9

West Kochia 12637 5 9% High priority 10

West Kabuoch 10693 4 9% High priority 11

Gongo 9569 4 10% High priority 12

South Kabuoch 26332 12 11% High priority 13

Central Kabuoch 19489 9 11% High priority 14

West Kanyamwa 17714 10 13% High priority 15

East Kagan 12012 7 14% High priority 16

Gem East 11619 7 14% High priority 17

West Kwambwai 15347 10 16% High priority 18

West Kanyada 16726 12 17% High priority 19

East Kwambwai 16249 13 19% High priority 20

South Kanyamwa 14156 11 19% High priority 21

Central Kanyidoto 6103 7 27% Priority 22

South Kanyikela 3180 6 45% Priority 23

West Kagan 8972 21 56% No priority 24

North Kanyikela 3103 9 69% No priority 25

LocationPopulation

2009

Functional

WPsSafe WPs

Water quality

Index

Water quality

Priority

Water quality

Rank

Gem East 11619 6 1 17% High priority 1

Gem Central 22047 5 1 20% High priority 2

Central Kanyidoto 6103 6 2 33% High priority 3

North Kanyikela 3103 8 3 38% High priority 4

Central Kabuoch 19489 5 2 40% High priority 5

Central Kanyamwa 15244 2 1 50% High priority 6

West Kanyidoto 10228 2 1 50% High priority 7

Gongo 9569 2 1 50% High priority 8

South Kanyikela 3180 4 2 50% High priority 9

West Kagan 8972 19 11 58% Priority 10

East Kochia 13917 5 3 60% Priority 11

West Kochia 12637 5 3 60% Priority 12

East Kanyada 37900 11 7 64% Priority 13

South Kabuoch 26332 9 6 67% Priority 14

West Kanyamwa 17714 9 6 67% Priority 15

West Kanyada 16726 12 8 67% Priority 16

South Kanyamwa 14156 10 7 70% Priority 17

West Kabuoch 10693 4 3 75% Priority 18

East Kagan 12012 5 4 80% No priority 19

West Kwambwai 15347 7 6 86% No priority 20

Homa Bay Town 35816 8 7 88% No priority 21

Gem West 13193 3 3 100% No priority N.A.

East Kwambwai 16249 11 11 100% No priority N.A.

North Kabuoch 5088 0 0 0% No FIWP N.A.

North Kanyamwa 9286 0 0 0% No FIWP N.A.

11

FROM DATA TO ACTIONKey

RemarksPlanning

frameworkBackground

IMPLEM

ENTATIO

N

Transparent definition of priorities based on objective data

Share with Stakeholders

Accountability to end users and stakeholders about implementation

CO

MU

NIC

ATION

DEFIN

ITION

Official Action / Investment Plan with budget guidelines

Allocate budget for implementation

Share with end users

Coordinate actions for effective implementation

12

FROM DATA TO ACTIONKey

RemarksPlanning

frameworkBackground

One “success” history at Same District, Tanzania: Definition of priorities based on WPM data

Formal inclusion of priorities in the official district planning guidelines,

2010-2012 saw that half of the prioritized villages (mostly in terms of construction/rehabilitation) had benefited from investment.

Today, Priority Document is the tool of Same District Council to allocate priorities.

WASH-specific and updated data is essential to support evidence-based planning. Cost of data collection is reduced in comparison with sector-related investments (new infrastructure)

These data (WPM and HH-based) can be easily exploited through simple planning indices to inform decision-makers about WASH status and related service level. Suggested key areas for better planning include, but are not limited to:

Water Points Coverage Functionality

Management Maintenance Accountability

Water quality Seasonality 13

Households Sanitation Coverage Open Defecation Free Status Latrine sanitary conditions Point-of-use water treatment Handwashing knowledge

Key Remarks

Planning framework

Background

KEY REMARKS (I)

Based on planning indices, priorities can be established using league tables and / or priority maps. Depending on the problem at hand different actions might be planned: Construction of new improved water points; Rehabilitation of non-

functional existing systems; Management – support activities (establishment of WUAs, establishment of tariff collection, ...); Water quality improvement (catchment management, surveillance, ...); etc.

New developed tools are simple to understand and easy-to-calculate. After priorities definition, they need to be included in the strategic plan,

and resources should be allocated accordingly: Establish budget guidelines to fulfil priorities, and share set priorities

with sector stakeholders Align donor’s strategies within the Action Plan

14

Key Remarks

Planning framework

Background

KEY REMARKS (II)

To improve decentralized planning …

A. The continued use of developed instruments requires effective appropriation by decision-makers, which in turn depends on:

o Engagement of end-users throughout the process

o Design of user-friendly instruments

o But also continued support to local authorities

o Multi-stakeholder alliances between governments, academics, consultants and NGOs

o Political will and commitment at all levels (from central government to local authorities)

15

Key Remarks

Planning framework

BackgroundCHALLENGES & WAYS FORWARD (I)

To improve decentralized planning …

B. The evaluation framework needs to be rethought to allow data updating and foster replicability:

o Systematic data collection methodologies need to be designed to promote bottom-up updating mechanisms

o Data analysis often goes beyond the means and capacities of local technicians, thus requires external support (at least in the short run)

o Dissemination of data-based outcomes through ranks and league tables can be easily tackled through pre-programmed spreadsheets ... but GIS-related skills are not easily found at local level

16

Key Remarks

Planning framework

BackgroundCHALLENGES & WAYS FORWARD (II)

THANK YOU

R. GINÉ, A. JIMÉNEZ, O. FLORES & A. PÉREZ RICARD.GINE@UPC.EDU

ALEJANDROJFP@GMAIL.COM

OSCAR.FLORES.BAQUERO@UPC.EDU

& AGUSTI.PEREZ@UPC.EDU

IRC Symposium 2013: Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery

Addis Ababa, April 2013