Environment

Water Community

SSoolluuttiioonn EExxcchhaannggee ffoorr tthhee WWaatteerr CCoommmmuunniittyy

CCoonnssoolliiddaatteedd RReeppllyy

Query: Improving concurrent monitoring process in water-sanitation – Experiences; Advice

Compiled by Nitya Jacob and Sunetra Lala, Moderator, Water Community

Issue Date: 5 March 2012

From Aidan Cronin, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), New Delhi Posted 6 January 2012

Monitoring of water, sanitation and hygiene service provision is a challenge the world over.

Given the size and complexity of India, the need for robust monitoring that is linked to the field is even more pressing but also more challenging. Much work has been done on this, especially

the excellent IMIS systems developed to show monthly progress and targets.

In the context of the Total Sanitation Campaign and the National Rural Drinking Water Mission, monitoring is seen as a means to improve service delivery. Effective concurrent monitoring can

help track progress of water and sanitation, and the level of usage of facilities created.

Monitoring challenges that remain include how to reflect if an asset (water/sanitation) has

become unusable, how to reflect APL coverage for TSC, efficiency and effectiveness of O&M for water, how to ensure monitoring and reporting tools are more easily employed as management

tools, etc. etc.

I request Community members’ suggestions to help improve the current water and sanitation

monitoring processes, in particular: How can a particular asset’s usage be tracked after it has been completed? How can Panchayats be assisted to electronically catalogue WASH assets within that

particular GP? Do you have experience of concurrent monitoring systems – what has been the learning

from such approaches in the past?

Your inputs will help in providing insights into strengthening such systems.

Responses were received, with thanks, from

1. Jyoti Sharma, FORCE, New Delhi

2. S. V. Govardhan Das, Andhra Pradesh Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems Project (APFAMGS), Hyderabad (Response 1) (Response 2)

3. Abhishek Mendiratta, Jupiter Knowledge Management and Innovative Concepts Private Limited (JKMIC), New Delhi

4. P. K. Kurian, Karunya University, Coimbatore 5. Nandini Sen, KIIT University, Bhubaneshwar

6. K N Vajpai, Climate Himalaya, Dehradun (Response 1) (Response 2*) 7. Satya Prakash Mehra, Rajputana Society of Natural History, Bharatpur 8. Ajay Kumar, ChildFund India, New Delhi

9. Anil Kumar Sukumaran, Independent Consultant, New Delhi (Response 1) (Response 2) (Response 3*)

10. Junaid Ahmed Usmani, Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, New Delhi 11. Prakash Kumar, DFID-SWASTH, Patna

12. Amitangshu Acharya, Akvo Foundation, Kolkata

13. Ramakrishna Nallathiga, Centre For Good Governance, Hyderabad (Response 1) (Response 2)

14. Rajesh Shah, Peer Water Exchange, Bangalore (Response 1) (Response 2) (Response 3*)

15. Shrikant Daji Limaye, Ground Water Institute, Pune

16. V.Kurian Baby, International Water & Sanitation Centre, The Netherlands 17. S. R. Mendiratta, Jupiter Knowledge Management and Innovative Concepts

Private Limited (JKMIC), New Delhi 18. Shiv Narain Singh, UNICEF Somalia, Bosasso, Somalia

19. Puneet Srivastava, Consultant, Lucknow

20. Snehalatha, WASHCost (India), Hyderabad 21. Navin Anand, United Nations Development Programme, New Delhi

22. Nripendra Sarma, Public Health Engineering Department, Guwahati 23. Sriram Kannekanti, Independent Consultant, Hyderabad

24. Dunu Roy, Hazards Centre, New Delhi (Response 1) (Response 2*) (Response 3*)

25. Heera Lal, Independent Consultant, Lucknow*

26. Pradip K Patnaik, Jivika Foundation, Bhubaneshwar*

*Offline Contribution

Further contributions are welcome!

Summary of Responses Comparative Experiences Related Resources Responses in Full

Summary of Responses

Monitoring is a crucial but often underrated part of any water, sanitation and hygiene project. Underrated because people usually consider only the quantitative aspects, ignoring the

qualitative ones, and even this is evaluated towards the end of the project so it cannot inform any corrections during the lifecycle of the project. Additionally, effective monitoring is built on

baseline data in the absence of which is becomes impossible to monitor any change. Therefore, a baseline that includes qualitative and quantitative information is necessary at the start of any

project. Separate tools are needed for concurrent monitoring and developing a baseline.

Community monitoring can be an effective method of triangulating government provided data.

Communities and beneficiaries are the best placed for tracking usage of assets. The project has to incorporate this into the design stage and capacitate them to monitor its progress. This has

to happen simultaneously with the construction of hardware. Building this local capacity helps

track hardware and software aspects of a water, sanitation and hygiene project concurrently with execution since these are people on the spot and the target audience. This has been

successfully implemented in Assam and Rajasthan where communities are entrusted with the task of monitoring water supply schemes.

One of the tools for concurrent monitoring is to develop a community scorecard; project

proponents can develop this jointly with the people so they understand what is needed for

filling the scorecard. The monitoring system has to include a baseline database and a complaint register (including date and type of complaint and date and type of redressal, periodic service

schedule and an escalation mechanism). A rule of thumb is the level of community satisfaction with the project. Thus, the participatory principle is a non-negotiable in monitoring the usage

of assets. Concurrent monitoring requires changes in processes, technology and mindsets.

Local people can concurrently monitor assets created as the household, community and support (block) levels.

The management information system (MIS) of the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation

(MDWS) does not monitor the number and usage of toilets made for above-the-poverty-line (APL) families, or the toilets made for below-the-poverty-line (BPL) families. Extending the MIS

to tracking usage can indicate the status of the asset. Similarly, the MIS does not monitor

handpumps built with funds from other than the drinking water mission. This again underscores the need to finalise monitoring indicators while planning jointly by the executor

and beneficiaries.

As the preference for tracking usage is to give communities or panchayats a lead role, it is

necessary to keep the baseline database as simple as possible. This does not have to be only electronic, as most panchayats and rural communities are unfamiliar with computers; it can be

a register-based system. Panchayats can track assets through score cards that local leaders or educated youth fill, and are assimilated at the panchayat level. For example, in Kerala, as part

of the Jalanidhi project a Sustainability Evaluation Exercise (SEE) was undertaken to know the

status of the schemes after they became operational.

If a computerized MIS is being used, the project should have a system of cross-verifying data. A centralized MIS can be supplemented with state-level databases. Demand and supply can be

integrated into a single platform. Cataloguing assets needs to go further than mapping hardware in a static manner. For example, the handpump which is supposed to serve for 30

years is converted into a direct pumping stand post/battery of taps within a year or two and

the efficiency/effectiveness of this asset very much depends on the power supply but not on the asset itself. Many single village schemes (SVS) are linked to Multi village schemes and more

than one source is created to run the SVS scheme. To measure this at the panchayat level, there is a Watersoft database in Andhra Pradesh. As part of the APWELL project in Andhra

Pradesh Participatory Hydrological Monitoring was also introduced, which was scaled up to

630 villages.

For data collection in real time, panchayats, members of the village level committees or other designated data collectors can use mobile-based technology, such as Field Level Operations

Watch (FLOW). This system runs on Android phones and collects pictures, GPS coordinates, surveys, bar code scans, etc. This can be reviewed, edited and viewed on Google Earth maps

and in a variety of reports. It yields geo spatial data that can be easily exported to Excel, it

makes it easy for data analysis.

In Bihar under DFID-SWASTH programme concurrently monitors indicators across health, nutrition and WATSAN. It integrates the regular monitoring of these indicators by all the line

departments. The proposed WATSAN indicators include percentage of households consuming

safe water from source of household, the number of people using improve sanitation facilities, the number of people following key hygiene practices, children under 5 who have had

diarrhoea in the preceding two weeks, children with diarrhoea who have received any ORT, the percentage of village health and sanitation committees who have undertaken activities to

promote health, nutrition and water and sanitation, and the number of dysfunctional handpumps repaired in the past three months.

In the early 1990s the Ulloor Grama Panchayat in Kerala used participatory GIS mapping under the state government’s decentralization programme. The State Land Use Board has helped

develop many GIS-based maps at a cost of Rs 3 lakhs per GP.

Many donor-funded water, sanitation and hygiene programmes have different, and sometimes

incompatible, monitoring matrices. These can be harmonized to reduce the effort of compliance. Social audits either by the panchayat or designated village committee can provide

up-to-date information to a computerized MIS as is maintained by MDWS. However, for this to be effective, villagers have to be part of the project lifecycle from the planning stage and have

a sense of ownership.

Comparative Experiences

Andhra Pradesh

Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (PHM), introduced as part of Andhra Pradesh

Groundwater Bore Well Irrigation Schemes Project (APWELL) helps keep track of changes in aquifer systems (from S. V. Govardhan Das, Andhra Pradesh Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems Project (APFAMGS), Hyderabad; response 1) The APWELL project provided 3,000 borewell irrigation schemes for about 10,000 small and

marginal families. Towards the end of the project the concept of PHM was introduced to keep

track of changes in the aquifer system by the users, so that they could ensure the safe draft from the hydrological unit. Owing to its success, PHM and up-scaled to 630 villages in the

Andhra Pradesh Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems Project project. Read more

Assam

Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) ensures Water Users Committees are

in charge of monitoring water supply schemes (from Nripendra Sarma, Public Health Engineering Department, Guwahati) The PHED is encouraging users to participate in the O&M of rural water supply schemes. Water Users Committees are formed for each rural Piped Water Supply Schemes (PWSS), which

ensures regular O&M, creates social responsibilities in the form of ownership, regular supply of

water and liaison with the PHED. The Government has introduced a state level award for the successful Water Users Committees, which has ensured their commitment in the projects.

Kerala

Jalanidhi introduces Sustainability Evaluation Exercise (SEE) to monitor water

supply projects (from P. K. Kurian, Karunya University, Coimbatore) Jalanidhi, a community based rural drinking water supply project, followed the SEE to know the

status of the schemes after they became operational. SEE was used to check and correct approaches and practices in rural water supply management. A key outcome of this was that

issues during the planning and implementation phases were easily noticed and mid-course

corrections could be introduced by the implementing agency. Read more

Rajasthan

Rajputana Society of Natural History (RSNH) ensures community monitoring of water schemes by Village Development Committees, Bharatpur (from Satya Prakash Mehra, Rajputana Society of Natural History, Bharatpur) The RSNH is executing Project Boond for resolving water problems in rural areas. For the successful execution and monitoring of built structures, Village Development Committees are

formed. They collect financial contributions from the benefiting community. Every member is associated with the assets/structures and this makes them feel responsible to look after the

structures and their performance to safeguard their own water security. Read more

Multiple locations

Field Level Operations Watch (FLOW) enable the easy capture of geospatial data for

monitoring large scale WATSAN projects, Malawi, India, Nicaragua, Peru, Honduras, Bolivia, Guatemala, Rwanda and Dominican Republic (from Amitangshu Acharya, Akvo Foundation, Kolkata) FLOW is an android phone-based monitoring platform that has been made for the WATSAN sector. It helps collect a wide variety of data including pictures, GPS coordinates, surveys, bar

code scans. That information is stored in the dashboards where the data can be reviewed and edited. FLOW was successfully piloted in Liberia where 7500 rural water points were mapped.

It has also been pilot tested in Malawi, India, Nicaragua, Peru, Honduras, etc. Read more

Related Resources

Recommended Documentation Our Health is in Our hands (from Abhishek Mendiratta, Jupiter Knowledge Management and Innovative Concepts Private Limited (JKMIC), New Delhi) Project documents; by Save the Children India; New Delhi;

Available at ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-06011201.jpg (JPG; Size:

119KB); ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-06011202.jpg (JPG; Size: 103KB) and ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-06011203.jpg (JPG; Size: 203KB)

The flowcharts explain how O&M is carried out in an integrated health, nutrition, water and sanitation project "Aapno Swasthya Aapne Haath”

The Cellphone that Keeps the Water, and Data, Flowing (from Amitangshu Acharya, Akvo Foundation, Kolkata) Article; by Ken Banks; National Geographic; January 2012; Available at http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/24/the-cellphone-that-keeps-

the-water-and-data-flowing/ Explains how a mobile phone-based technology, FLOW, is used to maintain accountability and allow communities to monitor their water and sanitation projects

From Ramakrishna Nallathiga, Centre For Good Governance, Hyderabad; response 1) Study of accountability in public works

Paper; by Centre for Good Governance; Hyderabad; January 2004; Available at

http://www.cgg.gov.in/publicationdownloads/mar03/Study%20on%20Accountability%20in%20

Public%20works.pdf (PDF; Size: 292KB) Looks into the mechanisms to enhance accountability, transparency and citizens' interface in the functioning of engineering departments undertaking public works

People's estimate procedural guidelines Paper; by Centre for Good Governance; Hyderabad; 2004;

Available at http://www.cgg.gov.in/publicationdownloads/revised%20peoples%20estimate.pdf

(PDF; Size: 1.27MB) Documents tools for monitoring developed by the Centre for Good Governance, which are based on the premise of social/community accountability

Cost of Provision: How good are unconditional allocations? A study of water

services delivery in rural Andhra Pradesh (from Snehalatha, WASHCost (India), Hyderabad) Paper; by WASHCost; Hyderabad; Available at http://www.washcost.info/page/1671

This paper estimates the actual unit cost of delivering domestic water services in rural Andhra Pradesh across 187 habitations spread over nine agro climatic zones

Recommended Organizations and Programmes Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFMGS), Andhra Pradesh

(S. V. Govardhan Das, Andhra Pradesh Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems Project, Hyderabad; response 1) Block No. A-2(c), First Floor, Huda Commercial Complex, Tarnaka, Hyderabad 500007, Andhra Pradesh; Tel: 91-40-27014730; Fax: 91-40-27014937; info@apfamgs.org;

http://www.apfamgs.org/Default.aspx Equips groundwater farmer users with the necessary data, skills and knowledge to manage and monitor groundwater resources available to them in a sustainable manner

From P. K. Kurian, Karunya University, Coimbatore

Kerala Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency (KRWSA), Kerala PTC Towers, S S Kovil Road, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram 695001, Kerala; Tel: 91-471-

2337002; Fax: 91-471-2337004; mis@jalanidhi.com; http://jalanidhi.com Autonomous institution, whose development objective is to improve the quality of rural water supply and environmental sanitation

Jalanidhi, Kerala

PTC Towers, SS Kovil Road, Thampanoor, Thiruvanthanpuram 695001, Kerala; Tel: 91-471-233700; Fax: 91-471-2337004; mis@jalanidhi.com; http://jalanidhi.com/decentralization.htm

State-level project assisted by the World Bank to provide water and sanitation services, and augment groundwater resources in the state

Rajputana Society of Natural History, Rajasthan(from Satya Prakash Mehra) Kesar Bhawan, 16/747, P.No.90 B/d Saraswati Hosp.,,Ganeshnagar, Pahada, Udaipur 313001,

Rajasthan; Tel: 91-294-2470690; greenmunia@yahoo.co.in

Is executing the OIDB-BPCL supported Project Boond (since 2008) for resolving water problems in the rural areas of Bharatpur, Rajasthan

Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department, Andhra Pradesh(from Ramakrishna Nallathiga, Centre For Good Governance, Hyderabad; response 1) Public Health, A.C. Guards, O/o En-chief AC Guards, Hyderabad 500004, Andhra Pradesh; Tel:

91-40-2316841; Fax: 91-40-23393371; enc_pubhealth@ap.gov.in; http://webapps.cgg.gov.in/phworks/Index.do

The department is in charge of investigation, designs and execution of water supply and sewerage schemes in all the 117 municipal towns in the state

Recommended Tools and Technologies

Reservoir Storage Monitoring System (from Ramakrishna Nallathiga, Centre For Good Governance, Hyderabad; response 1) Monitoring tool; Owned by Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad. Available at http://apcada.cgg.gov.in/josso/signon/login.do

Reservoir Storage Monitoring System is the software application for monitoring water storages in major and medium reservoirs of Andhra Pradesh

PWX AnalytiX (from Rajesh Shah, Peer Water Exchange, Bangalore; response 1) Data analysis software; Owned by Peer Water Exchange, Karnataka

Available at http://peerwater.org/analytix/intro

It provides visualization of impact data and helps validate and improve the core performance data of an organization

Responses in Full

Jyoti Sharma, FORCE, New Delhi

In response to the query below, on the basis of our positive experience with Community Monitoring of Community Toilet Complexes (CTCs) in slums, I would like to share the following:

In case of community WASH assets, post construction, it is usually handed over to some agency for maintenance – it could be a municipal body, a private maintenance partner

(including NGOs), an SHG or a registered community group. The handing over is done through a Terms of Agreement (TOA) specifying the rights (including financial) and responsibilities of

each partner. Since such transfers are common, the TOA are a routine matter and no attention is paid to them. However, sharing the document’s key provisions with the community is an

important first step. It helps:

1) Clarify and rationalize community service expectation from the asset 2) Clarifies who is the right person to approach in case of failure on each count.

This TOA can be a tool to create a monitoring format for tracking delivery/usage directly by the

community. As a part of a WaterAid India funded project, we used this very effectively in CTCs

by first making the community aware about the services specified for delivery by the outsourced partner, and then enabling a women’s team to monitor service delivery every

fifteen days through a standardized reporting format.

S. V. Govardhan Das, Andhra Pradesh Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems Project (APFAMGS), Hyderabad (response 1)

Very often the implementing agencies, whether government or non-government, abandon the

source of water created, soon after its construction or installation is completed. It is good to note that UNICEF is serious about post-installation monitoring of assets created in a project or

programme. I would like to share my experience with the Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Bore well Irrigation Schemes Project (APWELL) project (an Indo-Dutch bilateral project)

implemented during 1995-2003. This project provided 3,000 borewell irrigation schemes for

about 10,000 small and marginal families in Andhra Pradesh. Towards the end of the project period (2000), we introduced the concept of Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (PHM) to

keep track of changes in the aquifer system by the users themselves, so that they could ensure the safe draft from the Hydrological Unit. Though PHM was about monitoring of a system that

controls the well-being of groundwater sources, we can contextualize the experience in making sure that the assets provided for drinking water supply of the populations are sustained. I have

the following suggestions to make:

How can a particular asset’s usage be tracked after it has been completed?

The day-to-day tracking is best done by the communities using the asset. There capacity (in operation, maintenance and monitoring) needs to be built simultaneous or immediately after

the construction. Assets can be clustered and workable numbers can be brought under the

supervision of the agencies that have the responsibility of ensuring safe drinking water. Similar agencies should be identified for clusters at district, state and national level. While the data

collection should be the function of the community, it can be transferred periodically to the tracking agencies. Mobile phones seems a good tool for transfer of data from the village to

block levels, from where the internet/web can be used. This permits not only tracking but also informing the construction agencies (or agencies that have the function of creating assets for

drinking water) who can be informed on a regular basis, so that the defunct asset can be

replaced with a new and more sustainable asset.

How can Panchayats be assisted to electronically catalogue WASH assets within that particular GP?

First, a one-time inventory should be taken up to take stock of the numbers and status of the

assets, by external agency. GP should be involved in the inventory. An excel-based spread-sheet can be created, for usage by literate in the GP. Minimising the number of data entries

and using visuals can make it suitable for usage by non-literate GP members. After the excel data base is created, the GP should be trained thoroughly in updating and transfer of data to

block-levels, periodically.

Do you have experience of concurrent monitoring systems – what has been the

learning from such approaches in the past? PHM, implemented as a pilot in APWELL and up-scaled to 630 villages in the Andhra Pradesh

Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems Project (APFAMGS) project (supported by FAO) is a

good example of concurrent monitoring systems, and can be a good starting point for agencies involved in monitoring the status of assets.

For further information visit: www.fao.org/nr/water/apfarms/index.htm

Abhishek Mendiratta, Jupiter Knowledge Management and Innovative Concepts

Private Limited (JKMIC), New Delhi

With support from the PepsiCo Foundation, Save the Children (SC) India is implementing an

integrated health, nutrition, water and sanitation project “Aapno Swasthya Aapne Haath” (Our Health is in Our hands) in partnership with three local NGOs, two technical resource agencies in

several district, as well as local partners to decrease newborn and child mortality and malnutrition in three districts of Rajasthan, namely, Tonk, Banswara and Churu.

The self explanatory flowchart explains how O&M is carried out. Please visit ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-06011201.jpg (JPG; Size: 119KB);

ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-06011202.jpg (JPG; Size: 103KB) and ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-06011203.jpg (JPG; Size: 203KB) for more

details.

Pawan, a hand pump mechanic is attached to the hand pump spare parts Depot in Jharkha village and looks after the repair and maintenance of 74 hand pumps in four villages, namely,

Choti Padal, Ganeshpura, Jharkha and Makanpura of Choti Padal Gram Panchayat. He has repaired 11 out of 74 hand pumps from October 2010 to March 2011 and earned Rs. 1000. He

collects the spare parts from the spare parts depot, and is paid for the cost of spare parts as well as his labour charges by the users. He then purchases the same spares from the market

and returns back to the spare parts depot at Jharkha village. In the picture (link provided

above) Pawan shows the register in which he gets a certificate from the villagers that the hand pump has been repaired by him. The same process is followed by the other community based

hand pump mechanics.

The date wise record of issues, and receipt of spare parts as well as the repair work carried out

and the amount received by the hand pump mechanic is maintained in the registers at the

respective spare parts depots which are reviewed in the Users Group monthly meetings.

P. K. Kurian, Karunya University, Coimbatore

How can a particular asset’s usage be tracked after it has been completed?

A Participatory Community Score Card can be created to monitor the performance of assets

identified by the community. The process of developing the score card itself can be a very educative process. It can be maintained and updated by the office bearers or the operator of

the community based water supply system.

How can Panchayats be assisted to electronically catalogue WASH assets within

that particular GP? Individual scheme based assets under WASH can be tracked as above by the community

leaders. This can be consolidated at the Panchayat level for monitoring by the Panchayat. I am not very convinced as to why it should be electronically catalogued for use by the Panchayat,

as Panchayat bodies are still do not feel at home with such gadgets and tools and are not very familiar with them. However, if electronic format is acceptable and usable, it is possible to

prepare a MIS on Panchayat based WASH assets.

Do you have experience of concurrent monitoring systems – what has been the

learning from such approaches in the past? During my association with Jalanidhi, a community based rural drinking water supply project

assisted by the World Bank, we followed a practice called Sustainability Evaluation Exercise

(SEE) to know the status of the schemes after they become operational. Initially, all operational schemes were checked through SEE. A report was prepared and presented to the state level

KRWSA and its district level administrative units. Subsequently, it was limited to sample schemes. However, the SEE practice was given up during the last three to four years and,

therefore, the GoK/KRWSA may not have an accurate picture of the ground situation. However,

in its earlier phases, SEE was used to check and correct approaches and practices in rural water supply management. I strongly feel that the SEE must be decentralized to the Panchayat

level, and Panchayats should conduct a SEE every year, so that a continuous database on the performance of assets and institutions and issues can be documented and tracked. The

Panchayat council (Board) can keep a day for monitoring and reviewing the drinking water

supply situation and the performance of assets every year. This can also be done as a

participatory social audit and any further assistance by the Panchayat should be linked to documentation and updating of data on performance.

There was also another process. We were also tracking the planning and implementation of

Jalanidhi projects through concurrent process documentation. A key outcome of this was that

issues during the planning and implementation phases were easily noticed and mid-course corrections could be introduced by the agency (KRWSA). Another advantage was the

documentation of several innovative practices by the community to solve problems that arose in the process.

Dr. Baby Kurian (IRC) and I are now involved in revisiting one of the first Panchayats from

Jalanidhi’s first batch for a community involved sustainability evaluation exercise. If needed, we

can also share the tool we will use to collect information from the schemes and the processes involved in it as and when they happen.

Nandini Sen, KIIT University, Bhubaneshwar

The purpose of your tracking system appears twofold: to take corrective action at the policy

and programme level and to address issues that cannot be necessarily tackled at the community level, for example, large scale contamination of water; and at the

operations/community level it is aimed at proper maintenance and usage of the created asset.

At the community level the problem involves issues with the asset itself, for example, functional

or non-functional hand pumps, broken hand pumps, etc. It also involves problems of human behaviour which determine usage/non-usage (cultural components associated with what is

viewed as clean/unclean, etc). In view of this, a tracking system could include the following components:

A baseline database: (IT or paper based) of assets at the panchayat for installation/repairs undertaken.

A complaint register: (paper or IT based depending on the panchayat's ability and

resources) where people can file complaints regarding the asset. This should have the date

when the problem is addressed as well as the community's approval (via user committees, or designated WASH monitor) that the problem has been attended to satisfactorily. Adolescent

groups can take up this community responsibility with the help of the WASH monitor/communicator. In addition, the monitor's task can be to do a monthly/periodic

servicing of the asset much like private companies service filters at households.

An escalation system: based on filing of servicing records and complaints addressed, which

would be directly linked to the technical personnel available at the block and district levels. Using a variety of indicators/frequency of indicator, one could create a red zone (immediate

attention), a blue zone (intermittent attention) and a green zone (least attention).

To address the behaviour component, one of the tasks of the WASH monitor with the

help of the adolescent groups could be to organise and push for behaviour change within the community.

K N Vajpai, Climate Himalaya, Dehradun (response 1)

This is a relevant query in the context of monitoring challenges in the water and sanitation

sector in India and in ensuring that such systems are working and sustainable. Here I will discuss the developmental processes and monitoring systems with regard to rural water supply

and sanitation in India.

The efficiency and effectiveness of created assets in water supply systems has become

contentious given the monitoring systems we have. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment of India states that the state governments should transfer the responsibility of drinking water

supply, particularly O&M to PRIs through a state level rural water supply policy in the context to reform principles as prescribed by the Government of India through an integrated approach.

It suggests the provisions of an independent agency for such project monitoring and financial management for source sustainability with village level committees.

Our national government also has plans for ebsuring monitoring mechanisms, training agencies, computerized MIS from GP to national level but, there are abysmal evidences of

checks and balances for cross-verification of field reports and inter-agency coordination. Apart from MIS and computerization, the Government of India has planned interactive websites and

knowledge bank development by state governments with its full financial support, but, there is

hardly any state that has such websites in place.

To be frank, it sometime appears that in the water and sanitation sector in India, we either don’t have competent professionals or they are not able to implement and monitor the

projects/programmes effectively.

Evidences have shown that the discourse of decentralized governance system in the water and

sanitation sector and its implementation had many facets of successes and failures in India, and that they mostly depend on the programme implementation strategy and the

understanding of water and sanitation issues among donor, facilitators and implementers.

When we talk about the existing capacity of PRIs on water and sanitation facility development

and management, there is no denying that in the world’s largest democracy, the Panchayati Raj offers tremendous potential to make a positive difference. Therefore, how this potential will

be realized, depends on how well our Panchayats are empowered by means of funds, functions and functionaries, in terms of project implementation and monitoring process.

Many such projects implemented around the world have established that community-based participatory approaches, those that involved robust informative, investigative and analytical

monitoring tool, have proved its importance in sustaining project efforts and their wider use. Let the communities be involved systematically in creating and managing their assets, analyse

their problems and identify possible solutions, and to marshal the resources necessary to implement and manage.

For the development of a robust monitoring system we need a robust institutional mechanism and coordination among national and state governments and water sector agencies. For

example, when a village level functionary reports the coverage of water and sanitation facility in a village or habitation, he should be made responsible for such reports and there should be

cross checks and spot checks for such reporting systems and this should go on up to the level

of the responsible officer at the block, district and state levels. Similarly, the efficiency of MIS and computerization at district level need a thorough review in terms of their effectiveness and

timeliness.

I appreciate the efforts of the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation in improving its website and content in general. But, the status of MIS system is such that for over years we

could neither develop a robust MIS system nor is it even reflected in the present IMIS system

of Government of India. I say this by quoting an example on water supply coverage in some states, and there are discrepancies in reporting the coverage within different parts of its

website. For example, on the water supply status of Himalayan states like Uttarakhand and Mizoram you will get different coverage figures in IMISReport/NRWPdistrictmain and IMIS

reports/reports/profile.

We need to also consider that unlike earlier system of Monitoring and Evaluation that was done

by a separate wing of the Rural Development Department for Water and Sanitation facilities in India, it is now carried out by the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation itself. This will help

in improving various important technical, administrative, coordination and reporting issues in reporting district to state level data.

As discussed, when we have policy provisions for computerization from Gram Panchayat to the national level, in my opinion, each GP should have its own paid data entry operator (DEO) who

should be linked with district, state and national level monitoring system. The DEO will not only be helpful in reporting water and sanitation status but in all other rural development

programmes. The people in the villages could report their problems they face in their water

supply systems to him/her, and through a participatory O&M mechanism things could be solved as per the decision and needs of the PRI itself. If needed, the help from district or state

officials could be taken.

Since we are discussing monitoring systems, another aspect I wish to discuss is in the context of global mechanisms of monitoring the progress of water and sanitation facilities. Here I would

focus on the present Joint Monitoring Programme or JMP that tells the world about country

specific water and sanitation statuses. However, the estimation methodology for JMP needs to be thoroughly reviewed again, given that there is no exclusive survey used for water and

sanitation purposes in countries across the world. The coverage estimates are used to measure progress towards MDG Target 7c, “To halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without

sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation”.

The JMP source says that “Currently the JMP database includes 729 nationally representative

household surveys and 152 Censuses. Almost all of these come from developing regions and to a lesser extent from the Commonwealth of Independent States. Since a census in many

developed countries is no longer used to collect information on water and sanitation, the JMP

largely relies on administratively reported data for the developed countries. The JMP database currently includes 318 administratively reported data for developed countries.” After doing a

thorough analysis of the monitoring mechanism process of the JMP I find that there are areas of further improvement in JMP mechanism itself.

In India, as in other parts of world, the JMP process reports the progress in safe drinking water

provisions and basic sanitation facilities under the MDGs framework. Here in India, the JMP

relies on two sources or rather one source of information -NFHS/DHS. The data is provided by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) of Government of India for drinking water supply

and sanitation, and for urban areas it is the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD). The second source of information is the data provided under DHS (National Family Health Survey -

NFHS), which comes under the purview of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW)

of Government of India. Therefore, these sources could be termed as ‘administratively reported data’ sources from the Government as per the JMP’s definition.

However, the former sources of information - MoRD/MoUD, which they carry through their

respective monitoring divisions, have various collection, monitoring and validation glitches. So

this data needed cautious consideration before being adopted to report countrywide progress

on the coverage of water supply and sanitation.

The subsequent source of information is NFHS (also known as DHS), which has a robust mechanism of data collection, validation and reporting. However, the focus of NFHS is health

and family planning and so it is more skewed toward health related data collection. So, when

applying the data collected through NFHS, we need to be very scientifically sure to understand that how much importance has been given to the information elicited on water supply and

sanitation for this ‘Health Survey’. This is because the whole process of study/research methodology, that is, sampling design, population coverage, sample size, study tools, etc. look

in to the issues of health, family planning and HIV Aids primarily.

Here, I concluded that one needs to closely compare the ‘core questions provided on drinking

water and sanitation’ for household surveys under JMP guidelines and water and sanitation related tools provided in NFHS, and also scientifically review the study methodology of NFHS

that has no focus on water and sanitation coverage.

From my thorough review I find that in NFHS/DHS, the sampling design provides estimates for

demographic and health indicators and not on water supply and sanitation. The determination of the overall sample size is also governed by the magnitude of the key indicators, the desired

level of precision of the estimates, etc. So, it is more about producing population and health indicators at both the national and state/province levels. This is the major limitations of NFHS

or DHS data, which at present is being used under JMP to show progress of a country on MDG target 7c.

We also find that the appropriate probing of questions is another issue in NFHS /DHS survey, as one can not be sure whether enough probing or questions are incorporated to elicit detailed

information about drinking water and sanitation status.

Therefore, it is recommended that JMP should make use of surveys exclusively carried out to

assess the water and sanitation coverage in developing countries, to have accurate evidences on the achievements in water supply and sanitation coverage. The NFHS/DHS data could be

taken as cursory assessment, but not as a full-fledged reliable data source of a country’s situation in water and sanitation coverage.

Satya Prakash Mehra, Rajputana Society of Natural History, Bharatpur

The tracking of the usage of particular assets can be done based on the satisfaction and needs

of the target group/community. If the satisfaction level is above the expectations then one should realize that the usage is on the positive side, depending on the performance of the

indicators assigned. Regular and frequent planning is of utmost importance for rural areas. The

frequency of the training or knowledge-sharing or any other approach should be consistent, along with local infrastructural development.

The Rajputana Society of Natural History (RSNH) is executing the OIDB-BPCL supported Project

Boond (since 2008) for resolving water problems and providing natural solutions for the

improvement of water conditions in the rural areas of Bharatpur (Rajasthan, India). For the successful execution and monitoring of built structures, Village Development Committees are

formed. They collect financial contributions from the benefiting community. Further, regular programmes of income generation have been started, which are directly or indirectly linked

with the programme. Thus, every member (both men and women, and of all age groups) are associated with the assets/structures and this makes them feel responsible to look after the

structures and their performance to safeguard their own water security.

Ajay Kumar, ChildFund India, New Delhi

The participatory principle should be at the core for developing a concurrent monitoring

system. If approaches are inclusive in nature, they result in people actively participating in the

monitoring process and finding constructive solutions.

The Total Sanitation Campaign and the National Rural Drinking Water Mission are two flagship programmes of the Government of India. Mr Cronin has rightly pointed out that the present

monitoring system is limited to only tracking progress versus. achievements. While this is important, to improve services delivery there is a need to bring the demand (i.e., beneficiaries)

and supply (i.e., services provider) factors onto a common platform. The outcome of any

programme depends on a collective approach, but the traditional programme implementation approach is individual centric. Even though we now speak of the CLTS approach, I feel we are

not addressing the issue of institutional strengthening. Instead, some states are more focused on institution building (such as developing state/district water and sanitation missions) and

improving service delivery. Why are we ruling out Constitutional provisions? Since institutional

strengthening is linked to sustainability, there is a need to reflect on this.

Article 243 Constitution of India (Part IX) has provisions to bring people closer and participate in the decision-making process. The design of Panchayats is inclusive in nature, and therefore,

they can perform better where more and more people participate in the decision making process. The Gram Sabha and standing committee are the basis for the effective functioning of

Panchayati Raj Institutions. This is the platform where we can put the demand and supply

factors together, and also design programmes in an integrated manner. Thus, it will be better if we build the capacity of Panchayats through institution strengthening. Here, the vigilance and

monitoring committee can play an important part as it is one of the best options of Social Audits. In other words, panchayats can be strengthened by helping their vigilance and

monitoring committees play a more proactive role.

The Ministry of Panchayati Raj has already supported panchayats to develop their plans using

the PLAN PLUS software. They have been taught to track the progress and utilization of money under the Backward Regions Grant Fund using PRIA SOFT software. These resources can be

utilized for water and sanitation in planning, utilization and monitoring.

Apart from this, we may develop an incentive mechanism for Panchayat that have performed

well as a part of a monitoring system. The indicators of the incentive mechanisms can be integrated so we can focus on integrated services delivery. This approach has been very

successful in Maharashtra, and we can learn from their experiences.

Anil Kumar Sukumaran, Independent Consultant, New Delhi (response 1)

Many fail to understand that MIS is just a tool and we need to initiate actions based on periodical tracking and analysis. Many organisation have MIS, however, they miss on MIS

feedback, These should be time-bound and adhere to a meticulous schedule. I have seen that

we generate reports based on MIS; however, no further action is initiated. Let me take the same TSC example: there is a wide gap between what is reported and what is practically

implemented in the field, be it IHHL or SSHE. One may use the MoRD GIS tracking system to understand that hardly any structures are visible for many of the institutions (GP, BP and ZP)

that have been awarded with NGP.

In this regard, I feel that the way decentralised planning/governance has been implemented

has not done justice to the Panchayat Raj system. You are aware that India has nearly 50% of the world’s computer engineers, yet India uses a mere 20% of computation/automation.

Grassroots/basic administrative units like Gram Panchayats do not have their own building, hardly any Sarpanch lives in the village/GP where he/she works/got elected. Health/Aganwadi

staff find it unsafe to live in their allotted GP/villages. Unless, we work on these, it is less

worthy to talk about training the PRIs. Community/people’s participation is another area of concern.

I have witnessed that PHE/RD have funds, yet, PRIs are not interested in demanding funds for

BPL toilets. They feel that would lead to more accountability and tie-ups, hence the same is avoided. As an example, one may see Sagar district TSC progress in this regard.

Baby Friendly Toilets: There are 2199 AWCs, however only 30% of them are have Government/GP Anganwadi Bhawans. But the TSC website gives the following details. There is

online software for updating the progress, but, it is not updated.

Toilets for Anganwadi

Appr. Ach. % age

139 302 100

Nevertheless, there are advanced PRIs like the ones in Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh who are computer savvy and already into e-govenance. However, on the

contrary in the light of recent Thane cyclone washout of Puducherry, I was wondering whether

it was an overdose of warning and education (DRR) that lead to ignorance/havoc.

Junaid Ahmed Usmani, Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, New Delhi

I work as a Consultant (Monitoring and Evaluation) with the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of India. The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) was launched in 1999.

It seeks to ensure sanitation facilities in rural areas with the broader goal to eradicate the practice of open defecation. Currently, it is under implementation in 607 districts, spanning 30

States and UTs. The total outlay of the programme is 22022 crore and it aims to build 12.57 crore individual household latrines, 13.14 lakh school toilets, 5.06 lakh Anganwadi toilets,

33684 sanitary complexes and 4634 RSMs/PCs.

Up to 1998-99, the Ministry manually monitored the progress of implementation of the TSC in

various districts. This method was time consuming and heavily reliant on the person dealing with the data. These bottlenecks have been ironed out by the use of a computer based

information system. For successful implementation of any programme, robust monitoring

system is required. Therefore, WEB based technology enables easy data access and retrieval from any location on the globe, over the internet. The online monitoring system has been

developed with these goals.

The Ministry's website www.ddws.nic.in is accessible to all users providing ready information on

various aspects of the sanitation programme. In this online monitoring system data are entered at the district level. Reports on various aspects can be generated at the district, state level and

centre level. The online monitoring systems have increased the transparency in the implementation of the Total Sanitation Campaign. One can find district-wise and state-wise

reports on the website. This system has also increased the efficiency of the programme. Further, the Ministry has engaged National Level Monitors (NLM) for spot evaluation of work in

the field and for reporting on the same. Field visits are also made by the officers of the Ministry

to see the implementation of the drinking water and sanitation programmes. However, there is

no system to track the usage of sanitation facilities created. The following are suggestion for improving the monitoring system:

Reconciling Monitoring Data from different sources:

(a) There is considerable variation in the status of rural sanitation coverage as reported in the

Online IMIS of MDWS; JMP coverage status, NSSO, report etc. This needs to be addressed and reconciled and in this regard the following are suggested methods, which need to be

adopted: A yearly/two-yearly exhaustive Process Monitoring Study on the sanitation, hygiene

and drinking water needs to be carried out through a reputed organization

Effort may be made to reconcile the data before release of the JMP report in

coordination with UNICEF and WHO on a mutually agreed criterion for assessing the actual coverage

Need to coordinate with the Health Ministry for incorporation of components of

sanitation and hygiene in NHFS studies; including usage, sustainability, open

defecation, hygiene behaviour like hand-washing, disposal of solid and liquid waste, etc

(b) Similar to the National Level Monitors (NLMs), Government of India, states should develop State Level Monitors (SLM) and District Level Monitors (DLM) for cross-checking of data

reported by GPs on a random basis

(c) States should develop the ranking system of the district based on their performance on identified indicators

(d) Community Monitoring needs to be introduced in all GPs, after appropriate capacity building, in coordination with CSOs and other agencies.

Mobile-based monitoring system using SMSs are increasingly gaining popularity as economic

and effective monitoring approaches. Due to the widespread availability of mobile phones, data

can be collected through data collectors and transferred to servers, collated and analysed immediately, to feed into programme management for aiding decision-making.

Prakash Kumar, DFID-SWASTH, Patna

The challenges in monitoring are due to various reasons and the most important one is that it

is not integrated in to the planning. Monitoring of watsan assets was never given priority. The monitoring indicators at best thought off and included in most of the watsan projects are

basically input indicators related mostly to the hardware being supported by particular projects.

For example, if the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) is supporting construction of toilets for

families below the poverty line (BPL) then monitoring is limited only to the construction of BPL household toilets. The system is not open to include toilets being constructed by above the

poverty line (APL) HH toilets and also does not monitor BPL toilets constructed without any incentive, leave alone monitoring the usage. Monitoring of usage alone will help in identifying

the asset being unusable or defunct. Therefore, the biggest challenge for monitoring is to

include indicators and processes at the planning phase itself.

The story is similar in water supply and water quality. The current monitoring indicators are basically construction oriented with financial and physical progress as the core and there is no

system to measure the usage and its O&M. Also, under water, the monitoring is limited to the

work being implemented by the public health engineering department (PHED) under the National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP). There is no system to take in account the

hand pumps being installed under other government schemes like the MLA fund, Mukhiya fund also the private borewells whose numbers are high in states where ground water can be easily

extracted. If all these are monitored then most of the partially covered habitations will become

fully covered since the term partially covered habitations is applied only in the case of PHED bore wells. The situation is similar with water quality and O&M monitoring.

Therefore, in my opinion the biggest challenge is to finalize the indicators and its process of

monitoring at the planning stage itself, otherwise it will not be part of the system and hence

not be sustainable.

However, concurrent monitoring can play a big role in generating evidence for mainstreaming usage-based monitoring in government systems. There are examples in which concurrent

monitoring fails to be part of the regular system and becomes a one-off big monitoring exercise. There are many reasons for this but the most important ones are that concurrent

monitoring indicators should be simple and measurable, and complement the current

hardware based indicators so that they can be integrated with the current system of online monitoring.

The ICT technique will immensely help in tracking the created assets by involving beneficiary,

panchayats. For example in the case of water, the use of GPS mapping and linking water points

with the beneficiaries will help in monitoring their usage. Under the DFID SWASTH programme in Bihar, we are piloting a smart water system for tracking the usage of water points and also

developing a simple SMS based system for response plan for delivering O&M services. While doing the mapping all the other points in the habitations will be mapped by PHED, private or

other agencies. This will provide authentic data to monitor the usage with help from panchayats. After the success of this pilot all water points in the state will be mapped and will

provide useful information to the panchayat.

Similarly for monitoring the usage of HH toilets, TSC block coordinators and panchayats can do

so with help of the Swachhata doots or VHSC.

Under the DFID SWASTH Bihar, we are in the process of initiating a comprehensive concurrent

monitoring of important indicators across health, nutrition and watsan. The ToR is in the final states and will be submitted to the respective departments for approval. Once it is approved,

the concurrent monitoring will start across the state. The challenge is to integrate the regular monitoring of these indicators by all the line departments. The state government is keen to see

the findings of this exercise and shown interest in institutionalizing this within the system. The

proposed WATSAN indicators are:

WATER snd SANITATION

W.S.1 : Percentage of households consuming safe water (source to household) [HH]

W.S.2 : Number of persons using improved sanitation facility

W.S.3: Number of persons observing key hygiene practices (hand washing with soap or ash after defecation, before eating, before feeding an infant or young child and safe

disposal of children excreta)

W.S.4: Children (under 5 years) who had diarrhoea during last two weeks.

W.S.5 Children suffering from diarrhoea in last two weeks received any ORT or increased milk or fluid

W.S.6 Percentage of VHSC undertaken any specific activity to promote

a) Health b) Nutrition

c) Water and sanitation including quality testing of water samples in the last 3 months

W.S.7 Number of dysfunctional hand pumps made functional in last three months

I will update once it is started and the initial results are available .

Amitangshu Acharya, Akvo Foundation, Kolkata

I work with Akvo Foundation, an Amsterdam based organization that works on water and

sanitation related issues worldwide. Akvo's aim is to make reporting, monitoring and data collection in the WATSAN sector simple. This we aim to achieve through application of ICT

tools.

Having worked on WATSAN issues across nine Indian states, I find Aidan's query very apt, especially when major attempts are being made by the State to plug gaps in service delivery

through decentralized monitoring. This has been already very well summarized by previous

member responses.

I will take the liberty to respond to Aidan's last query as my first. It will help me to anchor my response to the remaining two.

I would like to bring on board the experience from Field Level Operations Watch (FLOW). It’s an android phone based monitoring platform that has been tailor made for the WATSAN sector.

(For more please read http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/24/the-cellphone-that-keeps-the-water-

and-data-flowing/

FLOW helps android phones collect a wide variety of data including pictures, GPS coordinates,

surveys, bar code scans. That information is stored in the dashboards where the data can be reviewed, edited and viewed on Google Earth maps and in a variety of reports. Since androids

allow stamping of latitude and longitudinal data onto pictures and videos, FLOW yields geo spatial data. The locational exactitude of FLOW and simplicity in operation makes it one of the

best baseline data collection and monitoring tools in the sector today. Moreover, since data can

be easily exported to excel, it makes it easy for data analysis easier.

FLOW was successfully piloted in Liberia where 7500 rural water points were mapped using 150 enumerators equipped with android phones. This was conducted by Water for People with

support from the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP). The final inventory locates existing safe

water points, their functionality, type, construction date, water quality and other data. Water for People, and international NGO has already pilot tested FLOW in its project areas in Malawi,

India (West Bengal), Nicaragua, Peru, Honduras, Bolivia, Guatemala, Rwanda and Dominican Republic

(http://watermapmonitordev.appspot.com/"http://watermapmonitordev.appspot.com/)

The challenges to monitoring, as Aidan puts across, in areas such as unusable assets, APL

coverage for TSC, efficiency and effectiveness of O&M for water, etc cannot be countered adequately with current MIS systems that involves high degree of inefficiency. Such

inefficiencies range between collections to analysis. Maintaining MIS of large RWSS projects has high costs, which goes up if the quality of the data has to be assured.

I suggest that the time is ripe to leapfrog from such archaic systems and ride on the ripple of the mobile technologies that's sweeping across the landscape. And with tablets such as Akaash

aimed at lower income segments coming in, monitoring of WATSAN projects, or any other for that matter, will become cheaper and more efficient if we engage with such technologies now.

As regards the remaining two queries, I believe that it has become critical that we visualise the

problem with RWSS for decision makers to act. As of now, grievances or reports around

malfunctioning of assets follow a twisted communication route. The opportunity cost of a PRI

functionary to get someone to fix a broken pipe is quite high. It involves repeated commuting, phone calls, paperwork. If one was to enable mobile phone based tracking of assets, with

regular photo updates of their condition, it is verifiable proof and can be immediately acted upon. With more reliable 3G services spreading out to rural areas in the coming few years, the

use of mobile phone for monitoring and tracking WATSAN services will become easier. I also

concur with the proposal of K.N. Vajpai for hiring dedicated paid data entry operator for PRIs. It is a much felt need and will benefit PRIs immensely.

Technologies such as FLOW which enable the easy capture of geospatial data are the best bet

for monitoring large scale WATSAN projects, they also become management and decision making tools by default.

Needless to say, there will be caveats galore that accompany such proposals. However, I believe that the difficulties of providing safe and sustainable water often drives excess

skepticism about new technologies though there is very little evidence that show older M&E systems yielding results. In such a context, I would urge a more dynamic engagement with

mobile technologies. The use of SMS based applications such as Nano Ganesh to remote

operate ground water pumps is already a marker of how dynamic and useful this sector is becoming.

As evident in Junaid Ahmed Usmani's earlier response, such technologies are getting the

importance it deserves. I believe that of this now need an additional 'top up'. This implies application of mobile phone based technologies in conjunction with open source tools and

applications. This will lower costs and inefficiencies further and geo spatial data uploaded on

web platforms will help achieve the much sought after goal, i.e., transparency in the WATSAN sector.

Ramakrishna Nallathiga, Centre For Good Governance, Hyderabad (response 1)

Much of the monitoring systems design is tilted towards its deployment before and while on

construction so that any wastage / corruption can be avoided at that stage and accountability is built in to the asset generation stage when it comes to public assets created through public

works. CGG has developed such tools which are based on the premise of social/ community

accountability that are also documented and can be found at the following links: http://www.cgg.gov.in/publicationdownloads/mar03/Study%20on%20Accountability%20in%20

Public%20works.pdf http://www.cgg.gov.in/publicationdownloads/revised%20peoples%20estimate.pdf

The public works accountability study critically evaluates the public work methodology and

suggests several improvements in the public work planning and implementation. The peoples’

estimate tool is more of an approach that can be deployed during pre- and post- asset creation. In particular, post-asset creation monitoring has to follow the route of creating an

asset register and maintenance of it by the authority concerned e.g., Gram Panchayat office, and it needs to be placed before Village (Asset/Development) Committee as well as presented

in the Gram Sabha. The formats of the Asset Register and its maintenance are included in the

above mentioned documents.

The experience of some of the relevant Monitoring tools in the context of urban areas - Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plans, Third Party Quality Assurance and Asset Development

Planning (through MAPP) - have been provided in the following document under the relevant initiatives covered in the Evaluation document prepared by me.

http://www.cgg.gov.in/dfid/08050158_CG_BK01_120p.pdf

Further, e-Governance tools can be deployed to make the monitoring go online so that real-time information is available for the top management for taking decisions (however, these have

not been designed for public accountability). Works tracking is integrated into the monitoring systems developed for two departments available at following links:

http://apcada.cgg.gov.in/josso/signon/login.do

http://webapps.cgg.gov.in/phworks/Index.do

The only way of bringing in some kind of concurrent monitoring (not by the public) but by the department is through the development of score cards that give ranking / satisfaction with

reference to asset maintenance and performance. This has been used in Kerala. One such e-tool can be viewed at http://webapps.cgg.gov.in/ssc/login.do

Rajesh Shah, Peer Water Exchange, Bangalore (response 1)

Concurrent monitoring, an important aspect of all water and sanitation projects, cannot be

simplified, just as projects themselves cannot be simplified down to a single, scalable vaccine-

type intervention. As pointed out, this requires process changes, technology, and people power. Importantly it requires a mindset change. Without action based on data coming in, the

input will dry up. We need funders as well as implementers to be ready to accept failures, learn, share, and fix in order to make progress. Changes cannot be limited to the field staff

only; it has to happen across the entire water sector's value chain.

At the Peer Water Exchange, we are attempting to change the mindset, transform the process,

improve the technology, and include people power to ensure that long-term monitoring can happen easily, analyze the data, and act on it. Recently at the Bangalore Water Hackathon, we

demonstrated how SMS can be used to collect data in time series format to monitor several aspects of a water project easily. If you visit http://dev.peerwater.org/projects/32 you can see

how a project report can be rich, diverse, and simple to build up. On the right column you will

see "Project Readings" where we allow an SMS to track the water level and the revenue collection. We can easily create a menu for each project where one can choose which

indicators to track (such as # of people using toilets per day, water quality, etc.). SMS can be sent by field staff of implementer or by beneficiaries themselves. We hope to get the chance to

develop tools to compare and aggregate readings from across a selection of projects.

As can be seen on the same report, reports can also come from any third party visitors (such

as a student from Berkeley) and PWX AnalytiX can track which projects have been visited by implementer or visitor and how recent and how long since completion of project. To answer

Aidan Cronin's questions in particular:

How can a particular asset’s usage be tracked after it has been completed?

We need to realize that each asset may need a different tracking process and timing and we need to support that.

How can Panchayats be assisted to electronically catalogue WASH assets within

that particular GP?

Each project or set of projects will need to be uploaded and we have designed PWX to be able to handle all types of WASH projects (including irrigation). This will be a manual exercise but

can be enhanced by peer review and verification. Example, each GP can be asked to review the assets of 2 other GPs.

Do you have experience of concurrent monitoring systems – what has been the

learning from such approaches in the past?

Our approach is new, and the learning is that the uptake is slow, esp. many funders need to

show more explicit interest (resources) in learning from failures (and encourage implementers to also go public with such data) and investing in fixing both the project and process.

Here are a few links to help see our solution: Water Hackathon presentation on our solution

and how to test it: http://peerwater.org/news/36; Intro to PWX AnalytiX with links to Project

AnalytiX: http://peerwater.org/analytix/intro

We look forward to working with the community to take this process, technology, and network to scale.

Shrikant Daji Limaye, Ground Water Institute, Pune

As Rio+20 is approaching, there is a strong feeling amongst people like us, at the field level,

that not enough has been achieved in the past 20 years in the water and sanitation sector, because of (1) lack of sincerity and motivation in government ministries and the staff at lower

levels. (2) lack of funding (3) lack of beneficiary involvement (4) Wrong priorities,

technologies and methods of implementation and finally (5) the nexus between corrupt people, comprising "Sarpanch (Chief of elected village council) - contractor - officers at Tehsil

and District levels - Local Politicians.

I was involved as a consultant in some cases in which the villagers were supposed to raise 10% of the cost of the village water supply scheme as their contribution and then

the Government would pay 90%. The villagers never contributed. The contractor paid this 10%

as villagers’ contribution and secured the contract. He paid another 10% to the village council for getting the 'Certificate of satisfactory completion of the work' and 20% to Government

officers for getting his bills passed. How could the water supply scheme be successful with such an approach? Many schemes have failed because of failure of source, failure of pump or motor,

failure of main pipeline, failure of distribution network or failure of hand pumps in small

schemes.

In the monitoring process of water supply and sanitation schemes, I think the following 4 points are important: C-A-R-E. (C: Construction; A: Attitude; R: Rapport and E:

Evaluation)

C: Construction: Monitoring by government officers and villagers during construction phase

to see (a) if the scheme is well-designed to suit the objective and (b) if it is being completed as per the design.

A: Attitude: The villagers must feel that it is their project, their scheme, and not just a

government scheme. Villagers are used to expect everything free from the government. This is

not a healthy attitude. Their involvement in cash and kind is essential. In our project of drinking water bore wells in tribal area, even the poorest of the poor people in tribal hamlets

collected up to Rs.500 in cash as their contribution plus the village boys and girls were involved in collecting bricks, sand, etc for the construction of platform for the hand pump on the bore

well. This created a bond or a sense of ownership for the scheme.

R: Rapport: The village Sarpanch, the head of the Village Water Supply Committee and

Village Sanitation Committee (also Village Watershed Committee, Village Water Conservation Committee, etc) should establish good rapport with the government officers involved at the

Taluka (Tehsil) and district levels, with their names, postal addresses, landline phones and mobile numbers, displayed on a board in the gram panchayat office. Any intimation regarding

water supply disruption could then be immediately communicated to concerned

government officers on their mobile phones, followed by a written complaint. Follow-up on the

complaint could also be done over mobile phones. Such a rapport is not only meant for complaints but also for exchange of information and data.

E: Evaluation: Any monitoring should be aimed at evaluation of the success or failure of a

scheme. The government offices should decide the parameters to be monitored for evaluation,

such as the monthly rainfall in monsoon, monthly water levels in dug wells, adequacy of the yield of wells or bore wells, especially in summer, quality of water especially in monsoons,

whether the septic tanks of the village toilets are causing any pollution of drinking water, etc. This should be a joint effort of the government and beneficiaries. The village panchayat should

monitor the number of cases of water related illnesses to assess the positive effect, if any, on the health of the community due to safe-quality water supply from the well/bore. (If no

change, check the source. Also, the villagers, especially housewives and children must adopt

more clean habits like hand-washing before taking meals or hand-washing with soap after using the toilet. Proper washing of plates and cooking vessels, control of flies, etc also needs

attention.) The observations of evaluation parameters should be recorded on paper and should be computerized at the Panchayat or district level.

To conclude here is the comments of Mr Peter Bosshard the Policy Director of International Rivers, which is of relevance to this discussion:

“Looking back, we have failed to live up to our resolutions and commitments as a global community. We can’t relive the past, but as we prepare for the Rio+20 summit in June, we

have another chance to take stock and change course. Unfortunately world leaders have so far not risen to the challenge. The draft document for the Rio+20 summit, which governments are

currently discussing in New York, is devoid of substance and ambition. Entitled, The Future We

Want, it contains no honest analysis, few specific recommendations, and no binding commitments. Instead, it tries to hide its lack of ambition with vague concepts such as a new

Green Economy.

In the water sector, there are indeed measures that could improve the planet’s economic and

ecological health at the same time. We could start by dramatically improving the water efficiency of our existing infrastructure and agriculture. We could safeguard vital ecosystems

and the services that they provide by protecting free-flowing rivers and restoring environmental flows. We could phase out public funding for unsustainable agricultural practices, polluting

industries and destructive dams. And we could redirect development aid towards the

decentralized, small-scale technologies that strengthen the food, water and energy security of the poorest without destroying the environment.” (Check out the website of International

Rivers’ detailed recommendations for the Rio+20 summit)

V. Kurian Baby, International Water & Sanitation Centre, The Netherlands

Many thanks to Aidan for having initiated the discussion on improving monitoring process in water-sanitation sector. The discussion is all the more timely to support ongoing the

Government of India’s strategic plan 2010-22 that envisages a very ambitious target of 70 litres per capita per day (lpcd) piped water supply covering 80 per cent of the rural population

by the terminal year. New approaches in monitoring are also critical as India is now in the

dangerous service provision zone demanding both last mile coverage and sustainability. The discussion will also resonate with the global effort headed by WHO – UNICEF in developing

post-2015 Indicators for Monitoring Drinking-Water and Sanitation.

Globally we have a market of well-developed tools and frameworks for monitoring that captures conventionally designed indictors mainly built around sample surveys and service

provider data. However, monitoring and learning process should evolve in future beyond

hardware and functionality to the overarching service delivery approach that take into in to

account effective service levels, transparency, equity, safety and sustainability. We have to re-design monitoring systems that uses data continuously feed into improvements in service

delivery - may be as in the SMS based/online grievance tracking systems. Let me also share some of my reflections on the specific questions raised.

How can a particular asset’s usage be tracked after it has been completed? We have the models like the FLOW (Field Level Operations Watch) developed initially by the

Water for People and tried out in many countries as such or with local variants. FLOW provides data on the functionality of water and sanitation investments, combining Android cell phone

technology and Google Earth software. However, as stated above, we need future wash sector monitoring to go even beyond functionality, capturing quantitative and qualitative data on

effective service levels designed within the overarching sustainable service delivery approach

(SDA). The new thinking has already being translated in many countries like Bolivia, Honduras and Uganda, using a composite/multiple indicators to assess functionality, service level,

satisfaction and service provider. In Ghana, the national Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) with the IRC Triple-S initiative, has developed a draft framework of some 20

sustainability indicators based on national guidelines and norms.

Abundant caution should be taken to ensure that the indicators and tools capture the national

priorities and action plans to support the national governments, at the same tile aligning with the international monitoring frameworks. In India we also have the benchmarking and citizens

rating initiatives. One may also explore the options hidden in the social media to synergize with monitoring systems.

How can Panchayats be assisted to electronically catalogue WASH assets? Way back in the early 1990’s Kerala has shown the power of participatory GIS mapping started

in Ulloor Grama Panchayat (GP) as part of the decentralization programme. The programme has since then been officially supported through State Land Use Board and GIS based maps

have been developed for many GPs in the State. GPs are also supported under the Finance

Commission grant to make and update asset registers. It would be worthwhile to pilot a GIS based resource cum asset register/map.

SEUF a Kerala-based NGO, during the period 2004-07, had supported about 12 Gram

Panchayats in the state to develop GIS-based maps for about 6 thematic layers at a cost as low

as Rs. 3 lakh per GP including for socio-economic surveys. Under the IRC lead, in the Washcost – LCCA study in AP, India, mapping has also been developed as a tool for monitoring

functionality, investments and service levels which has evoked significant positive response as a decision support tool.

Alternatively, the FLOW type data sets can also be embedded in an electronic format that is

automatically updated. The key challenge for the map is technological sophistication,

investment requirements, and lack of capacity at GP level and more importantly very low incentive and the challenge of periodic updating.

Experience of concurrent monitoring systems – and the learning from such

approaches

I have been involved in concurrent monitoring in the IDA-supported RWSS project Jalanidhi, Kerala, ADB-GOI-supported Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme and also under the JICA-

supported Large Water Supply Programmes in Kerala implemented by Kerala Water Authority (KWA). All frameworks have been mostly centered on project implementation and contract

management. Operational data was also periodically collected through a computer based

monitoring framework supplemented by Sustainability Evaluation Exercise (SEE) and impact

evaluations. The key lessons are: (a) multiplicity of monitoring frameworks used by programmes to satisfy donors and

governments at various levels – harmonization is a must (b) monitoring systems are often not integrated institutionally under Special Purpose Vehicle

(SPV) projects leading to high mortality and waste

(c) M&E systems become dysfunctional once the funding stream is over (d) Service provider data seldom flow horizontally or vertically down – need built in

accountability mechanism giving voice to data for continuous service delivery improvement.

I think it would be worthwhile if the Government of India as part of its efforts in operationalizing NRDWP guidelines and also the Strategic Plan 2010-22 took the lead in

designing a comprehensive monitoring and learning framework which is futuristic and

adequately capture the evolution, transition and aspirations of the Wash Sector in India.

S. R. Mendiratta, Jupiter Knowledge Management and Innovative Concepts Private

Limited (JKMIC), New Delhi

Community monitoring seeks to help people improve and maintain their community-based

systems and practices for better water supply, sanitation and hygiene conditions. Effective water and sanitation services have usually been maintained through the consistent monitoring

efforts of institutions and people in communities. Monitoring is defined as the checking, collecting and analysing of information about the current situation to bring about improvement

in the short-term. In essence, it means comparing the actual situation with the expected (or

planned) situation and then taking action to bring reality and expectations together.

In this, the main actors are the population (women and men, rich and poor, youth and children) from across the community and their local institutions (PRIs and CBOs). It is not

sufficient to focus only on involving the Panchayat Raj Institutions as the unique actors for

community monitoring. Community members may also need to be involved in checking and taking action. Community monitoring also involves personnel and institutions at the block,

district and state levels since part of the problem solving has to come through responsive actions from these levels. Community monitoring also makes these people accountable.

To ensure an impact on well being and health, community monitoring should address several subsectors (water, sanitation, hygiene and water resources) at three levels

household,

community (panchayat, its groups/CBOs, villages)

support level (block, district, NGOs).

Community monitoring is one form of programme monitoring. This implies that during the

project phase, the community monitoring systems will be put in place and activated, through activities such as training, orientation, exchange visits and supervision. After the project period

closes, the level of community monitoring is expected to decrease. However, even with this

decreased post-project activity level, the aim is to have basic monitoring continue on the key concerns (such as use of funds, service to all families).

Groups Examples of concerns of each group (also indicating issues the group might be interested in checking)

Neighbourhood

women and men, but different levels

of interest in each of these

Repairs made

Functionality, reliability and water quality

Access to water, technology choice

Monitor the implementation of their own plans

Latrine technology and construction (if motivated)

VWSC Water technology, design and construction

Increase in demand for latrines (if motivated)

Hygiene and related knowledge of men (if motivated)

Women’s groups Access to water points

Functionality, reliability and water quality

Hygiene behaviours (but only if trained and motivated)

School Staff Organisation of the children for use/maintenance (only if

trained)

Timely provision of facilities, design, number of latrines Recurrent expenditures

Training and availability of educational materials

Personal hygiene of children

Anganwadi staff Timely provision of facilities, design & maintenance (if trained)

Education of & participation of mothers (if motivated and trained)

Recurrent expenditures

Personal hygiene of children

Children in schools

(if trained)

Use of facilities (if motivated and trained)

Maintenance of facilities

Handwashing (if motivated and trained)

Storage of water

Panchayati Raj Finance

Construction quality and timing

Promises and performance of Block, District, NGOs

Conflicts

Water quality problems

Gram Sabha Repairs not made

Finance and contributions

Timeliness of activities

Village-based

motivators

Attendance in meetings (participation)

Performance of Panchayat Co-ordinators

Latrine construction and use (if motivated and trained)

hygiene behaviours (if motivated and trained)

Support

organization

supervisors

Activities carried out by field staff

Refer complaints from panchayats

Availability of manpower and materials

Flow of funds & speed of implementation

People’s participation

NGO field staff working in

panchayats/villages

Performance of panchayat and its committees

People’s participation

Complaints and problems faced by panchayat

Performance of motivators

Hygiene practices (if motivated and trained)

Availability of materials

Shiv Narain Singh, UNICEF Somalia, Bosasso, Somalia

I had the chance to work on a UNICEF supported integrated web based monitoring system in

Jharkhand looking at WASH issues in households, communities and institutions (Schools and Anganwadis), which had both hardware and behaviour change indicators linked to TSC,

Swajaldhara and other national programme.

Members interested may correspond with Somnath Basu, WES Specialist, UNICEF Jharkhand

office on the latest status. It will provide an important learning as to the latest status and the lessons learnt for any new initiative.

Puneet Srivastava, Consultant, Lucknow

My response to the query is based on my experience in the Indo German PRI project

implemented in the state of Himachal Pradesh from 2008-2011.

1. How can a particular asset’s usage be tracked after it has been completed? This can be done through the process of empowering the PRIs. A lot has already been done as

in the case of HP by the Panchayati Raj Department in terms of linking the Gram Panchayats in

the state. Also, with the decentralisation process underway, in terms of transfer of 3F's to PRIs, it would be good if we focus on the person deputed in the Gram panchayats and responsible

for WATSAN services, in terms of training for providing online data on a particular assets usages. To begin with, the monitoring tool may be very simple for a common person from a

village to understand and provide feedback with online entry, with little training or the use of a manual.

2. How can Panchayats be assisted to electronically catalogue WASH assets within that particular GP?

Simple software may be prepared and installed with access rights to the Panchayat Secretary and village WATSAN workers to provide online entry of the WASH assets, its condition, repairs

undertaken and usage level in terms of families benefitted.

3. Do you have experience of concurrent monitoring systems – what has been the

learning from such approaches in the past?

The computerisation of GP accounts has provided with very good results in terms of monitoring

fund allocations and expenditures under various public welfare programmes in HP. This has also enabled the PR and RD Department to take quick action and provide support in terms of

accelerating the progress of these programmes, in a state where many areas are difficult to access many a times.

I do hope that a close coordination between Panchayati Raj Department and Water and

Sanitation Departments in the states and the center will enable the design and development of

concurrent monitoring systems which are effective, and reflect the opinion of the people on the ground or beneficiaries in the area of water and sanitation.

Ramakrishna Nallathiga, Centre For Good Governance, Hyderabad (response 2)

Well I agree with Mr. Rajesh Shah on the continuous monitoring systems to replace project

based monitoring and a comprehensive tracking to prevail over work tracking. However, this can be a costly affair as it requires acquisition of technology and deployment of tools and also

training and placement of people to handle/supervise the same. At CGG we developed SMS based monitoring of reservoir levels at designated points, but there has to be continuity of

support and using the data for decision making. WASH assets monitoring requires not only

textual but also graphical details. One has to procure handsets that can capture photos and

MMS and someone has to maintain the database.

Physical and financial commitment over a long time is a major issue when governments and officials keep changing every few years, if not months. Even large donor agencies do not

commit to establishing such monitoring systems and maintaining database, which is a requisite

of evaluation of such intervention. Sometimes not even ex-ante evaluation is done to benchmark and only ex-poste evaluation is done to review the results of intervention. The

problem of funding is real and larger than generally perceived to be.

Snehalatha, WASHCost (India), Hyderabad

As far as my experience goes in the WASH sector, it focuses almost entirely on monitoring the engineering assets not the actual service received by the community from these assets. This

engineering bias needs to be changed although it is important to track the status of assets. As pointed out in the email itself, given the complex system of service provision in India using

multiple sources and multiple systems it is difficult to monitor the life of each of these WASH

assets, For example, the Hand pump which is supposed to serve for 30 years is converted into a direct pumping stand post/battery of taps within a year or two and the

efficiency/effectiveness of this asset very much depends on the power supply but not on the asset itself. Further in many cases the single village scheme (SVS) the infrastructure/pipelines

are linked to Multi Village Schemes and more than one source is created to run the SVS scheme. Measuring all these require some technical skills, a practical sampling frame that

makes use of mapping and encourages local-level participation and regular follow up. It is

difficult to measure but not impossible even at the Panchayat level especially in states like Andhra Pradesh where the "Watersoft" database is available to monitor.

However as part of WASHCost study, we have mapped the WASH assets along with the time

lines (i.e., year of establishment, investments made, etc.). Some maps are attached along for

your info (ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-06011201.pdf, PDF, 3.5 Mb). Further another interesting finding we observed from the field is that the average life span of

the WASH Assets/systems was below the expected life span. For more details on the average life spans observed in the field you can read the working paper following the link

http://www.washcost.info/page/1671

Regarding the experiences of concurrent monitoring systems, The WASHCost Project developed

service ladder framework to measure the service delivery which will reflect the actual services received by the users despite having many WASH assets in the village. I feel that the IMIS data

should also have provisions to monitor some qualitative parameters apart from the physical and financial progress. Some important parameters for water are quantity, quality, reliability,

accessibility, etc., while for sanitation access and use of toilets and solid and liquid waste

disposal at the village level. If we start monitoring these parameters automatically the WASH Assets status will also be known. Another important aspect to be reviewed is investments on

HR software component for effective sanitation and hygiene behavior. Though the TSC allocate funds for software, the actual spending is quite low; it could be because of the focus on asset

building and not on the actual use/service delivery.

Navin Anand, United Nations Development Programme, New Delhi

Monitoring and Evaluation is one of the most important components in any project management cycle. Often, the aspect of monitoring is taken as a regular and generic activity

and focus is lost in merely reporting quantitatively on the progress of the project and therefore

we miss out the qualitative part. In the area of water and sanitation a good monitoring and

evaluation framework with due importance to concurrent monitoring is a need of the hour. Based on my experience of about 20 projects of M&E and DPR preparation, I would like to

share the following:

Include an input monitoring tool in the monitoring design

In the project monitoring and evaluation framework, a separate tool for the baseline and concurrent monitoring of inputs can be introduced. In majority of the project we do monitoring

of activities, outputs and initial outcomes under concurrent monitoring. In IFAD funded livelihood improvement project of Uttarakhand, we also introduced input monitoring tools.

Under this physical condition, technology and utilization aspects were incorporated in the assessment tool.

Focus on Community based participatory monitoring system In the concurrent monitoring, it will be useful to introduce community based participatory

monitoring system wherein community is participating from design stage up to concurrent monitoring.

Objective of Community Based Monitoring Enabling people to improve their efficiency and effectiveness:

Increasing awareness and understanding of people on the factors which effect their situation, thereby increasing their control over the development process.

Under Community Based monitoring, the beneficiaries of projects and programmes will be

measuring, recording, collecting, processing and communicating information to assist both

project management personnel and group members.

To start with one can make a matrix of relevant project, programmes, individual initiatives going on in the area of water and sanitation at national, state, district, block and Panchayats.

Once this matrix is made at various levels then the information collected on relevant indicators,

through Community Based Monitoring systems can be collated and integrated. The information can also be used for triangulating / cross checking the information collected through direct

methods of data collection applied for concurrent monitoring.

Water

and Sanitation

Projects

Projects, Programmes of Government, UN Agencies, NGOs, International

Agencies, Community Based organizations, Other Developmental institutions

A continuous feedback system will required to be formed and through various monitoring

chains the information can be used. It involves the overseeing or periodic review of each

activity at every level of implementation to ensure that – Inputs are ready on time; Work plans are followed as closely as possible; Adjustments are made and corrective taken where

necessary; People who need to know are kept informed; Constraints and bottlenecks identified and timely solution found; and Resources are used efficiently and effectively.

Community based monitoring Basic Matrix: Broadly Community based monitoring involves the following -

Applying theory of ‘Triangulation’

Community Based Methods and tools are required for capturing the changes taking place at the beneficiary level so that corrective measures can be taken at appropriate time. Community

based monitoring in addition to the regular monitoring process adopted by different projects and programmes fulfill the need of applying principle of ‘Triangulation’. Community based

monitoring provides a validation to the observations of the regular monitoring results. Hence, in

concurrent monitoring designs, participatory monitoring through the community is essential.

Methods and Tools In context of participation of community in monitoring for water and sanitation projects there

are three possibilities –

Engaging representatives of community from the designing of concurrent monitoring process –

Often in the name of participation, the community is provided with a set questionnaires/ schedules and asked for information either individually or sometimes collectively. This is not

community based monitoring in the real sense as Community do not get chance to participate in identification of the indicators and formulation of the questionnaires/schedules, sampling

process etc. here it is important to engage representatives of the community from the design

stage itself.

Participation in organised Discussions – In this type of community participation only broad areas are being given by the monitoring team and community participates and discusses on the

issues. Examples of such type of discussion are Focus Group Discussions (FDGs).

Interactive Participation of community – Community do identification of the indicators for

monitoring themselves, develop tools in consultation with external experts and use methods and tools for monitoring. A number of PRA methods and tools will be relevant for the

community based monitoring - Well being ranking; impact Diagrams, Daily activity analysis

using schedules with symbols and visuals related to water and sanitation; Seasonal Analysis through seasonal diagrams or charts; Trend Analysis (Assessing change along the time) etc.

Few Possible innovative methods / Processes

Informing the beneficiaries and community well in advance about the project and the inputs to be provided: Inform about the inputs and activities of the project to the beneficiaries and

community in advance through media and other processes so that people of the are aware

about the facilities to be provided under the project and inform the monitoring team at the time of data collection for concurrent monitoring.

Community Based Monitoring

Who Community people, project/Programme staff, facilitators,

SHG members

What People identify their own indicators of success which may include production outputs / members decide indicators on the basis of the

log frames of the projects/ MDG indicators

How Self-evaluation; simple methods adopted to local culture; open immediate sharing of results through local involvement in evaluation

processes

When Merging of monitoring and evaluation; hence frequent, small scale

evaluations

Why To empower local people to initiate, control and assess their own

development

Corrective action by the implementing bodies

Lateral Process of Community Monitoring ’Spear Head Groups’ – Under this process, a

‘spearhead group’ can be formed from the community itself and people of one community, monitors the development of other community. A team of spear head group from one block or

cluster will monitor the work done in other areas.

Transect Walk by the ‘Spearhead Group’ - A transect walk has found to be an effective method

of monitoring the change. Under community based monitoring, it can be undertaken by a Spearhead group from the community. Under this, the group takes a round of the village or

primary unit of monitoring, meets people, especially covers area of SC/ ST and vulnerable households and assess through observation and interaction methods. While doing a project in

SC/ST dominated villages of Haridwar on infrastructure facilities including arrangement of water, I find ‘Transect Walk’ a good method of monitoring as it reveals the truth which can not

be gathered by any other method. In the mentioned project, we came to know that the

information given in papers and by the lead persons of the village was different from reality. Most of the hand pumps and other water facilities were installed near influential people of the

villages.

For different PRA methods a book by Mr. Somesh Kumar can be very useful for developing

community based monitoring systems - Methods for Community Participation

Book; by Somesh Kumar; Vistaar Publications; New Delhi; 2002 Vistaar Publications at M-32 Market, Greater Kailash - 1, New Delhi 110048

IFAD is also coming out with a specific system called RIMS for monitoring and Evaluation which

is well researched and can be useful while formulating community Based monitoring systems.

RIMS guide book Results and Impact Management System: Practical Guidance for Impact Surveys (Draft) Guidebook; IFAD; January 2005 is available at

http://www.ifad.org/operations/rims/guide/e/part1_e.pdf (PDF Size: 2.45 MB)

Nripendra Sarma, Public Health Engineering Department, Guwahati

Performance Monitoring is really a challenge and this exercise needs to be multi-stage oriented. The different stages / activities, which need monitoring, are as follows:

Compilation of Baseline data

Pilot scale study, if any

Project / Scheme preparation

Project / Scheme activities implementation

O & M

Service Delivery

Outcome

Thus, Performance Monitoring should focus on What (should be monitored), How (possible

ways and means), When (stages) & Who (possible stakeholders) with the suitable approaches

to facilitate achieving the desired outcome.

In this connection, the email discussion of the WASH Asia Dgroup platform moderated last year by SNV Asia Knowledge Network and IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre among

WASH practitioners from 5 different Asian Countries, may perhaps give us important inputs

lucidly on Performance Monitoring, which was one of the key issues of the discussion.

In the context of the Total Sanitation Campaign and the National Rural Drinking Water Programme, monitoring activity under IMIS is seen to be limited only to evaluate the Target Vs.

Achievement status and the reflection on service delivery, different operational issues. The

usage and slipped-back situation (outcome & reasons) etc., is still missing. So the current

monitoring system under IMIS could perhaps focus on such issues. A ‘Community Link’ may perhaps be included at state / district level through a provision of Toll Free connectivity,

considering the high mobile phone density and Call Centre approach.

Concurrent Monitoring System

The Concurrent Monitoring System at state / district / sub-division or GP level may perhaps give a boost effects to the Performance Monitoring of any Programme. In Assam, there is one

mechanism of monitoring to facilitate selection of the best Water Users Committees for a state level award. The Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Assam, has initiated efforts to

encourage the community (users) for active participation in the O&M of rural water supply schemes. Accordingly, Water Users Committees are formed under the guidance of PHED,

Assam, for each rural Piped Water Supply Schemes (PWSS) with the representative

participation of users from the areas covered by the PWSS. The major role of such Water Users Committees is to ensure effective management of the PWSS including its regular O&M, creating

social responsibilities in the form of ownership, regular supply of water and also the liaison with the PHED in case of requirement of any technical inputs.

To boost such efforts, the Government of Assam has introduced a State Level Award for the successful Water Users Committees of rural water supply schemes, namely, “Uttam Gramya Pani Jogan Parichalana Puraskar (UGPJPP)”. Such awards have ensured the commitments of the Water Users Committees to bear the social responsibilities with the true spirit of

cooperation and involvement. The selection approach adopted for such award also provides ample scope for the monitoring of service delivery in the Water Supply sector. Moreover, the

mandatory annual general meetings of the already awarded Water Users Committees also

provide scope for evaluation of satisfaction (as a performance indicator) of the users.

Another monitoring approach has recently been started in one sub-division to ensure drinking water security and safety through the involvement of grassroots level (GRL) employees of

PHED. In that sub-division, 21 such employees have been selected and trained in the proper

perspectives of Water Security and Safety. To start with, their main activities include regular (twice weekly) collection of water samples and disinfecting the sources (if bacteriological

contamination is found after laboratory testing the water sample from any source). A blanket approach is being adopted for this purpose and accordingly, the Tuesday and Friday every

week is set as the day of water sample collection as well as disinfection of the sources (if

necessary).

Every day, employees collect the water testing reports of the samples collected the previous day and identify sources which need disinfection. Then they collect required number of packets

of disinfectant (Bleaching Powder) and go to disinfect the contaminated sources and collection of water samples from other sources. An average of 5 water samples are collected by each

employee each day and taken to the District Level Laboratory (DLL) for testing of

bacteriological contamination. With this process, testing and monitoring of all water sources within the jurisdiction of that Sub-Division is likely to be completed within two months. Thus a

bimonthly monitoring of all water sources is being ensured.

The next phase of activity under this monitoring approach is likely to include sanitary

surveillance of all water sources and search for remedial measures to ensure Total Environmental Sanitation in the localities.

Based on such examples, it may perhaps be concluded that the Concurrent Monitoring

Approach should focus on the following: Involvement of all stakeholders in a participatory manner

More structured and organized manner with a focus on the desired goals

Multi-tier basis

Keeping the Community in the forefront

Keeping an eye on removal of bottlenecks. Prompt working on the feedback received

through monitoring is the next essential step to ensure the trust of the community / focus

groups.

Involvement of Gram Panchayats (GP) in the O&M of WASH Assets – The involvement of GP in O&M of WASH assets is not at all encouraging in Assam since they

feel a lack of ownership. There is usually a plea that WASH assets are not created by PRIs and because of that, the PHED is responsible for them since it has created the assets. Even the

Water Users Committees being formed nowadays are also not declared as the sub committees

of the GP to evade the added responsibilities. Moreover, while utilizing the fund from Finance Commission Awards meant for O&M of the assets created in the Water Supply and Sanitation

Sector, the P&RD Department is not giving proper emphasis on the same.

Such fund has always been utilized for the sporadic creation of some new assets without

considering the importance to the uncovered areas and thus the norms being followed by the line Departments in the WASH sectors are often violated. In the Water Supply sector, the fund

is utilized for mere installation of some new handpumps and in the Sanitation sector, for construction of household toilets and that too without considering norms of TSC, like the

families below or above the poverty line, or with high cost models, etc. Rural populations tend

to be more interested in the implementation of the Finance Commission Award (fully subsidized) rather than TSC. This plays a negative role while implementing the TSC at the

grassroots level.

Moreover the capacity of PRIs on different important technical inputs necessary in water and sanitation sectors is also an importance issue to be reckoned with. This is also one of the

reasons of diversion of O&M fund under Finance Commission Award meant for WASH assets.

Sriram Kannekanti, Independent Consultant, Hyderabad

Thanks for the query. I have a few suggestions.

1. Without devolving powers to PRIs particularly at GP level we cannot improve monitoring process in water-sanitation.

2. Under XI schedule of constitution of India there are 29 subjects incorporated to devolve powers as 73rd CAA. WASH is one of subjects in 29 items. Under TSC there are many

guidelines like establishing of village water and sanitation committees (VWSCs) with the Sarpanch as chairperson other villagers as members. Due to ineffective devolution of

powers VWSCs have become useless.

3. Also there is a provision of setting up HWSGs (Habitation Water and Sanitation Groups) at ward level and street level have to play key role in monitoring process in water-sanitation

but these have not been implemented. 4. The situation in Andhra Pradesh is worse than other states as PRIs, especially GPs, are

becoming more vulnerable in the governance system.

The following is one of my researches work related to WASH that may be relevant here.

Institutional Analysis for Rural Sanitation

State Level

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development department (PR &RD): This is responsible for overall

RWSS policy formulation; definition of RWSS sector programme objectives and implementation arrangements.

SWSM: Responsible for RWSS programme planning and management, including detailed

policy formulation, approval of annual plans and budget allocations; capacity building

coordination; monitoring and evaluation (M&E), channeling of funds to GPs and VWSCs PHED: Responsible for planning and implementation of complex MVS; operator of complex

MVS under contract with served GPs; provider of technical assistance and engineering

services under contract with PRIs and/or VWSCs (Ibid).

District Level

DWSM: (reporting to SWSM) review and implementation of RWSS sector program, approval of schemes proposed by VWSCs and GPs, channeling of funds to VWSCs; capacity building

of GPs and VWSCs, M&E (Ibid).

Gram Panchayat (GP) and Community Level

Gram Panchayat: Capacity building of VWSCs; approval of RWSS schemes, account

management, account auditing, conflict resolution, O&M and cost recovery of RWSS schemes; M&E

VWSCs: RWSS scheme planning, design, procurement of works, construction supervision,

with assistance of engineering consultant or PRED under contract; O&M of SVS, setting of

user charges (capital and O&M), accounts management (Ibid) SWSM and PR&RD will clarify the timetable for implementing the cost sharing principles for full

recovery of O&M costs from user charges and user contribution to capital costs. Criteria will be developed to determine “affordable” contributions; in particular by socially backward and

disadvantaged groups (Ibid). The GoAP subsidies for O&M costs will be limited to cases where

there is a gap between cost and the affordability level. For household and community sanitation, the policies of the central government’s program on Total Sanitation Campaign

(TSC) will apply (Ibid).

Please emphasis in your recommendations that devolution of powers to PRIs is compulsory as WASH is responsibility of PRIs under the 73rd CAA

Dunu Roy, Hazards Centre, New Delhi (response 1)

I have been following this exchange with interest and find that most of the commentators are

not including any kind of time-line for their observations. This is important for establishing the

sustainability of all the solutions being suggested. Otherwise what looks good as a quick-fix in the short term (particularly as long as the "project" lasts) may disappear over the long term.

I have seen this over thirty years in the Uttarakhand Hills where the Jal Nigam supplies came

into rural areas and gradually collapsed. They were replaced twenty years later by the Swajal programme - often constructed at the same locations and renewing the same sources as the

Nigam. And ten years later the Hills Watershed project again put in more money to rebuild the

same structures. Each time Special Purpose Vehicles were put in place with considerable money being invested in "capacity building" and "participatory monitoring" of PRI members,

user groups, self-help groups, and other 'community organisations', along with the use of ever more sophisticated IT inputs. And yet the same process of decline was recorded for each

'project'.

The experts and other members may want to speculate why this happened and comment on

the same.

Rajesh Shah, Peer Water Exchange, Bangalore (response 1)

Dunu Roy has identified an important issue of tracking over time. Clearly water level and

quality indicators vary over time, but so do number of beneficiaries and users. Populations and their usage do change. Hence we have added timelines to our monitoring efforts as explained

in an earlier post. Please see the following links: http://dev.peerwater.org/projects/32

http://dev.peerwater.org/projects/32/reading?type=wl (water level reading)

http://dev.peerwater.org/projects/32/reading?type=rv (revenue number)

We want to provide the sector the ability concurrently track a diverse number of variables (completely customizable) over time. The input can be via SMS, here is the way to test it:

SMS to +91.9243342000: @pwxdev p32 rdng wl number

@pwxdev p32 rdng rv number

Replace the italicized number with a number of your choice, and you will be able to see the

time series data change instantly on the links above.

So one can see how field staff can send in reports that fall into time series easily. So can

visitors, such people from this community. In the near future, we could train beneficiaries to report thru regular (monthly, weekly, or even daily) SMS. Since these happen in real-time on

the project pages, there is no data entry or transfer. Then we can move on to bigger issues like what do to with the data to act/respond.

S. V. Govardhan Das, Andhra Pradesh Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems Project (APFAMGS), Hyderabad (response 2)

I would be very happy if a structure/facility lasts for twenty/thirty years. Therefore, in my

earlier posting, I observed that the monitoring system is not only important from the maintenance point of view, but also to register the defunct facilities. The monitoring system

would help the service provider to take account of the defunct facility, and plan for

replacement, in the later years. Repairs and replacements are definitely needed, as the objective is to provide services, and not to wash-off hands once the facility is made, more so,

when demand increases and technology improves with each passing year. I think proper monitoring systems are quite essential to provide uninterrupted service facility to the

populations.

Anil Kumar Sukumaran, Independent Consultant, New Delhi (response 2)

Dunu Roy has raised an important concern, which transcends the water community. Spoon-feeding kind of development is unwelcome and we need to curb this trend. The keywords such

as decentralised planning, local governance, and stakeholder participation are

misused/misnomers. Rather, these are overused development jargons which are hardly evident in rural villages. Decision and policy makers and the executive are usually not in favour of

these and the much debated malpractices and corruption are a result. We still have a very centralized system of planning and governance in India.

Quite often, these jargons and poverty are showcased to get grants from international agencies. On the other hand, we need to question: do we have Rural Development Training

Institutes in all the states of India? Are they adequate to cater to the demand? Are they of the same quality/standards? Are these elected PRI members receiving at least one training and

what is the impact?

Heera Lal, Independent Consultant, Lucknow*

Monitoring is thebackbone of implementation. Hence, it must get its place in programmes and

projects. Without this success cannot be expected, as has been the case of NRHM-UP. The Polio eradication campaign is a good example of monitoring. Themain reason for its success is

strong monitoring at all levels. The same mechanism may be incorporated in the case of water

and sanitation.

* Offline Contribution

Dunu Roy, Hazards Centre, New Delhi (response 2*)

To carry forward the responses by various commentators:

Rajesh Shah: Even if the changes are tracked over time, how does a view of those changes make a difference to the project when it does not have the finances and the organisation to

maintain the system?

Govardhan Das: I think perhaps my observation was misunderstood. The facilities did NOT last

twenty/thirty years, in fact they collapsed within three to five years with the closure of the project. It was only another project that came up two decades later that revived the same

facilities in the name of new initiative.

Anil Kumar Sukumaran: The comments on the use of jargon seem to be very apt. However, my

question would be that if PRI training were to take place in an appropriate manner, would it actually decentralise the system of planning and governance?

* Offline Contribution

Rajesh Shah, Peer Water Exchange, Bangalore (response 3*)

Responding to Dunu: my last sentence was "Then we can move on to bigger issues like what

do to with the data to act/respond."

By open sourcing the projects and crowd sourcing the M&E, we can better trust the data that

we see - it is no longer anecdotal. So PWX puts WASH projects of all kinds by different agencies on the same map, so we can see overlap, duplication, omission, etc. We invite the

players on this forum to give us all their data. And M&E can happen by third parties, so we have better verification. We invite members to report on any projects they happen to visit.

And in my first response to the query: "As pointed out, this requires process changes, technology, and people power. Importantly it requires a mindset change. Without action based

on data coming in, the input will dry up. We need funders as well as implementers to be ready to accept failures, learn, share, and fix in order to make progress. Changes cannot be limited to

the field staff only; it has to happen across the entire water sector's value chain.

At the Peer Water Exchange, we are attempting to change the mindset, transform the process,

improve the technology, and include people power to ensure that long-term monitoring can happen easily, analyze the data, and act on it. As pointed out, this requires process changes,

technology, and people power. Importantly it requires a mindset change. Without action based on data coming in, the input will dry up. We need funders as well as implementers to be ready

to accept failures, learn, share, and fix in order to make progress. Changes cannot be limited to

the field staff only; it has to happen across the entire water sector's value chain.

We are working with funders to keep 10% in reserve to help monitor and fix projects. This

reserve is a fund that is not specific to a project but across projects and, i hope in the future, across funders.

We need to see the big players on this forum: UN agencies, Government agencies, World Bank, Gates Fdn, SDTT, etc. adopt this.

* Offline Contribution

Anil Kumar Sukumaran, Independent Consultant, New Delhi (response 3*)

My response to Dunu Roy: I am a strong advocate for capacity building of PRIs and planning

and governance are among the themes of CB. Under decentralized governance we lay emphasis on transparency, accountability and professionalism. Planning, like a project should

address/resolve a problem. The logic is PRIs need to perform and demand services/budget as

per the field requirement. Once the systems start roll-out situation should reverse (ie., centralized to decentralized). Precisely, demand generation oriented approach will reverse the

system in future. Unless PRIs demand quarterly budget release and work in time-bound schedule we face a centralized system which dump budget in the fourth quarter. Thus, end-up

with hurried implementation which results in corruption/malpractices. If we meticulously watch the budget flow, we may observe that there is surplus funds during fourth quarter which

overflow into first quarter of next FY.

My answer is simple: study and compare the performance of southern (trained) PRIs like

Karnataka, Kerala, and Maharashtra with northern (untrained) PRIs like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Himachal Pradesh. Also, a word of caution need be exercised as their

involvements in active politics need to be separated from physical performance/implementation

in the field. You may wonder, PRIs like independent entities (similar to NGOs, cooperatives) are preparing project proposals and getting national/ international grants for addressing certain

issues/ problem. At this stage we term PRIs as self-sustaining institutions; this requires much more work than we think/imagine.

* Offline Contribution

Dunu Roy, Hazards Centre, New Delhi (response 3*)

Let me see if I have understood the responses correctly. Rajesh Shah seems to be saying that

first we have to collect trustworthy data and then "move on to bigger issues like what to do

with the data". The "change in mindset" will require "process changes, technology, and people power" and adoption by UN agencies, Gov't agencies, World Bank, Gates Fdn, SDTT, etc."

Anil Kumar Sukumaran is a "strong advocate for capacity building of PRIs and planning and

governance are among the themes of CB." To arrive at this logic he has compared the

performance of the southern (trained) PRIs with the northern (untrained) ones, wherein PRIs act as "self-sustaining institutions, this requires much more work than we think/imagine."

I hope I have got it right. If I have, then Shah emphasizes data collection as the first step

while Sukumaran wants to train PRIs. In both cases, apparently, "people" have no say in either designing the data collection systems or specifying who is going to train the PRIs and in what.

They remain passive recipients of what experts are going to give them, regardless of the talk

about "people power" and "self-sustaining institutions". In other words, "people" need to be

powerful, but only within the boundaries specified by individuals or institutions who know best about what they need to be powerful about.

I am a little puzzled by this contradiction in the argument. Supposing, just supposing, the logic

of the argument was reversed? That "people" know best - after all, that is the essence of a

participatory democracy. And that they have ways of spelling out what data they need, how they need to collect it, what technologies to use, how to analyse it, how to use it to plan,

implement, manage, and monitor water systems for their own lives. Then what would be the role of the experts? That, I think, is what I had originally requested the expert members to

reflect on!

* Offline Contribution

Pradip K Patnaik, Jivika Foundation, Bhubaneshwar*

First of all the issues with respect to water, sanitation and hygiene must be separated so far as

the monitoring issue is concerned. If it is only TSC, then it could be clubbed all together. Here,

I would like to bring few such lines which are completely based on my experience. The implementing organization

If it is implemented through Gram Panchayats, how far it is reached at community

members (both BPL & APL categories). Whether they just pursue it for their political mileage or to really achieve the objectives of the program. How do they release the said

amount to an individual beneficiary whether after completion of the unit or before of that with what kind of check & balance system for completion & generation of wider impact in

the line of popularization & hygienic issue. What kind of grassroots monitoring mechanism

adopted & practiced by Gram Panchayat & the respective Dept. If it is NGO, how close they are to people, what kind of IEC mechanism they have initiated

for mobilization, implementation & generating of impact.

IEC component

How much people are aware about TSC & its hygienic impact at post implementation phase

How much demands are generated or just implemented as part of the scheme

How far people own the facility or it is being utilized for other household purposes

Grassroots level institutional arrangement & sustainability of the programme What are the institutional arrangements are promoted & required capacity building inputs

are provided

How much do they own the program leading to quality implementation, intensive use of

facility, follow up for repairing & further improvement, generating feedbacks for policy making bodies, how quickly policy making bodies taking decisions and sustainability of the

program.

Water issues with respect TSC and safe water drinking facility

Assessment of availability of sufficient water for latrine use

Programmes/IEC to address ground water contamination because of wide & intensive use

of single or double pit based latrines and use of water from open well in the area. How far people’s needs are addressed through pipe water supply projects or not. How

Govt. mechanisms are sincere about implementing of such water supply projects through

adopting people centered mechanism or not.

Water & related issues

So far as simply water issue is concerned, the monitoring mechanism can be introduced looking

at components such as water security, water conservation, utilisation of water for agriculture & industrial purposes, exploration of ground water & WHS including rain water harvesting, privatization of water, climate change vs. water, etc. The monitoring mechanism may be discussed in a collective process with the participation of key stakeholders of these components

in the line of water issues. This is all about my ideas & experiences with respect to the issues such as water, sanitation &

hygiene. The participatory monitoring & MIS may be introduced looking at the needs of above components.

* Offline Contribution

K N Vajpai, Climate Himalaya, Dehradun (response 2 *)

The JMP (Joint Monitoring Programme) for Water Supply and Sanitation serves as the official

mechanism of the United Nations for monitoring access to drinking-water and sanitation, and

for reporting globally on the status of Drinking-Water and Sanitation coverage.

The coverage estimates are used to measure progress towards MDG Target 7c, “To halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking-water and basic

sanitation”

The JMP source says that “Currently the JMP database includes 729 nationally representative

household surveys and 152 Censuses. Almost all of these come from developing regions and to a lesser extent from the Commonwealth of Independent States. Since a census in many

developed countries is no longer used to collect information on water and sanitation, the JMP

largely relies on administratively reported data for the developed countries. The JMP database currently includes 318 administratively reported data for developed countries.”

After doing a thorough analysis of the monitoring mechanism process of JMP that reports

country progress on water and sanitation we find that there are areas of further improvement in JMP mechanism to make it more accurate and robust monitoring programme.

For this purpose we took example from India on JMP mechanism. In India, as in other parts of

the world, JMP process reports the progress of safe drinking water provisions and basic sanitation facilities under MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) framework. Here in India,

the JMP rely at two sources or rather one source of information’s i.e. NFHS / DHS (National Family Health Survey).

For rural areas officially the data is collected by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) of Government of India for Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation, and for urban areas- Ministry of

Urban Development (MoUD). The second source of information is the data provided under DHS (National Family Health Survey-NFHS), which comes in the purview of Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare (MoHFW) of Government of India. Here, JMP uses the second source of information. Therefore, this source could be termed as ‘administratively reported data’ source

from Government as per JMP’s definition.

However, the former sources of information- MoRD / MoUD, which they carry through their

respective monitoring divisions, have various collection, monitoring and validation glitches. So this data needed cautious consideration before adopting to report countrywide progress on the

coverage of water supply and sanitation and usually not much in use. Also, this data is not

used by JMP for country progress on water and sanitation.

The subsequent source of information is NFHS (also known as DHS), which has a

robust mechanism of data collection, validation and reporting.

However, the focus of NFHS is Health and Family planning and so it is more skewed toward health related data collection.

So, when applying the data collected through NFHS, scientifically we need to be very sure to understand that how much importance has been given to the information elicited on drinking

water and sanitation in this ‘Health Survey’. As the whole process of study/research methodology i.e. sampling design, population coverage, sample size, study tools, etc. look in to

the issues of Health, Family Planning and HIV Aids primarily.

Here, we concluded that, one need to closely compare the general ‘core questions

provided on drinking-water and sanitation’ for household surveys under JMP guidelines and Water and Sanitation related tools provided in NFHS, and also

review scientifically the study methodology of NFHS. In this case these questions need more probing and the sampling should consider water and sanitation among

primary focus.

From a thorough review we find that in NFHS / DHS, the sampling design provides estimates

for demographic and health indicators and not on water supply and sanitation (Read note at the end of this article about the focus of NFHS). The determination of the overall sample

size is also governed by the magnitude of the key indicators, the desired level of precision of the estimates, etc. So, it is more about producing population and health

indicators at both the national and state/province levels. This is the major limitations of NFHS

or DHS data, which, at present is being used under JMP to show progress of a country on MDG target 7c.

We also find that the appropriate probing of questions is another issue in NFHS /DHS survey,

as one can’t be sure, whether enough probing or questions are incorporated to elicit detailed

information about drinking water and sanitation status.

Therefore, it is recommended that JMP should make use of surveys exclusively carried out to assess the water and sanitation coverage in developing countries, to have accurate evidences

on the achievements in Water Supply and Sanitation coverage. This will not only help the

country Governments for better planning but also helping our communities in better access to these services. The NFHS/DHS data could be taken as cursory assessment, but not as full

fledge reliable data source on of a country’s situation in water and sanitation coverage.

What is NFHS/DHS: The NFHS survey, provides information on population, health and nutrition in India and each of its 29 states. The survey is based on a sample of households

which is representative at the national and state levels. NFHS-3 provided trend data on key

indicators and includes information on several new topics, such as HIV/AIDS-related behaviour and the health of slum populations, men and unmarried women, HIV prevalence.

* Offline Contribution

Many thanks to all who contributed to this query! If you have further information to share on this topic, please send it to Solution Exchange for the Water Community in India at se-wes@solutionexchange-un.net.in with the subject heading

“Re: [se-watr] Query: Improving concurrent monitoring process in water-sanitation - Experiences, Advice. Additional Reply.” Disclaimer: In posting messages or incorporating these messages into synthesized responses, the UN accepts no responsibility for their veracity or authenticity. Members intending to use or transmit the information contained in these messages should be aware that they are relying on their own judgment.

Copyrighted under Creative Commons License “Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5”. Re-users of this material must cite as their source Solution Exchange as well as the item’s recommender, if relevant, and must share any derivative work with the Solution Exchange Community.

Solution Exchange is a UN initiative for development practitioners in India. For more information please visit www.solutionexchange-un.net.in