global evaluation of unicef’s drinking water supply … · 2020-04-29 · 2016); and small town...

Global Evaluation of UNICEF’s Drinking Water Supply Programming in Rural Areas and Small Towns

2006–2016

Country case study report – Zimbabwe

Drafted by:

Christelle Pezon, HYDROCONSEIL Will Tillett, Aguaconsult

Guardiner Manikai, Independent Consultant

Reviewed and edited by:

Jérémie Toubkiss, Evaluation Office, UNICEF

HYDROCONSEIL-AGUACONSULT-CGSW

UNICEF – Global RWS evaluation: Zimbabwe country case study

Contents

A. Executive summary 4

A.1. Background and objectives 4

A.2. Brief presentation of the sector context and of UNICEF’s RWS programming 4

A.3. Main evaluation findings 5

A.4. Main recommendations 9

B. Overview of the global evaluation 11

B.1. Rationale and objectives 11

B.2. Evaluation design and criteria 11

B.3. Role of country case studies 13

B.4. Zimbabwe country case study methodology 13

C. Country specificities regarding RWS 15

C.1. Poverty and vulnerability 15

C.2. Water resources and water supply coverage 15

C.3. National RWS policy and strategy, and level of implementation 16

D. UNICEF RWS programme description 18

E. Evaluation findings 21

E.1. Relevance 21

E.2. Effectiveness 22

E.3. Efficiency 23

E.4. Sustainability 26

E.5. Equity 29

E.6. Innovation 30

F. Recommendations 33

F.1. Support the development and implementation of a sustainability strategy for the RWS sector 33

F.2. Continue to address the equity challenge 34

F.3. Continue efforts to strengthen programme effectiveness and efficiency 34

G. Annexes 35



Acronyms

Acronym Definition

DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia)

DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)

DWSSC District Water Supply and Sanitation Committee

EU European Union

HIV Human immunodeficiency virus

JMP WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme

MDG Millennium Development Goal

NGO Non-governmental organization

PWSSC Provincial Water Supply and Sanitation Committee

RDC Rural District Council

RWIMS Rural WASH Information Management System

RWS Rural and small town drinking water supply

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

VPM Village pump mechanic

WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene

WHO World Health Organization

WPC Water point committee

ZINWA Zimbabwe National Water Authority



A. Executive summary

A.1. Background and objectives This country case study report is a component of the ‘Global Evaluation of UNICEF’s Drinking Water Supply Programming in Rural Areas and Small Towns’, which was commissioned by the UNICEF Evaluation Office to assess UNICEF’s experience and contributions in this area between 2006 and 2016. The global evaluation is informed by seven other country case studies, which all follow the same structure and methodology, and by additional sources of evidence, including a review of UNICEF and non-UNICEF documents and databases, a global online survey, and semi-structured interviews with diverse sector stakeholders.

The country case study is not a full evaluation as it is less comprehensive in terms of scope, data collection and analysis. Its main objective is to feed into the global evaluation report by gathering information about UNICEF’s programming in rural and small town water supply (RWS) and about the evolution of UNICEF’s contribution to the sector at the country level. The case study also presents findings and recommendations that are intended to be useful to UNICEF Zimbabwe and its partners.

A.2. Brief presentation of the sector context and of UNICEF’s RWS programming

According to the WHO/UNICEF 2015 Joint Monitoring Report, the use of improved drinking water sources in rural areas of Zimbabwe fell from 71% in 1990 to 67% in 2015. Due to an economic downturn since the late 1990s, Zimbabwe is one of the few countries to have experienced an increase in the proportion of its population without access to safe water. The economic decline also resulted in a decline in the condition of water infrastructure and in service levels. Significant inequalities exist between rural and urban areas (98% of people without an improved drinking water source are located in rural areas), between regions, wealth quintiles and gender.

Despite the challenges at the service delivery level, Zimbabwe has a relatively advanced and stable policy environment, with established institutional frameworks at all levels. Zimbabwe’s water sector is coordinated by the National Action Committee on Water Supply and Sanitation (NAC), an inter-ministerial steering committee that provides policy guidance to the entire water sector. There are coordination sub-committees at the national, provincial and district levels. For service delivery, rural water supply is managed under community-based management arrangements by voluntary water point committees (WPCs). The District Development Fund is responsible for providing and maintaining rural infrastructure within the communal, resettlement and small-scale commercial farming areas of Zimbabwe. Small town water supply systems are managed either by the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) or the urban councils.

To supplement the Water Act and the Zimbabwe National Water Authority Act of 1998, a new Water Policy was issued in 2013. This policy sets out the broad frameworks for water ownership, water resource management, water and sanitation service delivery, regulation and financing. It created a distinction between water service authorities (own water infrastructure) and water service providers (operate services). It opened the door to lower technology standards and to private sector participation in the management of RWS services.

Although the institutions and policies are in place, much work remains to be done at the implementation level to ensure they are translated into service development and improvements for users. For example, progress has been slow in separating the service providers and service



authorities, especially in small towns, and there has been limited progress in establishing a sector regulator. Moreover, despite the relatively high level of education of many government employees, the country’s economic situation has severely restricted the operational capacity of these staff.

The UNICEF RWS programme in Zimbabwe has evolved over time, in line with the changing context and needs of the sector. The programming in 2006 (before the cholera outbreak) was relatively small-scale and development-oriented. The large-scale cholera outbreak in 2008 shifted the focus to emergency response operations. Post-crisis, work focused on ‘getting the water flowing’ in both rural and urban areas.

UNICEF’s Rural (and Small Town) Water Supply (RWS) programming during the evaluation period comprised three WASH projects: ZimWASH (2006–2010); Rural WASH project (2012–2016); and Small Town WASH project (2013–2017, after the humanitarian phase).

At the upstream level, UNICEF has supported the development and strengthening of sector policies, capacities and coordination mechanisms throughout the evaluation period.

A.3. Main evaluation findings UNICEF is a major player in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector in Zimbabwe, having taken on a leading role (together with government partners) since the onset of the nationwide cholera outbreak in 2008. The organization is now the main conduit for development partner funding into the sector for rural WASH and also, to an extent, for small towns. UNICEF Zimbabwe has been able to scale up programming significantly to respond to the country’s major needs, managing large rural programmes and expanding out of its traditional programming area into small towns. UNICEF has also been instrumental in resuscitating relatively dormant government structures at the district, provincial and national levels through their involvement in delivering some of the programme activities.

The operating context in Zimbabwe is challenging due to the chronic economic issues, which particularly affect financial sustainability, and the limited capacities of the public and private sectors. It is important to keep this context, together with the post-crisis (rather than ‘pure development’) orientation of UNICEF’s reviewed programmes, in mind when reviewing the findings and conclusions of this report.

Strengths Weaknesses

Relevance

UNICEF is well-positioned and has a strong role and credibility within the sector, making use of its comparative advantages and adding value:

- A major and even the lead external support agency in the RWS sector

- The main conduit of donor funding for rural programmes, and a key player in small towns

- Close and long-standing collaboration with both local and national government bodies as well as other stakeholders

- Implements field activities at large scale and supports the sector enabling environment – the former informing/helping to shape the latter stream of work

- Well aligned with government and donor approaches

N/A




- As a United Nations agency, perceived (by Government and donors) as more neutral and credible, having access to and influence with Government, being able to mobilize and utilize funding despite political constraints, and as a low risk partner (robust procedures)

- Recognized for technical expertise and flexibility/adaptability

- High level of partner satisfaction

Effectiveness

Programme targets achieved/exceeded, with generally satisfactory quality of outputs

Significant investment in capacity building and programme governance improvements at all levels, helping solve problems, and supporting programme delivery and effectiveness

Significant contribution to policy development, institutional capacities, coordination and monitoring at the upstream level

In small towns, introduction of new processes for user and stakeholder participation; scaling up of the management information system Promun; and consultation and piloting of the monitoring tool U-Report to improve accountability and performance of service providers

High staff turnover within the UNICEF team has left some gaps in terms of knowledge generation and dissemination and institutional memory, and has sometimes affected the continuity of ideas and approaches

Efficiency

Several evolutions/measures driven by efficiency considerations: driving down programme costs and/or minimizing risks. These included:

- Approach to procurement;

- Contractual/QA/payment arrangements for drilling works (for example, several stakeholders involved in supervising/controlling quality; dry boreholes not paid for);

- Improved capacity assessment of partners and contractors, leading to the development/implementation of capacity building plans;

- Request for non-governmental organization (NGO) partners to reduce overhead costs and report on funds and results on a monthly basis;

- Use of government partners to reduce the implementation cost of some activities, support ownership and sustainability, and extend project benefits to other government-led activities/sectors; and

- Monitoring of efficiency (funding and results evolution by district and implementing partners, resulting in increased accountability and drive for programme delivery.

Some delays in procurement and implementation

Frustration from some NGO partners pressured by requests to reduce overhead costs and by the level of rigidity and ambition in project implementation, timeline and reporting processes

Feeling from some NGO partners that they were regarded as sub-contractors rather than partners; this raises the question whether UNICEF has made the best use of the potential contribution and know-how of NGOs, in a strategic rather than transactional way, with a view to maximizing mutual benefits

Geographical dispersion of activities and lack of integrated programming raising operational costs while reducing synergetic results and impacts




Feedback from one donor suggests that UNICEF’s programme costs were generally comparable to those of NGOs, despite higher drilling and overhead costs (for the Rural WASH Project)

Sustainability

In rural areas:

Private sector suppliers and retailers engaged throughout the supply chain to improve availability and quality of spare parts in rural areas

Significant training on operation and maintenance and management provided to water point committees and village pump mechanics

In small towns:

Considerable efforts made to boost the revenue/fee collection rate, financial viability, public budgeting and long-term sustainability of the small town water service

Strong advocacy and support to intensify authorities’ engagement with customers, increase accountability and introduce performance benchmarking

Cross-cutting and upstream:

Significant efforts made to resuscitate dormant government structures at the district, provincial and national levels, and their capacity built by involving them in programme delivery, oversight and coordination

Continuous institutional capacity building throughout the period, appreciated by government bodies, district and province committees, NGOs and service providers

Programmatic adjustments made over time to accommodate learning from past sustainability issues (for example, on spare part supply chain, improving training of water point committees and village pump mechanics, etc.)

Support in developing and scaling up the Rural WASH Information Management System (RWIMS) as a major contribution to sector planning, budgeting and consequently to sustainability: will generate datasets required to provide increased focus on functionality and develop sustainability-related activities

For rural water supply:

Inadequate setting or enforcement of tariffs and of tariff collection arrangements, leading to limited recovery of operation and maintenance costs in rural areas, jeopardizing the financial viability of rural water schemes supported by UNICEF

No effort made by UNICEF to consider alternatives/adaptations to the community-based management, which are known to not be very effective and sustainable

Indications that the maintenance and village pump mechanics business model as designed may not always be profitable for the private sector and therefore sustainable

Private sector led model for spare parts supply chains undermined by UNICEF’s central procurement and supply of parts

Lack of effective system to finance major repairs and capital replacement

Overall, UNICEF has approached sustainability at a late stage in the programme cycle, as part of its ‘exit strategy’, rather than incorporating it at the programme design stage

Cross-cutting and upstream:

No monitoring by UNICEF of the functionality of the water schemes it installed after project completion (before the recent support given to the sector-wide information management system for rural water supply)

Capacity building and institutional support, although substantial and continuous over the period, are insufficient to address/overcome capacity- and resource-related constraints for district and provincial authorities to continue follow-up support and monitoring after programme ends

Equity

Overall:

Integration of equity measures throughout the project cycle. In rural areas: vulnerability-lensed geographical targeting; targeting of people affected by HIV, elderly people, people with disabilities and orphans; and involvement of

In rural areas:

Experience gained in the ZimWASH project on technologies adapted to the needs of people with reduced mobility and on equity-focused monitoring and reporting has not been subsequently generalized/




women in water committees. In small towns: vulnerable community representatives included in local steering committees; gender and disability included in capacity building and awareness raising initiatives; disabled-friendly measures taken in the field; attention to pro-poor tariff schemes.

Effective strategy to target vulnerable areas and areas lagging behind in terms of WASH coverage

In rural areas:

Attention given to vulnerable groups/households/household members within intervention communities, particularly in the ZimWASH project, with specifically adapted technology designs and monitoring and reporting processes

Good gender balance has been achieved in the water point committees, and efforts have been made to train more females as pump mechanics

In small towns:

Specific gender, equity and social inclusion component included in programme design

Vulnerable community representatives included in local project steering committees

Integration of considerations around pro-poor tariff setting in customer care staff training

U-Report (customer complaints SMS system) has helped vulnerable members of society communicate more easily with service providers in the towns where it was piloted

systematized. The B-pump promoted more recently, based on national standards, is not easy for the elderly, disabled and children to use (but some adaptations have been made locally)

Absence of (or lack of enforcement of) arrangements/guidance for pro-poor tariff setting (but poor households usually get water for free)

Innovation and scaling up

Innovative improvements on hand pump designs

Support to the development of RWIMS, and strong contribution to its upscaling, helping to improve the technology and monitoring approach as it was scaled up

Pilot of RapidPro as a real-time fault-reporting and monitoring system associated with RWIMS

Flexible, learning-while-doing approach adopted for small towns

Introduction of U-Report in small towns to facilitate user feedback to service providers and thus promote accountability mechanisms and performance incentives

Support to upscale and improve service level benchmarking in small towns to increase regulation and accountability for performance

Partnership with SNV to work on knowledge generation and management; coordination platforms used to share innovations and lessons

Critical building blocks for the institutionalization and sustainability of the RWIMS not yet fully in place

The challenging programming context in Zimbabwe over the evaluation period, and the ambitious programme targets within tight timeframes and donor requirements, may have limited UNICEF’s ability to engage in innovative approaches, especially for rural areas

Areas where UNICEF could have tested approaches and innovated more:

- Alternative management models, maintenance arrangements, and accountability/regulation mechanisms for rural areas

- Innovative ways to finance/support the local authorities and support piped network extensions and household connections in small towns




Innovations in small towns being scaled up by and through government bodies

A.4. Main recommendations The recommendations summarized below and developed at the end of the report flow from the findings of this case study and the country and global development context. Zimbabwe is one of the few countries that has yet to achieve the RWS-related Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target. Furthermore, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have set a new, even more ambitious agenda for the country, with an objective of universal access by 2030 and a focus on equity and sustainability of services.

These recommendations should be considered as a menu of options rather than a plan of action. The most appropriate options for UNICEF will depend on numerous factors including the dynamics in the sector, the wider strategic vision of the UNICEF country office regarding its assistance to the country, the resources at its disposal, the positioning of other RWS donors and stakeholders, and UNICEF’s analysis of its own comparative advantages and added value.

Support the development and implementation of a sustainability strategy for the RWS sector

1. Assist the Government in assessing the extent to which RWS services are technically, institutionally and environmentally sustainable, financially viable, and meet the demands of users (and non-users), with a view to identifying key sustainability bottlenecks. Data can be generated using the tools developed over the years such as RWIMS, RapidPro and U-Report, complemented by ad-hoc and more in-depth approaches such as problem tree analysis and sustainability checks (field surveys) focused on past UNICEF-supported interventions.

2. Ensure the outcomes of this analysis are incorporated into a formal, detailed, theory of change or medium-term action plan for the RWS sector as a whole, and into future UNICEF programme/project design, implementation strategies and monitoring-evaluation-learning processes. Some critical elements to be considered are listed below.

Develop a financing strategy for RWS services, identifying operation, maintenance and capital replacement costs, as well as funding sources.

Conduct surveys/studies and test alternative models for the management and maintenance of water services in rural areas.

Consider how the concepts of service-level regulation, public benchmarking and accountability mechanisms could be applied to/strengthened in the rural context for water supply and sanitation committees as well as service providers (for management and maintenance of water supplies).

Review RWIMS and develop a clear plan (and sector budget) for its management, quality assurance, use and long-term financing.

3. UNICEF should take better advantage of its position as a lead sector agency and conduit for sector funding to influence donor funding arrangements (longer term, with increased attention and budget dedicated to long-term outcomes and impacts, etc.) with a view to optimizing efficiency without compromising on quality and sustainability.

Continue to address the equity challenge



4. Further promote technology designs adapted to the needs of people with reduced mobility in rural areas, capitalizing on the ZimWASH project experience and taking advantage of the opportunity offered by the 2013 Water Policy.

5. Systematize the involvement of poor and vulnerable households in water committees as well as feedback/accountability mechanisms, based on the experience in small towns.

6. Continue to promote pro-poor tariff arrangements in small towns; learn from this experience and experiment of other organizations and countries to test adequate arrangements in rural areas that would support UNICEF’s and the sector agenda for both equity and sustainability agenda; this could involve a comparative study of various options.

7. Use the experience of the ZimWASH equity-focused monitoring and reporting system to mainstream it in UNICEF WASH programming as well as in the sector-wide RWIMS.

Continue efforts to strengthen programme effectiveness and efficiency

8. Increase the geographical concentration of field interventions, and the level of integrated programming (within WASH and with other sectors).

9. Investigate options for UNICEF’s procurement strategies to help strengthen the private sector at the local and national levels.

10. Engage in dialogue with partner NGOs to find ways to increase mutual partnership benefits.



B. Overview of the global evaluation

B.1. Rationale and objectives This country case study report is a component of the global evaluation of UNICEF’s drinking water supply programming in rural areas and small towns between 2006 and 2016. The global evaluation was commissioned by the Evaluation Office at UNICEF Headquarters in New York. It was designed to assess UNICEF’s experience in drinking water supply programming in rural areas and small towns to fill specific knowledge gaps, draw lessons and improve the appropriateness of UNICEF strategies globally and the quality of its programming in the field. In doing so, it will inform the development of the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) component of the next Strategic Plan 2018–2021 and guide UNICEF into the new Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) area. The evaluation also aims to contribute to global learning and promote UNICEF’s accountability to internal and external stakeholders. It examines both downstream work in service delivery and upstream work in strengthening the enabling environment for the rural and small town drinking water supply (RWS) sector at the national and global levels.

B.2. Evaluation design and criteria The global evaluation is structured around six main evaluation criteria and six key evaluation questions, listed in the first two columns of Table 1. The eight country case studies use the same six evaluation criteria and key evaluation questions. They form one component of the evidence base for the global evaluation, which also includes a review of UNICEF and non-UNICEF documents and databases, a global online survey and semi-structured interviews with a diversity of sector stakeholders. The areas of particular interest for the country case studies are listed in the third column of the table.

Table 1: Key global evaluation questions and areas of interest for the country case studies

Criteria Key global evaluation question

Areas of particular interest at country office level

Relevance Has UNICEF been a well-positioned, credible partner for national governments and major development agencies, demonstrating alignment and complementarity both globally and within countries?

UNICEF’s position in the field of drinking water supply in rural areas and small towns

The credibility, adaptation and complementarity of UNICEF’s activities with those of its partners and of the other major in-country players





Effectiveness To what extent has UNICEF a) achieved its global and country output and outcome level targets through quality programme implementation; and b) effectively contributed to the water-related Millennium Development Goal (MDG)?

Achievement of output and outcome level targets in-country, and contribution to the MDGs

Success of policy advocacy, capacity-building and knowledge generation/management activities

Quality of programme implementation

Efficiency Has UNICEF maximized the costs-results relationship by systematically integrating efficiency considerations into its activities at the global, regional and country levels, notably by promoting integrated programming and partnerships with other WASH and non-WASH initiatives?

Relationship between costs and results

Use of cost-efficient approaches and measures, including engagement in integrating the water supply intervention with other WASH (e.g. sanitation, hygiene) and non-WASH interventions

Equity What has been the level of equity-sensitivity in the design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of RWS activities at the global, regional and country levels?

Geographical targeting at the country level

Equity-sensitivity of UNICEF RWS programming, including in the monitoring and evaluation systems

Sustainability Has UNICEF integrated appropriate measures and tools at all levels and achieved a satisfactory level of sustainability in its drinking water supply programming in rural areas?

Evidence on the actual level of sustainability of past interventions

Extent to which the technical, financial, social, institutional and contextual factors known to support water supply sustainability have been taken into account in UNICEF’s water supply programming

Sustainability-lens in UNICEF monitoring and evaluation and information management systems





Innovation/upscaling Has UNICEF been able to identify and test new programmatic approaches and take them to scale if successful?

Private sector participation in the management of RWS services

Real-time monitoring

Sector regulation and accountability mechanisms

Innovative financial mechanisms to support access to the service

B.3. Role of country case studies Country case studies are not country evaluations. They are used to document some – but not all – of the overall evaluation questions and indicators. The objective of the country case studies is to bring additional evidence from the country/field level and document some country specificities, feeding into the global evaluation report. At the same time, the evaluative country case study draws findings and recommendations intended to be useful at the country level.

B.4. Zimbabwe country case study methodology

B.4.1. Data collection methods

Two members of the global evaluation team undertook a two-week visit to Zimbabwe, accompanied by a local consultant, and also by UNICEF staff. The visit took place in December 2016. For a full itinerary of the mission, see Annex 1.

a) Semi-structured interviews and (focus) group discussions

A total of 18 semi-structured interviews with national-level stakeholders were conducted during the country visit. People interviewed included representatives from local and national government, non-governmental organization (NGO) partners and other sector NGOs, development partners and UNICEF. See Annex 2 for a complete list of the stakeholders interviewed.

b) Field visits and meetings/interviews with local stakeholders

A field visit enabled the evaluation team to build a better understanding of the local context, interview local/sub-national stakeholders and rights holders, obtain an overview of UNICEF interventions during the evaluation period, triangulate information from documents and interviews, and collect (limited) field data, particularly on sustainability and equity aspects. The districts visited included Makonde, Chegutu and Vhungu (Gweru Rural District Council), together with the small towns of Mvurwi and Shurugwi. These districts and towns were chosen in order to develop a broad overview of UNICEF’s various programmes and programme activities during the evaluation period.

During field visits, meetings/focus group discussions involving between 9 and 17 people in three districts were held (see Annex 3 for list). In each of the six communities visited, the evaluation team used a structured observation protocol, which included obtaining qualitative information from focus group discussions with the water point committees/system operators, interviews with users of all water systems, and inspection of the physical aspects of the water supply systems. See Annex 4 for a list of the sites that were visited.



c) National and sub-national workshops

Workshops make it possible to collate feedback from a larger group of stakeholders than individual interviews and help build a certain level of consensus in responding to the evaluation questions, or at least ensure triangulation. It was for this reason that two workshops were held: one at the sub-national/local level and another at the country/national level.

A regional-level workshop was held in Gweru on 9 December 2016. A total of 22 people attended, representing rural district councils, provincial structures, NGOs and the private sector.

A national workshop was held on 14 December 2016, and was attended by 35 people, representing a diverse range of organizations drawn from central government, NGOs and funding partners. Individual participants were targeted due to their familiarity with UNICEF programming.

See Annex 5 for a list of participants in each workshop.

d) Document review

Several national government documents, national WASH sector documents, and UNICEF public and internal documents were reviewed. See Annex 6 for a list of these documents.

e) Meetings between the evaluation team and the UNICEF country office

An initial kick-off meeting was held with members of UNICEF’s WASH and Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation sections to further familiarize the evaluation team with the WASH programme, and to ask initial questions (see Annex 1). A wrap-up meeting was organized on 16 December 2016, at the end of the country visit. The evaluation team presented the key preliminary findings and general trends identified during the field visits, stakeholder/group interviews and workshops, and gathered feedback from participants. The wrap-up meeting was attended by UNICEF senior management, key WASH programme staff and a representative from the National Coordination Unit.

f) Review of the draft country case study report

The draft country case study report was reviewed by both the UNICEF Zimbabwe country office and the UNICEF Evaluation Office, and edited by the Evaluation Office in coordination with the evaluation team before finalization.

B.4.2. Limitations

As mentioned above, the aim of the country case study visits was to obtain information for the global evaluation, rather than to conduct a full country programme evaluation. The methodology was designed to collect robust information from several sources; however, findings were limited by the following issues:

the small number of communities visited, along with the lack of robust secondary data (on UNICEF scheme functionality, for example), makes the observed functionality findings, and other findings from the site visits, anecdotal rather than statistically representative;

examples of various UNICEF programmes were visited within three districts, but these three districts were not necessarily representative of all the districts in which UNICEF worked; and

the evaluation covered a period of 10 years, and the majority of UNICEF country office staff were not in place during the first few years of this period, which limited the evidence base for these years.



C. Country specificities regarding RWS

C.1. Poverty and vulnerability Zimbabwe is a landlocked country located in southern Africa. It has a population of approximately 16 million.1 After decades of economic growth, the country has been in decline since the late 1990s, experiencing several crashes and long periods of hyperinflation. According to the 2012 census, 67% of the population lives in rural areas. Rural poverty increased from 63% in 2003 to 76% in 2014 (Zimbabwe World Food Programme, 2016). The country is significantly affected by climate change.

C.2. Water resources and water supply coverage Zimbabwe is divided into several agro-ecological zones, with highlands (agro-ecological zones one to three) receiving higher rainfall per annum (500–1,000 mm) than the other zones. The semi-arid (less than 450 mm) Lowveld areas (agro-ecological zones four and five), where much of the rural poor are located, are particularly vulnerable to shifting climate patterns and erratic rainfall. Because mean annual rainfall is generally low and most rivers are not perennial, it is necessary to store water received during the rainy season (November to April) for use during the dry season. An extensive network of dams has been built throughout the country. These range from small dams in rural areas to large dams that supply water to major cities and for irrigation. Numerous boreholes and small, shallow, lower yielding wells have also been drilled for drinking water purposes, especially in rural areas for the dry season and dry years.

Rural Zimbabwe is facing several water challenges exacerbated by climate change, from falling groundwater levels/recharge to surface and groundwater pollution, with negative consequences on the reliability of the water supplies/services and public health. Water supply is becoming more expensive in two of the country’s agro-ecological zones.

In the mid-1990s, Zimbabwe had attained relatively high levels of service delivery in urban water supply, and was progressively increasing rural water access. However, the economic downturn during 2000–2009 resulted in a lack of capacities to manage the aging infrastructure, and restricted public investment in further increasing water access. The collapse of water revenues that started in the late 1990s and has continued over the last decade, together with the considerable ‘skills drain’ from the country and chronic government budget shortfalls, has led to a progressive decline in water supply infrastructure and service levels. The nationwide cholera outbreak in 2008 was a red-flag indicator that a critical situation had been reached in both rural and urban WASH services.

According to the WHO/UNICEF 2015 Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) report, the use of improved drinking water sources in rural areas fell from 71% in 1990 to 67% in 2015, and a significant 33% of the population is thus using water from unprotected sources. Zimbabwe is therefore one of the few countries that not only failed to reach the water supply related MDG target, but has also experienced a decrease in the proportion of its population with access to safe water.

1 United Nations Statistics Division data for 2016: http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=ZIMBABWE

http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=ZIMBABWE



Highlighting the historical inequalities between rural and urban areas in terms of services, 98% of people without an improved drinking water source live in rural areas, while 48% of the rural population practices open defecation (Evidence on Demand, 2015). The rural and small town water supply sector in Zimbabwe shows significant inequities: not only are rural areas neglected, but there is also a strong imbalance between regions and genders (Demographic Health Survey 2010/11) as well as wealth quintiles (JMP report, 2017).

Figure 1: WASH coverage and cholera epidemics by region

Source: Government of Zimbabwe–UNICEF WASH Programme, presentation to evaluation team, 6 December 2015 (PPT)

C.3. National RWS policy and strategy, and level of implementation

Despite the challenges at the service delivery level, Zimbabwe has a relatively advanced and stable policy environment, with established institutional frameworks at all levels.

The Zimbabwe WASH sector is coordinated by the National Action Committee, which oversees three subsectors: rural WASH, urban WASH and water resources management. The National Action Committee is an inter-ministerial steering committee that provides policy guidance to the entire WASH sector. There is also a National Coordination Unit, housed within the Ministry of Water Resources Development and Management, which provides day-to-day administration of the WASH sector on behalf of the National Action Committee. There are coordination sub-committees at the national, provincial (Provincial Water Supply and Sanitation Sub-Committee – PWSSC) and district (District Water Supply and Sanitation Committee – DWSSC) levels. These sub-committees provide policy guidance and technical support to the Provincial Development Committee and Rural District Councils (RDCs) respectively, and coordinate WASH activities in areas under their jurisdiction. UNICEF has supported these committees, which played a key role during the cholera response, and also liaised with the WASH Cluster at the national level (the cluster meetings, hosted by UNICEF, have since become monthly meetings).

For service delivery, rural water supply is managed under a community-based management system by voluntary water point committees (WPCs). The RDCs or District Development Fund, together with other agencies in the DWSSC, are expected to support and monitor these WPCs.



The District Development Fund is responsible for providing and maintaining rural infrastructure within the communal, resettlement and small-scale commercial farming areas of Zimbabwe.

Small town water supply systems are managed either by the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) or the urban councils. ZINWA’s mandate, derived from an act of parliament, is to sustainably deliver quality water to all communities (rural and urban) whilst making strategic water infrastructure investments that facilitate human and economic development. The councils are housed within the Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and Urban Development, which provides some degree of support and monitoring to them, as does the Urban Councils Association of Zimbabwe.

To supplement the Water Act and the ZINWA Act of 1998, and following the new constitution of 2013, the ministry in charge of water supply2 issued a revised Water Policy in 2013. This policy sets out the broad frameworks for water ownership, water resource management, service delivery, regulation and financing, among other key areas.

Among the main advances set out in the 2013 Water Policy is the identification and distinction between water service authorities (rural and urban district councils, which own the infrastructure) and water service providers (which operate the assets/infrastructure and can be either public, private, community or mixed). In terms of implementation, the policy suggests a phased approach, setting out a two-step process with an initial five-year ‘recovery phase’ up till 2018, followed by a ‘normalized’ phase. It also sets out the intent to establish a regulatory authority, and opens the door to more flexible technology standards: Zimbabwe has relatively high engineering standards for the water sector compared to other sub-Saharan countries, much of which were developed before the progressive economic decline. In addition, the policy seeks to ensure better coordination among stakeholders, and in practice, coordination continues to improve, both through the National Action Committee and with the support of UNICEF.

Although the institutions and policies are in place, much work remains to be done at the implementation level to ensure they are translated into service development and improvements for users. For example, progress has been slow in separating the service providers and service authorities, especially in small towns, and there has been limited progress in establishing a sector regulator. Moreover, despite the relatively high level of education of many government employees, the country’s economic situation has severely restricted the operational capacity of these staff.

2 The ministry in charge of water, at the time, was called the Ministry of Water Resources Development and Management.



D. UNICEF RWS programme description

The UNICEF RWS programme in Zimbabwe has evolved over time, in line with the changing context and needs of the sector. The programming in 2006 (before the cholera outbreak) was relatively small-scale and development-oriented. The large-scale cholera outbreak in 2008 shifted the focus to emergency response operations (not covered under this evaluation). Post-crisis, work focused on ‘getting the water flowing’ in both rural and urban areas. The small town and rural WASH projects implemented by UNICEF helped limit a further decline in the access rates to water and service levels in the rural and small town areas of Zimbabwe, and also expanded access to new areas.

UNICEF’s RWS programming during the evaluation period comprised three WASH projects:

ZimWASH (2006–2010) – European Union Water Facility- and UNICEF-funded

This project covered six rural districts and included installing new and rehabilitating existing boreholes, creating nutrition gardens for income-generation and vulnerability targeting, promoting self-supply through supporting the upgrade of family wells, conducting district-level research and learning initiatives, and providing capacity building to DWSSCs and WPCs. It also supported some policy dialogue activities. The programme was slanted towards people affected by HIV and orphans, and was implemented by a consortium comprising UNICEF, the National Coordination Unit, DWSSCs, Mvuramanzi Trust, the Institute of Water and Sanitation Development, and IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. Work done under the project to rehabilitate and construct water supply schemes reportedly benefitted 173,825 people. The project also trained 673 WPCs and 312 village pump mechanics (VPMs).

Rural WASH project (2012–2016), SDC- and DFID-funded

The Rural WASH project covered 33 of the country’s 68 rural districts. It included a major implementation component to repair and drill new boreholes in unserved villages, plus repair and construct piped water schemes and strengthen spare parts supply chains through private sector involvement. The programme had a capacity-building component that encompassed all levels and aimed to: develop the operational capacity of the PWSSCs and DWSSCs through which the programme was delivered (together with NGOs); train WPCs and VPMs at the community level; and create an enabling environment at the sector level (particularly policy-related work). It was an integrated water and hygiene project, with a sanitation component that was only implemented in selected wards, while the water supply and hygiene component covered the wider districts. The programme had a target of 3,147,169 beneficiaries, and received funding from the Department for International Development (DFID; 33 million GBP) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC; 5.8 million CHF).

Small town WASH project (2013–2017), DFAT- funded

UNICEF first started to work in small towns as part of the emergency response to the major cholera outbreak in 2008 (programme not covered under this evaluation). Subsequently, it worked on a project funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT, Australia) that supported the development of water and sanitation service capacities and functions in 14 small towns. Activities included carrying out ‘quick win’ work on the water and wastewater infrastructure to resume good quality service provision, providing capacity building to the local authority/ZINWA service providers, and undertaking considerable work on customer engagement and hygiene promotion (see Figure 2). The programme had a target of 350,000 beneficiaries.



Throughout the evaluation period, UNICEF has supported the development and strengthening of sector policies, capacities and coordination mechanisms (see section E below).

Figure 2: Types of small town project interventions and training



Source: Government of Zimbabwe–UNICEF WASH Programme, Presentation to evaluation team, 6 December 2015 (PPT)



E. Evaluation findings

E.1. Relevance UNICEF’s positioning, role, credibility, comparative advantage and added value in the

RWS sector over the last 10 years

UNICEF is regarded as a lead sector agency for RWS, with a high level of credibility with donors, government (at all levels) and NGOs in the sector. Its positioning and credibility are supported by several factors.

UNICEF is recognized as having strong comparative advantages and added value in the sector. Its neutrality as a United Nations agency (unlike NGOs that can sometimes be perceived as pushing specific agendas) has helped strengthen its credibility in the eyes of the Government. Unlike NGOs, which may have their field access restricted during election periods, or even be expelled from the country, UNICEF is present and can work throughout the country. UNICEF’s ability to implement at scale (half the country for the Rural WASH project) was highlighted by interviewees: it managed and still manages the implementation of larger programmes. Its ability to mobilize funding is a mark of confidence from donors. UNICEF has positioned itself as a preferred partner and the main conduit for donor funding. It serves as the liaison between NGOs and donors and, to an extent, between Government and donors. Another comparative advantage is UNICEF’s ability, as a United Nations agency, to access, closely collaborate with and influence central and local government bodies and therefore to contribute to policy, strategic and sector coordination in addition to field (downstream) implementation. Overall, UNICEF is considered to have complemented other sector players well.

Stakeholders generally perceive UNICEF to have strong technical expertise in both development and emergency settings, as well as the willingness to be flexible and learn/adapt. For example, despite UNICEF initially having no real experience of working in small towns, people now feel that UNICEF has developed the expertise required in this field. The relevance of the small town WASH project has been unanimously acknowledged, both as an initial emergency project during the cholera outbreak and, subsequently, as a development/post-crisis project delivering longer-term sustainability and institutional strengthening. In rural areas, stakeholders validated the relevance of the UNICEF programme due to its broad coverage and pragmatic implementation strategy (focus on basic repairs to ‘get water flowing’, rather than on more comprehensive rehabilitation). The main difference between the urban and rural components of the programme was that in rural areas, a ‘one size fits all’ approach (boreholes and B-pumps, plus one piped scheme per district) was adopted whereas in urban areas, more of a ‘learning by doing approach’ was used, and interventions were also based on town-specific assessments.

In terms of alignment to government policy/strategies and donors, UNICEF, through its direct partnership with Government, has helped ensure programmes are aligned with government policies and standards, while also contributing to policy development, and indeed has used its programming at scale to test approaches that can become sector norms. UNICEF has managed to adapt to DFID conditions and to find pragmatic ways to deliver programmes despite the restricted funding flows to Government, while enabling dormant government bodies to be involved in implementing programme activities.

From the Government side, the National Coordination Unit and Ministry of Local Government are very satisfied with their collaboration with UNICEF. A senior representative from the Ministry of Local Government mentioned that the small town WASH project was their “favourite project, we are in love with the UNICEF project”. When asked if UNICEF had credibility in the



rural and small town water sub-sector, one sub-national workshop participant responded that “UNICEF is incredible!” One member of another NGO mentioned during the national workshop that “UNICEF is running the show”.

Some donors perceive UNICEF to be a lower-risk channel for programme delivery than NGOs. Donors also appreciate that UNICEF has been working in a professional manner (with good quality assurance processes), transparently and accountably (with relatively robust financial management and reporting systems). Whilst programme support costs are not always popular with donors, DFID mentioned that overall, UNICEF’s unit costs are comparable to other delivery arrangements.

Conclusion on relevance: UNICEF has been a well-positioned, active and highly valued partner through a difficult period in Zimbabwe, responding in a professional manner to priority needs in the cholera response, small town water supply and rural water services. It has added value in the sector while maintaining alignment with both government policies and donors’ requirements.

E.2. Effectiveness Degree to which UNICEF-funded programmes have produced the desired results through quality implementation, including in policy advocacy, capacity building, and knowledge management

The ZimWASH project achieved or exceeded all targets. The Rural WASH project got off to a difficult start, which led to delays. Its performance improved during the last two years of the project, however, and it was generally perceived to have been fairly effective with all targets met in terms of borehole repairs and new borehole installation in rural areas and population served. Once completed, the project endline survey and evaluation will provide a clearer indication of its effectiveness. The few WPCs visited in rural areas during the field visit were operational (and their members had been trained under the project), and there was a clear acknowledgement that water provision and management were their responsibility. Committee members were aware of the governance mechanisms, a caretaker was available to grease the pump, and most members knew whom to contact in the event of a breakdown. Fostering acceptance of the need to pay for water point maintenance, albeit through very low amounts, is a significant challenge and needs re-enforcing if sustainable water provision is to be achieved.

The small town WASH project has been a highly effective and greatly appreciated partnership between Government, local councils and UNICEF, and has created a step change in service provision. In small towns, effectiveness is also seen in behaviour change in terms of users giving feedback to councils on service issues, conducting clean-up campaigns, increasingly participating in council processes (budgeting) and improved bill payment. UNICEF supported the development or scaling up of management information systems such as Promun for billing and also the piloting of U-Report, which have improved the accountability of service providers, helped double the revenue collection rate, and increased collection efficiency.

The quality of construction observed during the field visits was generally found to be satisfactory. UNICEF has engaged engineering consulting firms to oversee construction processes (see also section E.4 on sustainability). Interviewees mentioned poor quality spare parts to be an issue initially. Efforts have since been made to establish standards and quality control mechanisms.

UNICEF has made efforts to build the technical capacities of all stakeholders (see section D above) and establish project governance mechanisms at various levels. It has implemented its RWS programme through government agencies and contributed cash and training to national, provincial and district WASH committees. Project steering committees, quarterly reviews and joint monitoring visits have helped bring agencies together, strengthened coordination and



relationships, and facilitated problem-solving on the various programmes/projects. This is particularly the case for small town review meetings with the town clerks/engineers. UNICEF’s significant support to the National Coordination Unit at the national level, and to the DWSSCs and PWSSCs, likely made such bodies willing to support UNICEF programme delivery, helping to increase its effectiveness. One NGO stakeholder, however, claimed that this was at the expense of other programmes or organizations, which may not provide the same degree of support (or allowances).

At the upstream/sector level, over the last decade, UNICEF has been a key stakeholder in supporting the National Coordination Unit as well as in sector policy and coordination (both under emergency and development agendas). Examples of this include supporting the 2013 Water Policy development process, supporting a Joint Sector Review in 2011, leading the WASH Cluster, and co-leading (and hosting) subsequent national coordination meetings. UNICEF has also supported the development and scale-up of monitoring mechanisms, such as the Rural WASH Information Management System (RWIMS), and the introduction of U-Report system in small towns, which fosters stakeholder accountability.

UNICEF commissioned five evaluations and a few studies and surveys during the period under review,3 partnered with SNV on knowledge management, and provided platforms through which to share lessons learnt in the sector, such as the sector coordination meetings. Nevertheless, UNICEF could have generated more evidence on its considerable experience in RWS programming; indeed, other development partners have invested more in this area. In terms of internal knowledge management and its impact on effectiveness, the considerable staff turnover within the UNICEF team has been a key challenge as it has created knowledge gaps and affected the continuity of ideas and approaches, particularly before and after the cholera outbreak.

Conclusion on effectiveness: Programme targets have been met or exceeded. Available data indicates good quality infrastructure as well as improvements at the outcome level, which contributed to eradicating cholera. UNICEF invested significantly to build capacities and strengthen the sector enabling environment. Knowledge generation and management is an area of relative weakness.

E.3. Efficiency Degree to which UNICEF maximized the costs-results relationship by systematically integrating efficiency considerations into its programme design and management

As pointed out above, UNICEF’s RWS-related projects achieved or exceeded all targets. During the ZimWASH project, savings realized during the hyper-inflationary era were ploughed back to provide more WASH facilities, for example, 38 additional boreholes were drilled in areas in need within the project districts.4

UNICEF’s attention to efficiency – and related challenges – can be seen in the successive changes in its approach to procurement.

In the Rural WASH project, the procurement process evolved from decentralized (local procurement by DWSS) to centralized (national-level bulk procurement by UNICEF) arrangements, before switching back to a partially decentralized process (for borehole drilling, where NGO partners are in charge of procurement). Issues with the initial decentralized approach included quality assurance and resulted in UNICEF centralizing procurement nationally to ensure proper quality control procedures were in place for selecting drillers and

3 The extent to which evaluation findings have been effectively used to improve RWS programming is uncertain because a management response has been formulated and its implementation tracked for only one evaluation. 4 ZimWASH Project 2006–2011: End-Term Evaluation Report, December 2011.



monitoring the quality of the pumps and spare parts. The decision to centralize procurement was triggered by: 1) donors refusing to allow funds to be channelled through government bodies; 2) the lack of capacities (and quality) among small local suppliers and the lack of competition in the water sector; and 3) the lack of procurement and contract management capacities within sub-national government bodies at the start of the programme. The evaluation of the ZimWASH project noted that centralized, bulk procurement of project materials and inputs achieved economies of scale, and that “the offshore bulk procurement also ensured availability of materials at very difficult times in Zimbabwe”. It also highlighted, however, that “whilst bulk buying was unavoidable given the prevailing situation, it however created challenges particularly with cement, which in some cases allegedly hardened and expired before it was used (…) and some substandard equipment especially for borehole rehabilitation and repair, which could not be returned as the guarantee period had expired”. One UNICEF staff member remarked that while UNICEF’s centralized, bulk/offshore procurement was “able to achieve efficiency, it was killing the market for local and smaller scale suppliers”. Another issue faced during the centralization phase was the slow procurement by UNICEF, partly due to internal inefficiencies between the programme and supply departments (since improved). The NGOs’ reliance on UNICEF to supply hand pump materials and drillers resulted in a ‘blame game’ whereby the NGOs blamed UNICEF if there was a delay in supplying items, and UNICEF blamed the NGOs for the slow pace of activity implementation. A third issue mentioned by numerous interviewees was that NGOs’ drilling costs were lower than those of the UNICEF centrally procured contracts, whereas the rationale for central procurement was not only to minimize risks but also to drive down costs. However, decentralizing the procurement of drilling contracts to NGOs could only (and did) take place once there were adequate quality control procedures in place, and once the (district and province) government bodies had the capacities and resources to validate siting and supervise drilling works. Indeed, UNICEF has actively invested in increasing the financial and contractual management capacities of NGOs on the one side, and improving the monitoring capacities of districts and provinces on the other.

With regard to drilling contracts, UNICEF has applied the ‘no water, no payment’ approach whereby contractors are not paid for dry boreholes. Drilling companies seem to factor the risk into their pricing strategy. This has helped UNICEF reduce financial risks and increase value for money.

The findings on small town procurement and contracting suggest that, generally, decisions on procurement are based on a consistent process to assess capacities and programme setting, and with a view to reduce risks and maximize results. Nevertheless, whilst the relatively rigid contracts were good in terms of transparency and use of a robust process, given the country environment (weak private sector, import issues, challenges obtaining large bank guarantees), some aspects of the rigid system sometimes led to delays in disbursement and in terminating the contract of a poor-performing contractor using inadequate equipment or delivering poor work quality. An issue in the contractual arrangements for small towns has been that the responsibility of local authorities in field supervision is not explicated, resulting in contractors feeling no obligation towards them and not informing or involving the town engineers and technical staff.

UNICEF’s programme monitoring and reporting system requires that implementing partners present their fund utilization figures together with their programme achievements. For the Rural WASH project, UNICEF introduced a consolidated monthly reporting system that graphically showed the funds disbursed and targets achieved by each partner. This helped the NGOs internally monitor performance, resulted in increased accountability and drive for efficient programme delivery, and reportedly reduced the ‘blame-game’ with UNICEF. Some NGOs felt UNICEF forced them to squeeze their overhead and general costs, possibly as UNICEF itself was being squeezed by donors’ budget-related constraints/requirements. Whilst one UNICEF interviewee remarked on successfully reducing implementing partners’ overheads to increase efficiencies, some implementing partners mentioned they felt more like sub-contractors than



partners. This raises the question whether UNICEF has made the best use of the potential contribution and know-how of its implementing partners in a strategic rather than transactional way, with a view to maximizing mutual benefits. Some interviewed NGO staff also expressed the view that UNICEF should do more in terms of ‘shielding’ its implementing partners from the sometimes unrealistic expectations of donors, instead of passing these expectations down to them. On the other hand, DFID was satisfied that UNICEF was able to align with NGOs in terms of overall unit costs, despite higher drilling costs.

Another source of efficiency lies in the use of government bodies and highly skilled staff to deliver many of the programme activities. Government staff are already on the government payroll, thus using them negates the need to pay NGO staff costs. For the funding support provided to district and province water committees, UNICEF may be providing allowances that are higher than NGO rates, sometimes creating issues for NGOs delivering other programmes with Government. By funding sector coordination platforms at all levels (from National Coordination Unit to district), UNICEF helps facilitate Government support to the project, which likely has efficiency benefits. Furthermore, interviews and focus group discussions conducted by the evaluators of the ZimWASH project revealed that this approach increased the level of ownership (and thus post-implementation sustainability) and that “project use of staff from existing and permanent government structures ensures that the impact of the capacity development efforts goes beyond WASH projects as the knowledge and skills gained have generic application”. Several examples were identified where the project funds and benefits positively impacted other WASH and non-WASH activities managed by province and district committees.

The ZimWASH evaluation noted an area of inefficiency in the project design, related to the lack of geographical concentration of activities. High dispersion of beneficiary wards and communities resulted in a limited ‘net project contribution’ and high mobilization and field supervision costs, notably during construction.

In terms of integrated programming activities, the Rural WASH project has implemented sanitation only in selected wards due to fund limitation/prioritization, while the water supply and hygiene components have been implemented district-wide. Coordination/integration with other (non-WASH) sectors was also not evident, although the DWSSCs and PWSSCs are multi-disciplinary. The UNICEF Zimbabwe country office has not used an area-based programming approach due to different targeting criteria and programme requirements of the various sectors. This has reduced opportunities to achieve synergistic outcomes for beneficiaries and, possibly, reduce operational costs. An exception was the ZimWASH project, which combined WASH interventions with a nutrition gardens component, using the water supplied to people affected by HIV/vulnerable households for irrigation, as well as community water supply.

As opposed to UNICEF’s approach in rural areas, the small town programme has a systematic package of WASH in all towns, including waste management. Integration with other non-WASH activities in the field was relatively limited,5 although the town-level project steering committees and national-level programme management team are inter-sectoral, including health and education.

Conclusion on efficiency: UNICEF has adapted its procurement, contracting and implementation strategy to the evolving sector context and capacities over time, and has made efforts to drive down its programme costs and minimize risks. This may have been to the disadvantage of its implementing partners and the local private sector. An area of weakness

5 Outputs included: establishment of health clubs in schools; tracking of WASH-related diseases by urban councils through the project steering committees; and establishment of nutrition gardens by some community health clubs as a means of improving nutritional status and also as an income generating activity.



is the geographical dispersion of activities and the suboptimal level of programmatic integration of RWS with sanitation and other, non-WASH interventions.

E.4. Sustainability UNICEF’s contribution to RWS sector strengthening and sustainable services

Observed sustainability: In the absence of nationwide datasets on functionality (RWIMS could not provide this data at the time of review) and the lack of UNICEF monitoring data on the sustainability of its programmes, it was not possible to compare the functionality and sustainability levels of UNICEF programmes to those of other programmes or wider sector averages. The few systems inspected were functional at the time of the field visit; however, this evidence was anecdotal and not statistically representative of UNICEF’s RWS programming as a whole. Issues likely to affect the sustainability of UNICEF-supported systems, and the efforts made to create sustainability building blocks, are presented below.

Rural areas

Financial: This is a relatively weak area at the rural/community level. There has been limited emphasis on preventative maintenance and consideration of annual recurrent (operation and maintenance) costs to guide user contributions and savings. The community contributions to maintenance costs seemed low, and the approach to fund collection appeared somewhat reactive, despite guidance being available.6 Sanctions for non-payment by users were not applied in some of the communities visited, but were applied in others. It was acknowledged that challenges existed (inflation, cash availability); however, it was felt that more could be done to guide communities in applying tariff-setting, enforcement and revenue generation methods. Indeed, one UNICEF staff member remarked that it was not appropriate to use the word ‘tariffs’ in relation to rural water supply, giving an insight into the challenges that need to be addressed to change mindsets in the sector, particularly among the users. There was no lifecycle cost-type review of requisite sector funding to enable districts and Government to allocate budgets accordingly. In 2016, as part of the Rural WASH project exit strategy, district WASH committees developed a sustainability strategy, and some have allocated funding for ongoing support (RWIMS, major repairs/capital replacement). Whilst this is a positive initiative, designing and undertaking an exit strategy only a few months before the end of the programme suggests more could have been done to consider post-project sustainability from the outset, and at the upstream/sector level.

Institutional: The collapse of the economy and slow sector policy development potentially created an unfavourable environment for testing systems and management models as alternatives to B-pump and community-based management models. Interviewed WPC members were clear on their roles, however, and were in contact with VPMs. The WPCs’ responsibilities for minor/major repairs could be further clarified, especially as some repairs that were financed by the Rural WASH project fell into the minor repair category and so should normally have been dealt with by the community rather than by the supporting agency. The VPMs received a 14-day training (a significant duration compared to usual practice in the sector). They were available to assist the communities and equipped with adequate tools. However, the whole maintenance and VPM business model seems insufficiently thought through: for example, some VPMs were looking after only five handpumps, which does not form a viable business, and had gaps in their linkage with spare parts supply chains. The programme used permanent government staff/bodies, reactivating the district and province committees and helping them to supervise construction (certification mechanisms), monitor

6 Guide on community-based management for RWS. Given historical hyperinflation, it is perhaps understandable that communities are concerned about saving funds for maintenance, although this was not necessarily mentioned as the underlying cause of the lack of proactive user payments.



NGOs and support communities. However, it is unclear how sustainable the level of funding is, particularly the funding to the National Coordination Unit, whose costs are essentially bankrolled by UNICEF. The RWIMS could provide a good platform for evidence-based decision-making, as well as future asset management – if it is used to its full potential and extended to all provinces/districts.

Technical: There are indications that the maintenance and village pump mechanics business model as designed may not always be profitable for the private sector and therefore not sustainable. After initial issues with quality control on spare parts in the Rural WASH project, UNICEF has added value to the sector by helping to establish standards and processes for quality control/inspection of spare parts, drilling and pumps. UNICEF specifically addressed the issue of spare parts supply chains in the Rural WASH project by engaging private sector suppliers and retailers. However, the initiative was undermined by UNICEF’s centralized (rather than local) procurement and subsidized supply of spare parts to the districts. Some water points visited were operating with poor head works, as the focus has been on essential repairs/replacements, meaning there is a risk that other higher-cost units may fail in the coming years. The new water points visited seemed to be of good quality. Fences to protect against animal intrusion were seen at all the water points visited, although they seemed ineffective at preventing smaller animals (such as dogs and goats) from entering. The lack of a needs assessment at the beginning of the project may have led to the adoption of a ‘one size fits all’ approach, which did not include family wells or other options (unlike the earlier ZimWASH project), or a wider range of technology options (aside from one piped scheme per district). The initial emergency response/post-crisis and resilience context may explain why the focus was placed on ‘getting water flowing’ first.

Figure 3: A recently drilled borehole and B-type bush pump in Tongogara village community, Chegutu rural district council

Source: Evaluation team

Small towns

Financial: Unlike for rural areas, the programme has undertaken many initiatives to boost the revenue collection rate in small towns, including installing and delivering training on billing software, operation and maintenance planning with the councils (showing requisite costs), and customer care to strengthen willingness to pay. Councils are now budgeting for water and have ring-fenced water revenues. The Ministry of Local Government is now reviewing annual



budgets and making efforts to ensure that tariffs cover operation and maintenance costs. Although operation and maintenance costs are still not being fully recovered in towns, revenue collection rates have increased substantially within a short period of time. This trend must be continued to ensure sustainability of services in small towns. The billing systems implemented have improved the integrity and acceptance of bills by consumers, which has helped improve bill payment collection rates. While this increase is commendable, there is scope (and need) to further increase the revenue collection rate to ensure sustainable service delivery.

Institutional: The service providers have been trained in operation and maintenance and customer care, seem highly motivated and reportedly take great pride in their work. The Ministry of Local Government provides substantial support and engagement on water supply services. Fault-reporting systems have been established, and community volunteers, residents’ associations and health clubs have been set up to strengthen the community–service provider dialogue. Fault-reporting has apparently strengthened relationships between councils and residents. Residents’ attendance at council budget review meetings has reportedly improved. UNICEF contributes to the World Bank Service Level Benchmarking initiative, which helps councils to report on and internally monitor key performance indicators, and also establishes healthy competition among councils to strive for excellence.

Technical: The infrastructure constructed was generally of good quality, and multi-level efforts were in place to monitor construction work. Overall, the technologies installed seemed appropriate (it will be useful to monitor sustainability of chemical dosing pumps over the long term), and supply chains were apparently available in-country. There were still some issues with repair rates, as seen in Shurugwi.

Figure 4: A rehabilitated pumping station in Mvurwi town



Source: Evaluation team

At the upstream level

UNICEF has played a key role in building the capacity of Government and communities to operate and maintain the systems. Their ability to continue activities post-project, however, will be limited by the country’s overall economic context, especially in rural areas.

UNICEF has not been systematically monitoring sustainability in its own programmes, or considerably contributing to the sector agenda on sustainability until recently, for example, through advocacy or specific research. Its current support to the development and scaling up of the RWIMS is a major contribution to the sector. RWIMS has the potential to build the datasets required to provide increased focus, evidence and analysis on sustainability, and develop sustainability-related activities.

Conclusion on sustainability: UNICEF and its partners have made remarkable efforts to address the sustainability challenge in small town water supply. These need to be continued in order to further increase revenue collection and enhance the financial viability and technical sustainability of the service. By contrast, there is scope to improve the management arrangements, VPM system and tariff setting/user payments for rural water services. There is some evidence that in rural areas, UNICEF approached sustainability at a late stage in the programme cycle, as part of its ‘exit strategy’, rather than incorporating it at the programme design stage. At the sector level, UNICEF’s investment in capacity building and participation in the development of the RWIMS have supported the sustainability agenda.

E.5. Equity UNICEF’s consideration for the population groups most in need in its geographical and beneficiary targeting, in programme design and implementation (both downstream and upstream), and in monitoring and evaluation

Rural areas

The ZimWASH project evaluation found that “the use of local government and civil society structures in the selection of project [areas and] beneficiaries using locally defined vulnerability indicators and locally available documents (orphans and other vulnerable children register, village heads registers and home-based care programme records) proved to be effective in targeting the most vulnerable”. Furthermore, the project explicitly targeted vulnerable groups within selected communities: people affected by HIV, elderly people, people with disabilities and orphans. Results were monitored and reported separately for these groups. The evaluation noted that “provision of family and household water sources equipped with rope and wash pumps enabled the physically challenged, aged, children and chronically ill to provide water for themselves within the homestead. The lifting device is light to operate for the vulnerable.” The evaluation also found that women were encouraged to and actually participated in WPCs, but did not generally hold influential posts such as that of WPC chairperson, and did not have the opportunity to become VPMs, which can be “attributed to socio-cultural values and practices” in rural Zimbabwe.7

For the Rural WASH project, districts were selected based on various criteria, including coverage and WASH-related diseases (including cholera). Within the districts, specific wards were selected using vulnerability criteria (mainly weighted towards coverage/access), but this seemed to only apply to sanitation activities, as water-related activities, particularly repair works, were undertaken district-wide. Criteria and checklists for determining the locations of

7 ZimWASH Project 2006–2011: End-Term Evaluation Report, December 2011



new sites were also developed, and externally verified by PWSSCs. In an effort to avoid/minimize the politicization of the district/site selection process, UNICEF worked with the National Coordination Unit to establish clear selection criteria, which focused on WASH indicators, risk of cholera and other vulnerabilities. The project did not include the same strong equity focus as the ZimWASH project, but some of the lessons learnt from the ZimWASH project were integrated. In the project intervention villages visited during the country mission, WPCs generally seem gender balanced and efforts were being made to train women as VPMs. One experience from ZimWASH that was not continued was the handpump designs adapted to the needs of vulnerable people. The B-pump installed under the Rural WASH Project is not very easy to use for the elderly, disabled and children. However, it is the nationwide standard, and some adaptations have been done locally. There seemed to be limited guidance on setting maintenance contributions, including on how to ensure affordable tariffs for the poorest and most vulnerable. However, WPC members interviewed indicated that the most vulnerable were not expected to pay the water tariff.

Small towns

The small towns targeted by the WASH project funded by DFAT were chosen based on the following criteria: towns with critical WASH needs and where no other partners were working; towns in which UNICEF had provided water but had not addressed sewerage; and towns where quick wins had been made but still required further institutional, technical and financial strengthening. There was no system expansion included in the project, which is understandable given the project focus on rehabilitation and time/funding constraints; however, in some cases, this may have prevented some poor areas not connected to the piped scheme from benefitting from the programme.

Gender, equity and social inclusion were a specific project component. The establishment of the project steering committees at the town level and the programme management team for the national level programme operations has increased the ‘soft skills’ on WASH of the various government counterparts. The local steering committees included vulnerable community representatives, and wheelchair access initiatives made it easier for vulnerable households to access the service. Capacity building of council staff to raise awareness on gender and disability was part of the project. Some of the urban councils have demonstrated tangible outputs such as construction of ramps for the disabled and printing of gender equality messages on council bills/notices. UNICEF mentioned that the customer care training component covered various aspects of pro-poor tariff setting, and councils seemed to apply social tariffs in high density areas (below average recurrent costs) and higher tariffs in low density areas.

The SMS-based feedback system U-Report introduced in five pilot towns reportedly enabled the more vulnerable community members to provide feedback to the local councils (see below).

Conclusion on equity: UNICEF Zimbabwe has followed many of the best practices in the WASH/RWS sector in terms of integration of equity measures throughout the project cycle. Possible areas for improvement appear to be: the generalization/systematization of technologies better adapted to the needs of people with reduced mobility; pro-poor tariff arrangements; involvement of vulnerable groups in the feedback/accountability mechanisms; and equity-lensed monitoring and reporting. Successful experiences and lessons from ZimWASH and small town projects are available for application in other/future RWS projects.

E.6. Innovation UNICEF’s introduction of innovation and innovation scale up the over the evaluation period



Rural areas

Given that the Rural WASH project was the largest rural programme in the country and had the potential to influence policy, some interviewees were disappointed that this project was relatively lacking in innovation. One NGO interviewee referred to it as a “bog standard programme”, when it could have been visionary, especially on the topic of service delivery models (for example, private sector participation in service management). Although the viability of private sector engagement in the sector is not assured in the current context, there was still scope to adapt existing models. Some mentioned that UNICEF’s ‘space’ to innovate may have been somewhat constrained by the challenging programming context and initial delays to the Rural WASH project, which led to subsequent time pressures to deliver, and may therefore have forced UNICEF to focus more on quantitative achievements than new thinking. Others report that no innovation budget or time was included in the Rural WASH project. In contrast to the Rural WASH project, the ZimWASH programme tested a few alternative designs for handpumps, and had a specific component on district-level learning and research in six districts (the evaluation team did not obtain information on the outcome of these initiatives). The joint monitoring and project coordination meetings that UNICEF organized were mentioned as being good platforms for sharing experiences and best practice including on innovations.

At the upstream/sector level: The development of the Rural Water Information Management System (RWIMS) in 2014, and UNICEF’s ability to upgrade it and take it to scale in less than two years, was a major achievement in digital monitoring. Though not initiated by UNICEF, it was significantly developed and upscaled across half the country as part of the UNICEF-funded Rural WASH project. RWIMS is impressive technology and was developed by a local provider, which the Government preferred to Akvo. The piloting and upscaling process was progressive and included periodic reviews before the system was rolled out to the next stage. In some districts, district committees are investing their own funds to update RWIMS.

The RapidPro application is an extension of RWIMS, and was developed in 2016 for rural water point maintenance as a real-time fault-reporting and monitoring system. It is currently at the pilot stage, but seems to have considerable potential for breakdown reporting, with RWIMS being used more for periodically updating the asset inventory. The combination of RWIMS and RapidPro has the potential to significantly improve the turnaround time for reporting breakdowns and providing vital information for decision-making at the policy level, if building blocks required to institutionalize and sustain them in the long term are established. The capacity of this innovation to spur action and reduce breakdown times still needs to be tested.

A potentially missed opportunity was the lack of UNICEF’s engagement in RWS service regulation, possibly in collaboration with other partners, while the 2013 Water Policy indicated the readiness of the Government to advance this agenda.

Small towns

In small towns, a relatively new area of programming for the organization, UNICEF Zimbabwe took a flexible and adaptable approach, helping to provide a platform for knowledge sharing among the councils as well as the line ministry in order to facilitate upscaling.

Reported innovations include the urban fault-reporting system that was introduced in 2016 with the assistance of UNICEF’s communication section and which is being piloted in five towns. This innovation is improving accountability. Key reported benefits include: greater public confidence in obtaining a response from councils to a complaint or service demand; improved fault-reporting response times; and generally improved council understanding of its clients’ needs. UNICEF also worked on the small towns Service Level Benchmarking initiative (led by the World Bank) to help improve regulation and the accountability of small town service providers.

These innovations in small towns are being upscaled by and through government bodies, with the keen support of the Ministry of Local Government. UNICEF also partnered with SNV to



support knowledge management, learning and dissemination. This partnership covered both rural and urban water supply. Achievements included creating communities of practice and establishing an online community of practice group for the sector.

It seems there are further opportunities for innovation in future engagements with UNICEF, especially around innovative ways to finance/support the local authorities and support piped network extensions and household connections, as mentioned by the Ministry of Local Government (such as soft loans, challenge funds/revolving funds, output-based aid, microfinance, etc.).

Conclusion on innovation: Overall, interviewees and workshop participants felt that UNICEF had been innovative in the small town water supply sector, and that there had been more innovation in small towns than in rural areas. Some lessons from small towns could be transferred and adapted to rural areas. Areas where UNICEF could have engaged more are alternative management models and accountability/regulation mechanisms for rural areas, as well as innovative financing arrangements.



F. Recommendations

The following recommendations flow from the findings of this case study and the country and global development context. Zimbabwe is one of the few countries that has yet to achieve the RWS-related MDG target. Furthermore, the SDGs have set a new, even more ambitious agenda for the country, with an objective of universal access by 2030 and a focus on equity and sustainability of services.

These recommendations should be considered as a menu of options rather than a plan of action. The most appropriate options for UNICEF will depend on numerous factors including the dynamics in the sector, the wider strategic vision of the UNICEF country office regarding its assistance to the country, the resources at its disposal, the positioning of other RWS donors and stakeholders, and UNICEF’s analysis of its own comparative advantages and added value in the sector.

F.1. Support the development and implementation of a sustainability strategy for the RWS sector

1. Assist the Government in assessing the extent to which RWS services are technically, institutionally and environmentally sustainable, financially viable and meet the demand of users (and non-users), with a view to identifying key sustainability bottlenecks. Data can be generated using the tools developed over the years such as RWIMS, RapidPro and U-Report, complemented by ad-hoc and more in-depth approaches such as problem tree analysis and sustainability checks (field surveys) focused on past UNICEF-supported interventions.

2. Ensure the outcomes of this analysis are incorporated into a formal, detailed, theory of change or medium-term action plan for the RWS sector as a whole, and into future UNICEF programme/project design, implementation strategies and monitoring-evaluation-learning processes. Some critical elements to be considered are listed below.

Develop a financing strategy for RWS services in rural areas, identifying operation, maintenance and capital replacement costs (estimated based on a lifecycle cost analysis) on the one hand, and funding sources on the other (user tariffs ensuring a minimal level of basic maintenance cost recovery; tax/local and central government budget for more major repairs and service improvement and extension; and transfers from international support agencies and remittances for infrastructure development). The strategy should explore ways of increasing user willingness to pay the water tariff, as well as innovative financing mechanisms for major repairs, service improvements and development.

Conduct surveys/studies and test alternative models for the management and maintenance of water service in rural areas. For example, investigate the possibility of clustering WPCs; promote the participation of private entrepreneurs and local associations; develop models and contracts for public-private partnerships for both RWS service management and maintenance; develop viable business models for pump mechanics; increase their catchment area; etc.

Consider how the concepts of service-level regulation, public benchmarking and accountability mechanisms could be applied to/strengthened in the rural context for water supply and sanitation committees as well as service providers (for management



and maintenance of water supplies), based on a context analysis and the lessons learnt from the experience in small towns. The 2013 Water Policy offers opportunities for UNICEF and its partners to engage in these new areas, in collaboration with other development agencies.

Review RWIMS and develop a clear plan (and sector budget) for managing it, updating information, enforcing use/compliance, ensuring the continued financing of the system, and the strategic use of RWIMS datasets.

3. UNICEF should take better advantage of its position as a lead sector agency and conduit for sector funding to influence donor funding arrangements (longer term, with increased attention and budget dedicated to long-term outcomes and impacts, etc.) with a view to optimizing efficiency without compromising on quality and sustainability.

F.2. Continue to address the equity challenge

4. Further promote technology designs adapted to the needs of people with reduced mobility in rural areas, capitalizing on the ZimWASH project experience and taking advantage of the opportunity offered by the 2013 Water Policy.

5. Systematize the involvement of poor and vulnerable households in water committees as well as in feedback/accountability mechanisms, based on the experience in small towns.

6. Continue to promote pro-poor tariff arrangements in small towns; learn from this experience and experiment of other organizations and countries to test adequate arrangements in rural areas that would support UNICEF’s and the sector agenda for both equity and sustainability agenda; this could involve a comparative study of various options.

7. Use the experience of the ZimWASH equity-focussed monitoring and reporting system to mainstream it in UNICEF WASH programming as well as in the sector-wide RWIMS.

F.3. Continue efforts to strengthen programme effectiveness and efficiency

8. Increase the geographical concentration of field interventions, and the level of integrated programming (within WASH and with other sectors, and with other UNICEF non-WASH units).

9. Investigate options for UNICEF’s procurement strategies to help strengthen the private sector at the local and national levels.

10. Engage in dialogue with partner NGOs to find ways to increase mutual partnership benefits.



G. Annexes

G.1. Timeline of the country visit

Date Activity Location

5 December 2016 Arrival of evaluation team in the morning Kick-off meeting at UNICEF country

office Security briefing

Harare

6 December UNICEF presentation Afternoon field visit to Mvurwi town

Country office, Harare

Mvurwi, Mashonaland Central Province

7 December Field visit to Makonde Rural District Council (RDC) and Chegutu RDC

Makonde and Chegutu, Mashonaland Province

8 December Field visit to Vhungu RDC Vhungu, Midlands Province

9 December Sub-national workshop Field visit to Shurugwi town

Fair Mile Motel, Gweru

Shurugwi

10 December Travel back to Harare

11 December Debriefing Richard Carter, Quality Management

Harare

12 December National stakeholder interviews Harare

13 December National stakeholder interviews Harare

14 December National workshop Cresta Lodge, Harare

15 December Data processing – evaluation team Harare

16 December Wrap-up meetings Departure

UNICEF country office

G.2. Meeting participants and semi-structured interviews

UNICEF briefing meeting on the scope of the WASH global evaluation (5 December 2016)

1. Abednego Chigumbu

2. Patson Kaendesa

3. Victor Kinyanjui

4. Getrude Matsika

5. Vikas Singh

UNICEF presentation to the evaluation team (6 December 2016)

1. Arnold Cole

2. Ben Henson

3. Victor Kinyanjui

National stakeholder interviewees (12 and 13 December 2016)



1. Naa-Aku Acquaye-Baddoo – SNV

2. David Bailey – DFID

3. M. Chidavaenzi – World Vision

4. Arnold Cole – UNICEF

5. Ben Henson – Consultant

6. E. Jones – Principal Director, Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing

7. M. Jonga – UNICEF

8. Victor Kinyanjui – UNICEF

9. Christina Landsberg – Australian Aid

10. H. Mashingaidze – National Coordination Unit

11. Peter Morgan – WASH Expert

12. P. Mudzinge – Director, Urban Local Authorities

13. L. Mujati – RDHV

14. Sharon Murinda – SDC

15. Tichaona Muriro – Blue Gold

16. Simba Musonza – Integral Edge Systems Design

17. Victor Nyamandi – Deputy Director, Environment Health, Ministry of Health and Child Care

18. N Sibanda – Blue Gold

19. Vino and Solanki – V W Engineering

G.3. People interviewed during field visits Mvurwi small town participants (6 December 2016)

1. T. Chirikumarara

2. O. Gopa

3. C. Kachinda

4. V. Kirichi

5. P. Mazai

6. G.K. Mc Zebra

7. N.P. Mudzinge

8. W. Mudzongo

9. N.T. Mukarakate

10. M. Muronzi

11. A. Mutasa

12. E. Muzaka

13. T. Ruzvidzo

14. D. Shonhiwa

15. M. Tinago

16. L. Watabwa

Makonde rural district councils (PWSSC and DWSSC members) (7 December 2016)

1. R. Chetse

2. Erikana Chikande

3. T. Fred

4. Govere

5. Bothwell T. Hove

6. S. Mahwati

7. A. Makoni

8. P.G. Manura

9. Innocent Manyonga

10. Fortunate Marevesa



11. L. Matuline

12. R. Nenge

13. A. Runesu

14. Albert Sibanda

15. Solomon Siziba

16. T. Tomu

17. P. Zidana

Chegutu District water and sanitation committee (7 December 2016)

1. Rabson Hove

2. Tawanda Kangai

3. Edmore Karasambudzi

4. Phillip Kuchewa

5. Maureen Mafukidze

6. Naume Mahonye

7. Constantine Makumbinde

8. George Musara

9. Dan M. Zvobgo

Gweru District water and sanitation committee (8 December 2016)

1. S. Chenda

2. Agatha Chimodzi

3. Regis Makoni

4. T.P. Makunde

5. I. Manjonga

6. P. Msasanuri

7. L. Murazvu

8. P. Samu

9. Gillien Shariwa

10. Shumba

11. M. Taruvinga

G.4. Sites visited during field work 1. Mvurwi town residential areas and water works

2. Glynamel spring water piped water scheme, Makonde RDC

3. Tongogara village new borehole, Chegutu RDC

4. Hanisi village A, new borehole; Hanisi village B, rehabilitated borehole, Vhungu RDC

5. Mutodza village new borehole, Vhungu RDC

6. Shurugwi water works, pre-paid meter connection and communal water tap

G.5. Workshop participants Sub-national workshop participants (9 December 2016)

1. M. Chandida

2. A. Chigumbu

3. Wilfred Chinhanho

4. K. Clive

5. R. Dube



6. Onias Guzuwe

7. T. Hondogwa

8. M. Jaravaza

9. T. Makunde

10. G.I. Manikai

11. Innocent Manyonga

12. J. Mbizvo

13. P. Msasanuri

14. C. Muchatukwa

15. L. Mugweni

16. S. Ndlovu

17. Dhasai Parenda

18. D. Parewa

19. C. Perzon

20. P. Samu

21. Joyce Selome

22. G. Shariwa

23. W. Tillett

National workshop participants (14 December 2016)

1. R. Carter

2. F. Chauraya

3. A. Chgumbu

4. T. Chiro

5. K. Dembe

6. R. Dyaka

7. L. Gopozah

8. M. Harper

9. E.N. Jones

10. M. Jonga

11. M.K. Kawadza

12. T. Maja

13. L. Majoni

14. A. Makoni

15. R. Makoni

16. G.I. Manikai

17. M. Matimati

18. D. Moyo

19. W. Muchenjekwa

20. N.P. Mudzinge

21. P. Mugwagwani

22. L. Mujuru

23. P. Mupaiwa

24. F. Mupepe

25. S. Murinda

26. A. Ndanga

27. P. Ngala

28. A. Nyawasha

29. M. Nyikadzino

30. T. Nzenza

31. C. Pezon

32. B.T. Rusike



33. C. Shoko

34. W. Tillett

35. M. Tinago

36. N. Tinarwo

37. F. Zinada

G.6. Documents reviewed African Ministers' Council on Water (AMCOW), Country Status Overview, Water Supply and

Sanitation in Zimbabwe: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond, 2016.

Fölscher, A. and E. Hodson, Assessment of the Transition Funding modality, a pooled funding mechanism for the social sectors in Zimbabwe.

Machiwana, V.R., ‘The impact of rural water supply and sanitation programmes in Chivi district, Zimbabwe’, M.SC in IWRM thesis, University of Zimbabwe, 2010.

Rural WASH project, annual project review, 2013.

Rural WASH and Small Towns project, logframes and proposals.

UNICEF country office, annual reports, 2010 to 2015, and inputs for WASH global reports from 2008 to 2015.

UNICEF, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Zimbabwe: Baseline Survey of 33 Rural Districts, 2013.

UNICEF and European Union, ZimWASH project, mid-term and end-term evaluation reports, 2010 and 2011.

UNICEF, Small Town WASH project, Social Baseline Survey Report, 2015.

World Bank, ‘The Zimbabwe Water Forum’, policy note, April 20134.

World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP), Lessons from a review of 15 years of the Zimbabwe Integrated Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme, 2002.