External Programme Evaluation

UNICEF Assisted Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Programme

In Sudan (2002-2010)

Undertaken By:

December, 2011

2

Acknowledgements

The Evaluation Team would like to thank the staff of the Sudanese Public Water Corporation (PWC), in particular Mr. Mohammed Ammar – Director General of the PWC, Mr. Mudawi Ibrahim – National Coordinator of WES Programme at PWC and WES National Coordination staff, mainly Mr. Hisham Amir, Mr. Ahmed Satti and Ms. Ishraqa Shammam for their valuable support, comments and suggestions in the course of the evaluation process which helped the evaluation team enrich and refine this report.

The evaluation team would also like to thank the WES Area coordinators in Darfur, Kordofan, Central and Eastern Regions, the state WES Project Mangers, and the staff of the Ministry of Health for their diligent, firm support and patience. Their enthusiasm and genuine concern about the improvement of the programme enabled the evaluation process to become a truly participatory exercise throughout the process.

The evaluation team would like to acknowledge that the work has been facilitated and coordinated through the support provided by UNICEF Sudan’s WASH Programme through the strong support of Mr. Ram Koirala – WES Manager at the UNICEF Sudan WASH Section, and Mr. Fouad Yassa – Water and Sanitation Specialist at the UNICEF Sudan WASH Section, former WASH Section Chief Mr. Sampath Kumar, and Chief Planning and M&E Section Chief Mr. Nawshad Ahmed, as well as UNICEF staff at area and state levels. We would also like all those who reviewed the Evaluation Report and provided the team with valuable comments and feedback that only served to strengthen the final product.

Last but not least, we would like to express our gratitude for the cooperation, knowledge and wisdom of the households, communities, and concerned government officials and implementing Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), who have participated and facilitated the process on the ground and provided the evaluation team with insights and valuable facts presented in this report.

Evaluation Team

Team Leader / Principal Investigator: Dr. Magda Ghonem

Project Manager: Mr. Hossam Hussein

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Expert: Dr. Hilal Al-Fadil Ahmed Hilal

Senior Researcher: Dr. David S. Cownie Researcher: Ms. Deena Khalil Statistician: Dr. Amany Mousa Local Coordinator / Field Survey Manager: Mr. Azhari Farah Mahgoub Assistant Field Survey Manager: Ms. Donia Khalafallah

3

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 9

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 22

1.1 Preface ................................................................................................................................................ 22

1.2 Scope of Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 22

1.3 Purpose & Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 23

1.4 Approach and Methodology .............................................................................................................. 24

1.4.1 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 24

1.4.2 Evaluation Frame Work ............................................................................................................. 26

1.4.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 28

1.5 Sampling ............................................................................................................................................. 29

1.5.1 Sampling Approach .................................................................................................................... 29

1.5.2 Sampling Frame ......................................................................................................................... 29

1.5.3 Sampling Methodology and Sample Size ................................................................................... 30

1.6 Constrains and Limitations ................................................................................................................. 30

1.7 Report Organization ........................................................................................................................... 31

2. Context .................................................................................................................................................... 31

2.1 Country Context ................................................................................................................................. 31

2.2 UNICEF and Country Programme Cooperation .................................................................................. 33

2.3 WES and WASH Programme in Sudan ................................................................................................ 34

2.3.1 History and development .......................................................................................................... 34

2.3.2 Structure .................................................................................................................................... 35

2.3.3 Budget ........................................................................................................................................ 36

2.3.4 Key Stakeholders ....................................................................................................................... 36

1. Relevance ................................................................................................................................................ 37

1.1 Relevance to National Plans & Priorities ............................................................................................ 37

1.2 Relevance to Human Rights ............................................................................................................... 37

1.3 Relevance to MDGs ............................................................................................................................ 38

Part I: Background

Part II: Findings

4

1.4 Relevance to UNICEF Commitments .................................................................................................. 38

1.5 Relevance to Population Needs ......................................................................................................... 41

2. Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................................ 43

2.1 Policies, Strategies, and Guidelines .................................................................................................... 43

2.2 Institutionalization and Capacity-Building ......................................................................................... 44

2.2.1 WES Intuitional Set-Up .............................................................................................................. 45

2.2.2 Establishment and Functionality of WES Units ......................................................................... 46

2.2.3 Human Capacities of WES and Relevant Partners ..................................................................... 47

2.2.4 Monitoring System .................................................................................................................... 49

2.2.5 Management Information System............................................................................................. 50

2.2.6 Transparency and Sector Coordination ..................................................................................... 51

2.3 Water .................................................................................................................................................. 53

2.3.1 Access to Improved Water Supply ............................................................................................. 53

2.3.2 Emergency Response ................................................................................................................. 58

2.3.3 Water Quality Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 59

2.3.4 Operation and Maintenance ..................................................................................................... 60

2.3.5 Health Centres ........................................................................................................................... 61

2.3.6 Basic Schools .............................................................................................................................. 62

2.3.7 Water Tariff System ................................................................................................................... 63

2.4 Sanitation ........................................................................................................................................... 63

2.4.1 Access to Improved Sanitation Facilities ................................................................................... 64

2.4.2 Emergency Response ................................................................................................................. 68

2.4.3 Health Centres & Basic Schools ................................................................................................. 69

2.5 Hygiene ............................................................................................................................................... 70

3. Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................. 77

4. Impact ...................................................................................................................................................... 79

4.1 Prevalence of Water-Borne Diseases ................................................................................................. 80

4.2 Improved Well-Being .......................................................................................................................... 84

5. Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................... 85

5.1 Institutional Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 85

5.2 Financial Sustainability and Cost-Recovery ........................................................................................ 86

5.3 Community Capacity-Building ............................................................................................................ 90

5.4 Community Ownership and Responsibility ........................................................................................ 93

5.5 Environmental Sustainability .............................................................................................................. 94

5

6. Cross-Cutting Issues................................................................................................................................. 96

6.1 Decentralization ................................................................................................................................. 96

6.2 Community participation ................................................................................................................... 97

6.3 Gender Consideration ...................................................................................................................... 100

6.4 Social Justice ..................................................................................................................................... 102

1. Conclusions & Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 103

2. Lessons Learned: ................................................................................................................................... 111

1. List of Primary Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 112

2. List of Secondary Data Sources ............................................................................................................. 112

3. Data Collection& Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 113

4. Research Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 114

4.1 Quantitative Questionnaire .............................................................................................................. 114

4.2 Qualitative Guides ............................................................................................................................ 140

Part III: Conclusions, Recommendations, Lessons Learned

Part IV: Annexes

6

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Map of Sudan ................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2 WES Organizational Structure ........................................................................................................ 35

Figure 3 Programme Budget Disaggregated by UNICEF & Government 2002-2010 ................................... 36

Figure 4 Relevance of Hygiene Messages .................................................................................................... 41

Figure 5 Use of Improved Water Sources .................................................................................................... 53

Figure 6 Chronology of Access to Improved Water Sources 1990-2011 ..................................................... 55

Figure 7 Water Sources used by the Communities Based on the Household Survey ................................. 56

Figure 8 Total newly established and rehabilitated HPs, WY and MWY ..................................................... 56

Figure 9 Walking Distance to Main Water Source (Quantitative household survey 2011) ......................... 57

Figure 10 Use of Improved Sanitation Facilities ........................................................................................ 64

Figure 11 Chronology of fluctuations in levels of sanitation services provision over the past 20 years .. 65

Figure 12 Disaggregation of Sanitation Facilities by Community Type ..................................................... 66

Figure 13 Respondent Assessment of Quality of Sanitation Facilities ...................................................... 67

Figure 14 Access to Media Sources (television, radio, newspapers) ......................................................... 72

Figure 15 Washing One’s Hands Could Contaminate the Water .............................................................. 73

Figure 16 Water Supply Doesn’t Affect Health Because Diseases are not Related to Water ................... 74

Figure 17 Improvement in the Household Water Hygiene Practices since Past Five Years ...................... 75

Figure 18 Technology Distribution and Per Capita Costs (US$) - Water Supply ........................................ 78

Figure 19 Link between Decreased Diarrhoea and Increased WATSAN facilities ..................................... 81

Figure 20 Guinea Worm in North Sudan ................................................................................................... 82

Figure 21 Guinea Worm in Sudan .............................................................................................................. 83

Figure 22 Malnutrition in Sudan by State .................................................................................................. 83

Figure 23 Service-Users Must Contribute Financially to Ensure Sustainability ......................................... 88

Figure 24 Those who use more water should pay more ........................................................................... 88

Figure 25 Wealthier people should pay more regardless of their consumption ...................................... 88

Figure 26 Existence of VHCs by Community Type ..................................................................................... 92

Figure 27 Participation in Awareness Activities based on programme geographical focus...................... 98

Figure 28 Availability of Public Sanitation Facilities for Women ............................................................. 102

7

Acronyms

ACU Area Coordination Unit

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

AWD Acute Watery Diarrhoea

AR Annual Report

BCA Basic Cooperation Agreement

CATS Community Action for Total Sanitation

CBO Community Based Organization

CBS Central Bureau of Statistics

CCCs Core Commitments to Children

CLTS Community Led Total sanitation

CPA Comprehensive Peace agreement

CPAP Country Programme Action Plan

CSO Country Status Overview

DAC Development Assistance Criteria

FGD Focus Group Discussions

FMoH Federal Ministry of Health

GIS Geographical Information System

GoS Government of Sudan

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

HP Hand Pump

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights

IDPs Internally Displaced People

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management

JAM Joint Assessment Mission

KII Key Informant Interview

L/c/d Litre Per Capita Per Day

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

Mahalia Locality

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

MoE Ministry of Education

MoH Ministry of Health

MUAC Mid Upper Arm Circumference

NBHS National Baseline Household Survey

NCU National Coordination Unit

NGO Non Governmental Organization

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PRSP Poverty-Reduction Strategy Paper

PWC Public water Corporation

REA Rapid Environmental Assessment

SDG Sudanese Pound

SHHS Sudan Household and Health Survey

SITAN A Situation Analysis of Children in Sudan

8

SPHERE Humanitarian Charter And Minimum Standards In Disaster Response

SWC State Water Corporation

ToR Terms of Reference

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDP United Nation Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

VHC Village Health Committee

WASH Water , Sanitation and Hygiene

WATSAN Water and Sanitation

WES Water and Environmental Sanitation Project

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

WY Water Yard

Figure 1 Map of Sudan

9

Executive Summary

Part 1: Background

Introduction:

Operating in Sudan since 1952, UNICEF is currently the largest UN agency dedicated to supporting women and children in Sudan. UNICEF Sudan is currently supporting a 2009-2012 Programme of Cooperation with the Government of Sudan, targeting key priorities and objectives that address the overarching needs of children in Sudan and that build a solid foundation for the future development of children in the different fields of activity: health, nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene, basic education and child protection.

Scope Purpose and Objectives:

The evaluation covers the period from 2002 to 2010, including all WASH sub-programmes, namely Sector Policy and Planning, Safe Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion. The overall goal of the evaluation is to examine the extent to which the objectives and results of the programme have been achieved over the last eight years, thus extracting lessons learned and identifying areas for improving the programme's implementation and direction.

Approach and Methodology:

An integrated logical framework was developed to guide the entire evaluation process. Two approaches were employed for the evaluation: 1) Secondary data review comprising consideration of programme and project documents, previous studies, and other relevant sector documents; and 2) Primary data collection which depended on a mixed research approach combining quantitative and qualitative methods through a household survey, in-depth interviews with key informants, focus group discussions with residents of emergency and non-emergency areas as well as technical observation by a WASH specialist.

The evaluation was based on the OECD/DAC criteria which are: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability. In addition cross‐cutting issues were examined, such as adopting the principles of social equity and gender mainstreaming, among other issues. Specific care was taken to measure both developmental and humanitarian interventions.

The sampling process was conducted throughout several stages starting with state level and ending with household level. The sample included regular WES/WASH programme and emergency areas as well as areas with and without WES/WASH programme interventions. The sampling followed a clustering methodology to represent those different community types. The total sample size for the quantitative survey amounted to 1070 respondents.

Constraints and Limitations:

The evaluation faced some challenges related to obtaining accurate and consistent secondary data that could enable the team to track developments over the past decade. Moreover, due to the wide scope of the evaluation and the local conditions, some unforeseen difficulties caused delays in the implementation, such as insecurity, flooding, busy schedules on part of government officials, electricity blackouts, and weak cell phone reception.

10

Country Context:

Sudan is currently the third largest country in Africa covering an area of 1.8 km2 and hosting a population of 30,894,000 – 2% of which are IDPs (as per 5th Sudan Population and Housing Census, 2008). Despite its wealth of natural resources, Sudan has experienced recurrent internal conflicts between North and South, which brought about the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. The agreement allowed for the establishment of a multi-party system in Sudan by stipulating that elections need to be held on a number of different matters including the presidency and the South Sudan Referendum. The referendum in 2011 led to the secession of South Sudan to become the world’s newest country. According to the 2010 National Baseline Household Survey (NBHS), 46.5% of the population live below the poverty line. The Sudan Household Health Survey estimates that 61% of the population has access to improved water and 27% have access to adequate sanitation facilities. To overcome its developmental challenges, Sudan has launched a five-year development plan, an interim poverty-reduction strategy paper (I-PRSP) and is currently developing a full poverty-reduction strategy paper (PRSP).

WASH Programme in Sudan and the Role of UNICEF

The Water and Environmental Sanitation (WES) programme in Sudan was initiated by UNICEF in 1975 to support communities in need with water supply, and is currently managed nationally under the umbrella of the Public Water Corporation. In 1986, sanitation and hygiene components were also integrated into the programme. The WES programme combines a number of partners at different levels including the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources, the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social Welfare and the Ministry of Public Utilities and Urban Planning (at state level). Over the years, the programme’s structure has expanded to sub-national, state, locality and village levels and has gradually transformed into its current, multi-level form, which vertically covers central, zonal, state and local levels, and horizontally covers various sectors and integrates all relevant stakeholders. At the local level, the programme acts through Village Health Committees (VHCs) which, in turn, act as the implementers, especially for management and operation and maintenance (O&M) of WASH facilities, community mobilization and hygiene education and sanitation. The community institutions are directly linked to the second level of the WES structure, namely the locality level represented through the WES Mahalia Units. At the state level WES is acting through State WES Projects in cooperation with UNICEF State Office. WES projects are directly connected to the area level represented in the WES Area Coordination Unit and UNICEF Zone Offices, with each area comprising certain number of states that constitute one geographical region. The central level, represented by the WES National Coordination Unit along with the UNICEF WASH programme is responsible for management and the coordination of the all the programme aspects at the federal level. WES projects are currently operating in the 15 states and considered as governmental programme which is supported mainly by UNICEF’s WASH programme but also by other NGOs and UN agencies. Village Health Committees have been established at village level in several states, and are responsible for the operation and maintenance and management of WES facilities. They are also involved in the planning phase, and conduct awareness and hygiene promotion activities. The programme’s budget has increased from USD 17,318,693 in 2002 (USD 3,318,693 from UNICEF and USD 1,400,000 from the government) to USD 18,304,251 in 2010 (USD 16,014,700 from UNICEF and USD 2,289,551 from the government).

11

Part II: Findings

1. Relevance

The programme is consistent with the goal and objectives of the national WASH policy as well as the long term objectives of the Government Quarter Century Strategic Plan of 2007-2031, and its interventions are extremely relevant to the needs of the communities. It successfully moved from a needs-based to a rights-based approach and is also very relevant to the International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), specifically ICESCR Article 12 which stipulates “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. The programme’s overall goal and targeted results indirectly – but clearly – respond to MDGs 4 and 6, and directly respond to Target 10 of MDG 7. The WASH Programme’s outcomes are coherent with 2009-2012 UNDAF Outcomes, specifically UNDAF Sub-Outcome 4 and 5. In general, the programme strongly contributes to fulfilling UNICEF’s Core Commitment to Children. However, it responded to the different commitments to varying extents. The programme is directly relevant to UNICEF’s Mid‐Term Strategic Plan with respect to Focus Area 1 (Young child survival and development) and indirectly relevant with respect to Focus Area 5 (policy advocacy and partnerships for children’s rights).

2. Effectiveness

Policies, Strategies, and Guidelines:

In 2006, the Public Water Corporation (PWC) in collaboration with UNICEF started to formulate the National WASH Sector Policy for Sudan which is going to outline a road map for the WASH sector. However, the endorsement of the WASH sector policy has encountered significant delays. The Public Water Corporation (PWC), with support from UNICEF, also completed the process of developing the 5 year National Strategic Plan (2012-2016) for the WASH sector. The national plan provides an overall framework for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Sector plans in the 14 states.

Relevant 141 technical WASH Guidelines and Standards have been developed, approved and widely shared with stakeholders. However, the guidelines are not yet fully recognized and operationalised by all stakeholders, especially the SWCs at state and community levels.

Institutionalization, Capacity-Building, and Coordination:

The programme today consists of a multi-level structure in which local and community levels constitute the base. However, the status of WES as a project means that it is not fully integrated in the governmental structures. This creates a lack of clarity regarding ownership and complicates coordination and financing.

WASH training has been on-going in the focus states for many years and the PWC Training Centre in Khartoum was established in 2007. The main problem facing the capacity development of WASH professionals is the inadequate funding allocation relative to the increasing needs. This is especially relevant to monitoring and information-management capacities.

1 The 14 technical guidelines are as follows: (1) Borehole Hand Pump; (2) Borehole Water Yard; (3) Mini Water Yards;

(4) Slow Sand Filter; (5) Small Dams; (6) Water Distribution Network; (7) School Latrines; (8) Hand Dug Well Hand Pump; (9) Hand Dug Well Water Yard; (10) Health Institution latrines; (11) Household Latrines; (12) Improved Hafeer; (13) Protected Springs and Roof Catchment; (14) Water Treatment Plants

12

Regarding the WES Information System, much progress has been made since the system was initially established and operationalized. Today, the system is not only supporting planning and monitoring processes, but also plays an important role in enhancing coordination and building capacities. It contains information such as mapping of water facilities, sector related materials, survey results, and technical guidelines and standards. However, the functionality of the system varies widely between states according to the existing capacities, and the data available in some areas is not always updated. Increased usage of the website (www.wes-sudan.org) requires more advocacy and increased availability of computers, internet, and staff capacities, especially at state/locality levels.

Regarding inter-sectoral coordination, the programme initially based itself on coordination through establishing linkages between the water, health and environmental sanitation sectors. However, the institutional setup of WES, the scattering of responsibilities, and the overlap in the mandates of different bodies represent challenges for the coordination efforts of the programme.

When it comes to coordinating emergency response, the programme has been very efficient and successful. Its response to emergencies over the last eight years has shown continuous improvement in coordinating the response of the sector’s key partners. Water supply, sanitation and hygiene have been given top priority by sector key partners following onset of emergencies with particular emphasis on conflict victims such as the case of Darfur.

Safe Water Supply:

Sustainable Access to improved drinking water sources increased from 59.8% based on MICS results in 2000 to 62% (59% of urban and 64% of rural populations) based on the PWC/UNICEF estimates in 2009 (Country Status Overview 2010). However, the 5th Sudan Population and Housing Census conducted in 2008 estimates that 70.4% of the total population (94.5% of urban and 58.5% of rural populations) use an improved water source as their main source of drinking water. Hand-pumps are the most common means of obtaining water, followed by water yards, donkey carts and water tankers, unprotected hafeers, unprotected sources such as open wells, rivers, and dams, and protected hafeers in that order. State-level trend data is presented in Figure 5 below.

Daily per capita water consumption is still poor, especially in some rural areas, as it ranges between 5 to 17 litres (the WHO defines “reasonable access” as 20 liters/capita/day within 1 kilometre walking distance from the user’s household)2.

Over 80% of the households included in the survey conducted in the 6 states mentioned that they walk between 100 to 1000 meters to obtain their water needs from the nearest water points.

The operational status of the water facilities varies by state and by type of water facility. The main reason for the maintenance problem is the shortage in funding and accordingly the shortage in technical staff, spare parts, and means of transportation.

Generally, the water supply generated from deep boreholes and hand-pumps is distributed without treatment throughout the country. But in emergency areas, especially in Darfur area, 85% of the IDPs in the camps obtain chlorinated water. Water quality labs and monitoring mechanisms have been established; however the procedures are not yet consistently applied in all cases and areas.

2 http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/water/

13

The WASH programme has provided some support to health centres and hospitals. However, this activity has not been one of the main WASH components, and field observations indicate that the infrastructure of the health centres is very poor. The programme’s focus on basic schools has been stronger than its focus on health centres as it has been able to provide 403 basic schools with water supply benefitting about 129,200 school children.

Sanitation:

According to various secondary sources, nation-wide access to adequate sanitation facilities decreased from 59.7% in 2000 (MICS) to 40% in 2006 (SHHS) and picked up to 56.9% in 2008 (5th Sudan Population and Housing Census), and dropped to 35.5% in 2010 (PWC CSO). Although the 2010 CSO estimates the number at 42%, it refers to “adequate” facilities rather than “improved”, which may encompass a wider range of facilities. The SHHS conducted in 2010 revealed that 27.1% of the population (46.9% in urban and 17.9% in rural) has access to private (unshared) improved sanitary facilities, and 35% have access to improved sanitation facilities (unshared and shared sanitation facilities). This evaluation’s household survey estimates access to improved sanitation facilities at 35%.

This is due to several factors including population growth, weak local demand and the fragmentation of responsibilities among many different entities. Mostly however, recurrent conflicts tend to detract funding from the sanitation component in order to fund emergency water supply which is understandably given a higher priority than sanitation by the govt. and donors. State-level trend data is presented in Figure 10 below.

The programme has managed to construct around 275,000 household latrines between 2002 and 2010, mostly in emergency areas. Yet over 22 million persons are still unreached with adequate sanitation services, placing great financial pressure on sector actors to meet this need. The programme has been very successful in coordinating emergency response, as well as prioritized emergency preparedness and prepositioning of supplies. It has concentrated much of its focus on emergency areas to avoid any serious disease-outbreaks – successfully so. Over 80% of the IDPs staying in about 76 camps in three Darfur States have access to latrines that meet SPHERE Standards.

According to this evaluation’s household survey, around 50% of respondents were highly satisfied with the quality of their sanitation facilities in regular programme areas, while around 35% were highly satisfied in emergency areas, and 15% were highly satisfied in non-programme areas.

Traditional pit latrines are the most common facility in rural areas, while private unimproved pits and public improved pit latrines are the most common in emergency areas. In the household survey conducted during this evaluation, 29% relied on a private improved pit latrine, 33% relied on a private unimproved pit, 7% relied on a public/shared improved facility, 6% relied on a public/shared unimproved, and 25% defecated in the open. Open defecation differs widely according to community type. In regular programme areas, 31% defecate in the open, while in emergency programme areas the percentage drops to around 7%, and in non-programme areas the percentage increases to over 50%.

Stronger promotion and monitoring of a community-based approach is crucial to ensuring sustainability and expanding coverage. Fragmentation of responsibilities among different entities has had a negative effect on the success of this component. Three ministries are responsible for at least one component of the WASH program, namely the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health. At states level, the number of

14

involved ministries increases to four since the State Ministry for Urban Development and Public Utilities is also a main player. In addition, at Mahalia level the Mahalia administration also enjoys an important role at community level, however it does not belong to any of the abovementioned ministries.

Regarding health centres, WASH programme has provided some support to the health centres and hospitals especially in emergency areas and in terms of sanitary facilities and water supply, but this has not been a core activity. There are no reliable statistics regarding sanitation facilities in health centres and thus it is impossible to say exactly how many health centres have been covered. Nevertheless, the process of developing WASH strategic plans for the states estimated that the approximately 60% of the Health Centres are covered with sanitation facilities. Based on the programme annual reports, it can be said that over 143 health centres were provided with sanitation facilities through the programme.

As for basic schools, in some cases schools have latrines, yet students do not prefer to use them as they are accustomed to open areas. However, the programme has made great efforts to enhance schoolchildren’s hygiene and knowledge of how to use sanitation facilities. There has been no national survey to monitor WASH services in basic schools, but it is estimated that approximately 50% of the basic schools in Sudan have access to improved sanitation facilities. The WASH sector has no system in place to monitor the status of sanitation in basic schools, so it is difficult to provide an exact number of schools with improved sanitation. However, based on programme annual reports, it can be said that over 1,825 schools were provided with new/re-established sanitation through the programme.

Hygiene and awareness-raising:

Hygiene promotion and awareness-raising are key elements of the WASH programme which have been implemented in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, local authorities and communities. The programme or covered over 2.8 million households between 2003 and 2010 and over half of the respondents to this evaluation’s household survey had seen or heard some kind of hygiene promotion message, mostly through local radio broadcasts. The programme has also trained over 79,000 people on hygiene promotion, including women, youths, local and international NGOs, civil servants, and village committee members, and established sanitation promotion centres in some states. Furthermore, around 29,971 schoolchildren and teachers have been trained on sanitation and hygiene through school-based Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion Clubs in 126 schools.

There is general agreement among key persons and community members interviewed during this evaluation that the awareness-raising component is very important and has been highly successful, and satisfaction with the hygiene promotion messages is generally very high, as messages are tailored to local culture and circumstances. Yet, that effort is needed to spread the message to more people.

Awareness of hygienic practices is generally high in programme areas based on the results of this evaluation’s household survey, but lower in non-programme areas. Most respondents were highly aware of the link between hygiene and diseases, particularly diarrhoea, but less so with regards to dermal infections. 23% of respondents believed that on-site sanitation brings diseases closer to the house. When respondents were asked about the most important practices to prevent diarrhoea in under-fives 71% chose protection of food from flies, 76% chose protection of water from contamination, and 60% chose regularly washing one’s hands, and 12% could not answer. As

15

for the most important practices to prevent skin diseases in children, 63% chose keeping children away from dirt and unclean things, 49.8% chose regularly washing or bathing their children, and 32% could not answer, which can be considered somewhat high, indicating that more focus is needed on the importance of water to avoid dermal infections among children. To gauge awareness of the general health benefits of water hygiene, respondents were asked if they agree with the statement that improved water supply does not really have health impacts because most illnesses are not related to water. 33% of respondents agreed and 61% disagreed. All hygiene questions received similar percentages across community types, but the percentage of those who could not answer is consistently higher in non-programme areas.

Survey responses point to a gradual improvement in household hygiene in programme areas. Those who reported improvements attribute this to learning how to handle water more hygienically, and increased water reliability and quantities.

However, additional awareness tools are needed that are accessible to poor and illiterate sections of society. Similarly, more training is needed on how to broach issues that are culturally-sensitive.

3. Efficiency

Cost-efficiency has been considered, but the operational costs for delivering WASH services are generally found to be very high in comparison to estimates from the late nineties, especially in emergency areas. Furthermore, the programme could have reached more needy communities, if the national and state government financial obligations were met and secured in a proper and timely manner. The programme focuses more on small projects, even in areas in which large projects would have been more efficient. An important example is providing numerous hand-pumps where a (small) water yard would have been more efficient. Hand-pumps are efficient and cost effective for a maximum of 50 families (250 persons), whom they would provide with at least 20 litre/capita/day. Water yards are more efficient for a range of 1500-5000 persons (300-1000 families). It is difficult to say exactly the extent to which less efficient technology is being used, but based on this evaluation’s technical observations it can be estimated that around 25% of handpumps can be upgraded to mini-water-yards.

4. Impact

Prevalence of WASH related Diseases:

The main health impacts listed by key informants include the improvement of children’s health in emergency camps and a significant decline in diseases transmitted by contaminated water. However, a 2009 report by the Sudanese Ministry of Health mentions that 80% of the diseases are related to water such as acute watery diarrhoea, malaria, typhoid, jaundice, and acute liver failure (The Council of Ministers, Secretariat General of the Council of Ministers, Workshop on Water Issues & Public Health, Under the Theme “Sufficient Safe Water & Sanitation for All” Paper on: Water and health, Prepared by: the Ministry of National Health, 2009).

Under-five mortality rates decreased from 130 deaths per 1000 live births in the mid 1990s to 104 in 1999 to 102 in 2006 and has remained somewhat constant at 103 in 2010 (WHO Sudan Country Statistics).

According to the Why Wait for Cholera (2006) report, between the last outbreak in 1999 and the publication of the report in 2006, there have only been sporadic outbreaks in North Kordofan and the Darfur states. Since then, during 2006, 2007, and 2008 – according to the UNICEF Annual

16

Report (AR) for 2009 – 9,973, 2,299 and 335 cases were reported respectively in Sudan. No Acute Water Diarrhoea (AWD)/cholera cases were reported in North Sudan in 2009 or 2010 (AR 2009 and AR 2010). The “Is Cholera Here to Stay” report (2007) credits the quick confinement of the potential outbreak in 2007 to “the quick response measures that were put in place across the states by SMOHs and SWCs and in particular epidemiology departments and WES, and UNICEF/ WHO and NGOs”. There is a very strong link between improved water and sanitation facilities and a decline in diarrhea cases in Sudan. However, despite the decline in AWD, diarrhea among children still represents a big challenge, as 36% of respondents had children who had experienced three or more watery stools in any 24 hour period in the month preceding the survey.

Guinea worm transmission was completely interrupted in Sudan, with zero reported cases since 2008, which constitutes one of the most significant impacts of the programme’s interventions.

Malaria has also been in decline, but it is difficult to directly link this to the improved water and sanitation facilities as many other factors influence Malaria prevalence. Malnutrition rates are inconsistent across community types, making it difficult to establish a direct link. Furthermore, 25% of respondents of this evaluation’s household survey had under-fives who had suffered from a rash or swollen glands in the month preceding the survey.

Improved Well-Being:

According to programme beneficiaries who provided information in this evaluation, the programme has made various contributions to the overall well-being of their families, especially with respect to improved household economy, improved security for women who used to rely on open defecation and thus had to wait until late at night, and improved health and comfort.

The community members also mentioned that walking distances to water points have been reduced in many areas, that learning environments are more child-friendly, and that the quality of life has generally improved as a result of the programme interventions.

5. Sustainability

Institutional Sustainability:

The WASH programme successfully established a basis for programme sustainability. The decade-

long acceptance, adaptation and support that the programme has received from the communities

and government institutions, along with the decentralized WES structure, represent a determining

factor for programme sustainability. The presence of well-qualified WES staff as a result of the

extensive capacity-building programmes and the accumulation of experience represents an

additional factor that ensures institutional sustainability. However, the institutional setup of WES

as a project as opposed to an integrated governmental body negatively impacts the institutional

sustainability. Moreover WES still retains the image of a donor, mainly a UNICEF-supported body,

and most of its staff is seconded by other government entities.

Financial Sustainability and Cost-Recovery:

Government/community contributions have been steadily increasing since the programme is becoming increasingly integrated and decentralized. Regarding water tariffs, there are indeed initiatives in this regard, but they differ in type, degree and coverage from one state to another, or from one area within a state to another. The financial situation of the programme is

17

constrained by three main problem areas: a) the overall budget is insufficient compared to the increasing needs, b) the contribution of GoS is proportionally low and often irregular and c) the programme depends to a wide extent on donor funds, in this case those made by UNICEF.

Community Capacity-Building and ownership:

The WASH programme invested genuine efforts in training, advocacy and awareness-raising to encourage communities to become involved in the management of WASH services.

There is no comprehensive strategy translated into concrete action plans for community capacity building at national or state level. Although capacity building of local communities is in general making progress, the related activities are scattered among different actors without effective coordination. This could explain the wide discrepancy among communities with respect to the existence of capacity building activities and accordingly with respect to the level of knowledge and skills gained by community members, as indicated by the qualitative results. The situation is exacerbated through the fact that the more knowledgeable and skilled individuals are usually those who are more mobile and often leave their communities in search for better opportunities.

Regarding community ownership, the sense of ownership is more crystallized with respect to water than regarding sanitation facilities, and the strength of ownership and responsibility is closely related to the community capacity-building and awareness-raising and thus suffers from almost the same obstacle mentioned above related to scattering among different actors.

Environmental sustainability:

Often the programme takes environmental concerns into consideration, but because of other priorities (such as the recurrent emergency situations), it is not always given the attention it deserves. Groundwater M&E system was established in three Darfur states, but has not yet spread to other states. Integrated Water resources Management (IWRM) concepts are established in cooperation between UNEP and WES/UNICEF in the three states of Darfur with strong linkages to groundwater monitoring, but in the programme as a whole the linkages between water resources and water supply require considerable strengthening.

6. Cross-Cutting Issues

Regarding decentralization, the institutional element of the decentralization process has been reflected in the elaboration and restructuring of the WES programme, transforming it into a four-level (national, state, locality, and community levels), country-wide structure. However, the process is not yet fully established at the locality/community levels due to limited budget allocations and human capacity, the delay of the sector policy endorsement, and the institutional setup of WES projects, as well as weaknesses in the coordination mechanism.

Community participation:

Communities participate in the planning, installation, operation and maintenance of water facilities, as well as the installation and maintenance of sanitation facilities. Their role in the planning phase of sanitation facilities is mostly limited to determining the criteria for the distribution of latrines among the households. The level of community participation still varies from one area to another depending on the understanding of the society, its customs and traditions and the prevailing level of education. The democratic practices in applying community participation (e.g. electing committee members) are not always maintained. Individual differences

18

play an important role since some officials or local leaders believe in participation more than others.

Gender Consideration:

The programme encourages women participation in all phases and areas. However, the actual degree and kind of women’s participation in the programme activities depends on the nature and culture of the society as well as its history with participation in general.

Men and women have almost equal access to water and sanitation facilities established by the WASH program. However women benefit more from water and sanitation facilities, not because they are more advantaged when the facilities are available, but because they are more disadvantaged when they are not available. The survey indicated that 61% of female and only 23% of male respondents are responsible for collecting water from whatever source. Thus, each and every improvement of water collecting conditions is much more to the benefit of women than of men. Also regarding sanitation, women suffer much more than men if there is no close sanitation facility since women are forced to walk long and often insecure distances or to wait until nightfall to defecate in open areas.

There is also a difference between men and women regarding the source of WASH related information and awareness; men have more access to TV, radio and newspapers, thus women depend more on all kinds of face-to face activities.

In general and regardless of the source of information, women showed a higher level of awareness related to hygiene issues. They are also more critical in observing and evaluating the quality of the delivered WASH services.

Social Justice:

With respect to social justice, criteria in distributing WASH projects have been satisfactorily considered based on needs assessments and participatory consultations. Needs exigency and population density play the main role in the distribution of WASH programme services. Regarding sanitation facilities, the programme always gives the poor the priority in the construction of household latrines. However, at the community level, often men, especially more educated (and usually wealthier) men, enjoy a larger role in the decision making process. As for sanitation facilities, elderly, ill and/or disabled populations are disadvantaged, since they are not able to deliver the in-kind contribution to the construction of the latrines. They are more disadvantaged if the fetching and digging work is paid by the service providers.

19

Part III: Conclusions and Recommendations

Overall Consideration:

The stakeholders interviewed during this evaluation almost all consider the WASH programme in Sudan as one of the most successful development interventions. This is reflected in its transition from full dependency on UNICEF to its current nature as a government programme supported by UNICEF and other donors. It is important to note that referring to the programme as a “government programme” does not necessarily imply that it is a government-financed programme. Rather, it means that the programme has been adapted to the local context, integrated into national plans, integrated into the government’s institutional set-up, and implemented and managed through WES – a national body that depends entirely on national labour.

It also expanded to include the full WASH package rather than just water supply, adopted a rights-based and participatory approach, became a largely decentralized programme, and adopted measures to ensure sustainability, gender equity and social justice. Linkages between WASH components require further strengthening within government institutions as the scattering of responsibilities has negative consequences.

UNICEF played a crucial role in this development process. Thus, the linkages between the three WASH programme components are particularly strong in UNICEF supported interventions, but are weaker within government institutions where the programme components are relatively scattered among different entities.

The programme is highly relevant to national plans and priorities, international commitments, and local needs. However, some aspects of these criteria are not adequately and explicitly considered, such as gender mainstreaming, environment-friendly technology and the IWRM concept.

In general, areas that received WASH programme support over the last 10 years show better indicators than other areas where the programme is not active. This is not restricted to the access to water and sanitation facilities, but also affects the level of awareness, the adoption of hygiene practices as well as the sense of responsibility and ownership towards WASH services. For example, while access to improved water sources (according to this study’s household survey) reaches 77.6% in programme areas, it drops to 47.4% in non-programme areas.

Despite the challenges that the programme has encountered over the years and against the background of instability and recurrent conflict in Sudan, the programme managed to prevent large outbreaks of WASH related diseases due to its prioritization of emergency-affected populations. However, these emergency interventions often came at the expense of development interventions and thereby negatively affected programme coverage, particularly regarding sanitation and the soft programme components.

In spite of the programme’s success, there is considerable room for improvement, as summarized in the below recommendations:

PWC/WES, UNICEF and other sector partners should follow up on and advocate for the approval and endorsement of the WASH sector policy in order to set in motion the endorsement process.

An integrated and independent sector regulatory system that addresses the different frameworks, sector components, as well as the vertical levels of the WASH sector should

20

be developed. Water resources should be integrated to enable a wide application of the IWRM concept, especially prior to the construction of major water projects which should be preceded by a study of the existing water resources and account for competing water uses. IWRM as a comprehensive tool for planning and managing the entire water cycle would significantly contribute to an economic and sustainable water allocation among different uses of water based on the overall social and economic goals.

WASH programme priorities should shift, giving long-term interventions more attention and paying increased attention to the reconstruction and recovery phase. More attention and budget should be allocated for the physical and human capacity building of WES government personnel at all levels.

In cooperation with universities and research institutions, WES should develop a research strategy tailored to its needs and covering existing gaps in knowledge.

WES should institutionally affiliate to PWC/SWC as an integrated organ of the governmental structure. Only one actor should have clear leadership of sanitation facilities and hygiene activities. This could optimally be realized if PWC expands its mandate to include sanitation and hygiene components.

It is strongly recommended that UNICEF and donors’ financial support to the WASH programme be continued and increased, provided that the programme moves towards more sustainable options.

It is recommended that UNICEF funds be allocated more towards software components (e.g. promotion of sanitation and hygiene information management system, community participation, human capacity building) rather than hardware components (e.g. water and sanitation services) which should come mostly from Government’s own resources.

More in-depth investigations should be conducted, examining various forms of cost-recovery including water tariffs and in-kind contributions by users.

More specific efforts should be made to unify the definitions and ways of measurements of sector relevant data, and mechanisms of data sharing should be enhanced.

There is a pressing need for two frameworks: a framework covering environmental aspects and a framework for integrated water resources management (IWRM).

A concrete community participation and capacity-building strategy should be developed.

Training for WASH Committee members on the operation and maintenance of WASH facilities in addition to spare parts outlets are key factors in sustaining the existing WATSAN facilities.

Updated feasibility studies, technical studies, and pilot-interventions of innovative green technologies should be conducted to ensure more accurate selection of proper water facilities for different circumstances.

Sector partners should seriously consider adopting the Community Action for Total Sanitation (CATS) as a new strategy for sanitation and hygiene promotion. This requires intensive training of communities and WASH staff on how to implement this approach.

It is highly recommended that more efforts and funds be invested in activities that encourage and support women participation in WASH related bodies and activities at community level, particularly where women are more marginalized. Those efforts have to

21

depend on face-to-face activities rather than media or printed material in general. A very determining factor is also cultural sensitivity while planning and implementing the needed programs.

Lessons Learned

Long-term and wide spectrum cooperation agreements such as the Country Programme action Plans (CPAPs) represent a solid basis for sustainable and effective cooperation between the national authorities and UNICEF.

The proportion of national to external funds is a very important issue. Equally important, however, is the allocation of funds to hardware versus software components, as well as fixed versus running costs.

The aspect of sustainability tends to be more affected by funding shortages than other aspects, and software components (e.g. staff and community capacity-building) are more affected than hardware components (water and sanitation facilities), which is a rational prioritization in light of budget constraints, but nonetheless is associated with negative consequences.

Cost-sharing enhances ownership, and includes physical contribution (e.g. during construction, operation, and maintenance), in-kind contributions (e.g. construction materials), and community-based management by creating local committees with funds allocated to running costs. The economic value of such contributions needs more investigation.

Activities that are preceded with and/or followed by awareness activities tend to be more successful, receive more acceptance and cooperation from the local communities and are usually implemented in a timely manner.

The clearer the institutional affiliation and the more defined the mandates, the higher the effectiveness. A good example is the water sector with its clear affiliation to PWC, whereas other components such as sanitation are scattered among various actors.

WASH sector should consider the environmental impacts of large projects by assessing them for potential negative environmental impacts based on the nature, objective, and location of the project. This could be accomplished by means of a Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) especially for IDPs staying in camps.

Deforestation issues can be ameliorated by reducing the use of wood in the construction of latrines, cooking and shelters. The programme can also promote alternatives that are sustainable at the community level.

Environmental issues should be considered from the outset at the initial stage of implementing WASH projects infrastructure and camp planning.

Measures should be taken to ensure that negative impacts of closed and abandoned camps are addressed, including risks from unfilled latrines, erosion gullies and uncovered wells. These should all be considered during the “camp closing” stage.

Emergency waste disposal site planning should be undertaken with local authorities to avoid potential contamination of water sources and the generation of disease vectors and odours.

22

1. Introduction

1.1 Preface

Operating in Sudan since 1952, UNICEF is currently the largest UN agency dedicated to supporting women and children in Sudan. UNICEF Sudan is currently supporting a 2009-2012 Programme of Cooperation with the Government of Sudan, targeting key priorities and objectives that address the overarching needs of children in Sudan and that build a solid foundation for the future development of children in the different fields of activity: health, nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene, basic education and child protection.

For more than thirty years now, UNICEF has been cooperating with Government of Sudan in the area of the Water and Environmental Sanitation (WES) programme. The programme provides support to the most disadvantaged communities in terms of access to improved water facilities, sanitation, capacity development as well as personal and household hygiene as well as social mobilization to ensure medium long term sustainability at grassroots level. The programme also supports building capacities of the sector institutions at national and state level.

Although the projects have been evaluated on several occasions from 2000 onwards, no comprehensive programme evaluation has been carried out since 2007. An overall evaluation of the WASH programme is therefore needed to ascertain whether the objectives and results of the programme have been achieved in a satisfactory manner. It is also intended to guide the future direction of the programme.

In response to a request for proposals, North South Consultants Exchange (NSCE) submitted a proposal, and was awarded the contract in April 2011.

1.2 Scope of Evaluation

This evaluation covers the period 2002-2010, which witnessed two WASH programme phases, 2002-2006 and 2009-2012. In between, a bridge programme (2006-2008) was carried out.

Regarding the addressed programme components, the evaluation covers all WASH sub-programmes, which are:

1. Sector Policy and Planning: The objective is to “support decentralization of WASH MIS and sector-wide mechanism and coordination to ensure adequate sector financing, increased effectiveness and efficiency and systems for accountability and performance monitoring” (CPAP 2009). Since the inception of the programme, this component has dealt with the establishment of national WASH policies, standards, manuals, plans, and strong information and monitoring systems and capacities.

Part I: Background

The evaluation covers the three program components: sector policy, water supply and Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Thematically, the evaluation addresses the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria: Relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impacts

Geographically, the evaluation includes 6 states aside from the central level.

UNICEF is currently the largest UN agency dedicated to supporting women and children in Sudan For more than 30 years, UNICEF has been supporting WES / WASH programme in Sudan An overall evaluation of the WASH Program is needed to guide future direction The evaluation covers the period from 2002 to 2010

23

2. Safe Water Supply: The objective is to “support increasing and sustaining access to safe water supply with focus on rural vulnerable communities, schools, health centres, Guinea Worm endemic areas, high returnee areas and those in emergency situations”. The population targeted by this component includes 1,400,000 individuals with new access to improved drinking water sources, 750,000 individuals with re-established access, and 1.8 million individuals in conflict/disaster areas with access to improved water services.

3. Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion: The objective is to “support increasing access to improved sanitation facilities with focus on high returnees, vulnerable and emergency affected communities, schools and health centres. In 2008, this component was split into two components, dealing with sanitation and hygiene promotion separately; but the two were reintegrated into one component in 2009. However, for the purpose of this evaluation the two components are dealt with as separate issues, each with distinct foci, strategies, and outcomes. The population targeted by this component is 400,000 people with new access to adequate sanitation facilities, 1.2 million people in emergency areas with sustained access to safe means of excreta disposal, and increased knowledge on proper hygiene practices for 6 million people.

Thematically, the evaluation addresses the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria. Accordingly it covers the following aspects:

1) Relevance, addressing the coherence of the programme with government’s national plans and priorities, MDGs, human rights, UNICEF objectives and commitments as well as the needs of the beneficiaries.

2) Effectiveness, addressing the degree of achievement of programme objectives at outcome level as well as the factors explaining success/failure.

3) Efficiency, addressing the relationship of inputs to results and objectives in terms of time and cost.

4) Impact, addressing the medium and long-term development changes the programme contributed to.

5) Sustainability, addressing a) the ability to continue programme activities relying on national and community capacities and b) the environmental sustainability.

Finally, the geographical scope of the evaluation includes 6 states aside from the central level in Khartoum: South Darfur, North Darfur, South Kordofan, Blue Nile, Kassala and Sinnar.

1.3 Purpose & Objectives

With reference to the Terms of Reference (ToR) for this assignment, the overall goal of this evaluation is to examine the extent to which the objectives and results of the WASH/WES Programme have been achieved over the last eight years, with the aim of drawing out lessons learned and identifying areas for improving the programme's implementation and direction.

The evaluation covers the three program components: sector policy, water supply and Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Thematically, the evaluation addresses the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria: Relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact.

Geographically, the evaluation includes 6 states aside from the central level.

24

The general objective of the exercise is to assess whether WASH/WES activities are effectively contributing to the development of water, sanitation and hygiene in developmental and humanitarian contexts in Sudan.

This assignment aims to achieve the following specific objectives:

a) To assess to what extent the WASH/WES programme has contributed to the improvement of the health of children, their learning environment and the overall water and sanitation coverage in North Sudan;

b) To assess to what extent the WASH/WES programme has provided basic water, sanitation and hygiene services for vulnerable and underdeveloped communities in humanitarian crisis regions (e.g. victims of conflict in Darfur, victims of natural diseases and epidemics in other states as a result of waterborne disease brought about by flooding and/or poor hygiene and sanitation practices, etc.);

c) To evaluate the success, lessons learned and possible failures of the WASH/WES programme in implementing and achieving its Country Programme Objective;

d) To provide a programme and country‐level analysis, to address cross‐cutting issues relevant to programme‐level choices; and

e) To provide UNICEF and PWC, and other partners with critical recommendations for future collaboration in WASH/WES ‐related activities.

1.4 Approach and Methodology

1.4.1 Research Questions

The evaluation was based on the OECD/DAC criteria. A careful review of the OECD Evaluation Manual (2008) was conducted to ensure that the following are properly measured. Specific care was taken to measure both developmental and humanitarian interventions using appropriate criteria. Below is a listing of the criteria addressed in the evaluation.

Relevance

The assessment of relevance relied on a variety of dimensions that the programme is intended to contribute to. Assessing this dimension required answering questions such as:

Are these objectives still valid?

Do populations covered consider the programme interventions as responding to their needs?

Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impact, overall goal, and objectives?

Under the relevance aspect, the links between the overall programme impacts and super-ordinate goals and priorities were investigated. These super-ordinate goals were deduced from the following references:

Government Priorities and strategic policy and sector plans;

The Evaluation

aims to assess

whether

programme

activities are

effectively

contributing to the

development of

water, sanitation

and hygiene in

developmental and

humanitarian

contexts in Sudan.

Research questions

were derived from

the OECD

Development

Assistance Criteria.

25

UNDAF Outcomes

MDGs

CRC

UNICEF Mid-Term Strategic Plan

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and specified in the International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

UNICEF’s Core Commitment to Children (CCCs)

Effectiveness

This dimension is concerned with the relationship between programme results and programme objectives and outcomes. Assessing this dimension required answering questions such as:

Which interventions were successful in achieving the set objectives?

What factors explain the success/failure of WASH/WES programme?

What should be done to increase effectiveness?

Efficiency

This dimension is concerned with the relationship of inputs with results and objectives, and looked mainly at the programme’s time-efficiency and cost-efficiency. Assessing this dimension required answering questions such as:

Could the programme have been implemented in a more timely or cost‐effective manner?

Are there alternative approaches to implementation?

It is important to note that this evaluation is concerned only with the outcome level and thus did not go into the operational details of projects. The evaluation did not look at costs of machines or other such issues. Rather, it looked at the big picture by comparing, for example, the average cost of providing water per person under different circumstances. Thus, this dimension of the assessment is more related to cost implications in different contexts, rather than operational details.

Impact

This dimension is concerned with the relationship of the achieved outcomes and the overall objective that the programme aims to contribute to. Assessing this dimension gave rise to questions such as:

What do participants and partners think about the effect the programme has had on the health and well‐being of children and women in targeted areas and nation-wide?

Sustainability

This dimension is concerned with how the results relate to the existing capacities of the targeted populations without UNICEF support. Assessing this dimension required an assessment of local ownership, stakeholder involvement in planning and

Relevance looks at

programme

activities and

impacts related to

super-ordinate

goals and priorities

Effectiveness looks

at programme

results related to

objectives.

Efficiency looks at

programme inputs

related to results.

Impact looks at

programme

outcomes and

overall long-term

objectives.

Sustainability looks

at results related to

existing local

capacities without

UNICEF support.

26

implementation, willingness and ability to continue implementation without UNICEF support, and environmental‐friendliness of technologies used. Assessing this dimension required answering questions such as:

Will project activities and programme interventions continue to be implemented without UNICEF guidance or financial support?

What is the level of multiplication effect of project activities and programme interventions?

Thus, this dimension looked mainly at local ownership, local involvement in implementation, local implementation capacity without donor funds, and the environmental-friendliness of technologies used.

Cross‐cutting Issues: In addition to the above dimensions, the assignment also looked at several issues that were meant to be mainstreamed across programme implementation. These include gender mainstreaming, children, people with disabilities, the elderly, pregnant women, sick persons, the utilization of a human rights‐based approach, and the involvement of NGOs and private partners. These cross‐cutting issues were explored in relation to programme level choices including:

Sector coordination and inter‐sectoral funding.

Management, sustainability and monitoring.

How best to achieve results in the context of the socio‐economic and political realities of Sudan.

The integration of a human‐rights based approach to programming.

Whether girls and boys, women and men, are equally benefiting.

Whether the programme has helped in key areas such as decentralizing decision‐making, participation of women and men in planning, documenting, information‐sharing, management and service‐delivery.

1.4.2 Evaluation Frame Work

Since the period to be evaluated (2002-2010) has undergone three programme phases with different logical frameworks, an integrated logical framework was developed to guide the entire evaluation process. This framework has been based on the phases’ frameworks as stated in the CPAPs. The development of the log-frame went through many stages ending with a participatory consultative workshop, in which representatives of all relevant parties and stakeholders participated. Programme objectives, outcomes and results throughout the period to be evaluated represent the core of the log-frame, and are stated as follows:

Overall Goal

Improving the health status and living conditions of the population of Sudan

Overall Objective

Sustainability looks

at results related to

existing local

capacities without

UNICEF support.

Cross-cutting

Issues include

gender

mainstreaming,

decentralization,

and using a

participatory

approach.

The Evaluation

Team developed a

logical framework

extracted from

various CPAPs in

consultation with

programme

partners.

Cross-cutting

Issues include

gender

mainstreaming,

decentralization,

and using a

participatory

approach.

The Evaluation

Team developed a

logical framework

extracted from

various CPAPs in

consultation with

programme

partners.

The Evaluation

Team developed a

logical framework

extracted from

various CPAPs in

consultation with

programme

partners.

27

Contributing to the reduction in levels of morbidity and mortality related to water- and sanitation-related diseases especially among children

Objective 1:

Developing, approval and implementing WASH policies, strategies and technical standard guidelines to support emergence of a comprehensive and coherent water and sanitation programme

Outcome 1

WASH policy and strategies are established approved and operationalized at national and state levels.

Results

1.1 Relevant and effective WASH sector policy, national and state strategies developed and approved.

1.2 An enabling environment for WASH strategy and policy created.

1.3 WASH strategy and policy operationalised.

1.4 Funds released for the WASH sector programme increased.

Objective 2

Building of institutional and human capacities and strengthening of information and monitoring systems at the different levels for coordination, planning and implementation of sustainable WASH interventions

Outcome 2

Institutional and human capacities in relevant ministries, agencies and departments and communities are established/improved for planning, implementing, coordinating, monitoring and reporting on WASH service delivery.

Results

2.1 WES units at state and Mahalia level established and equipped.

2.2 Capacities of WES/WASH professionals improved.

2.3 WASH sector mechanism for monitoring and tracking established and operationalised.

2.4 Quality testing labs at national and state level established and equipped

2.5 WASH sector Management Information System established and operationalised

2.6 Decentralised management of WASH programme is established, strengthened and applied.

2.7 An effective operation and maintenance system is in place contributing to sustainability of existing improved water and sanitary facilities in WASH programme supported areas.

2.8 Effective WASH sector co-ordination mechanism developed and applied.

Objective 3

According to the

evaluation’s logical

framework, the

programme’s

overall objective is

reducing levels of

morbidity and

mortality from

water-borne

diseases, especially

among children.

Objective 1 relates

to the development

of policies,

strategies and

technical

guidelines to serve

as roadmaps for

sector partners.

Objective 2 relates

to institution-

building, capacity-

building,

information

systems and sector

coordination.

28

Increasing sustainable and equitable access to improved drinking water sources in rural and most vulnerable areas

Outcome 3

Sustainable and equitable access to improved drinking water sources in WASH programme supported areas increased/re-established.

Results

3.1 Sustainable Access to improved drinking water sources in WASH programme supported areas increased/re-established

3.2 Basic-School children with at-school access to improved water supplies increased

3.3 A functional drinking water quality monitoring system is put into place

3.4 Access to improved water services for emergency affected population increased by WASH programme.

Objective 4

Increasing access to adequate sanitation facilities in rural and most vulnerable areas

Outcome 4

Access to adequate sanitation facilities in rural and emergency WASH programme supported areas increased.

Results

4.1 Access to sanitary means of excreta disposal in WASH programme supported areas increased

4.2 Basic school children(boys and girls) with at-school access to sanitation facilities increased

4.3 Access to sanitary means of excreta disposal in emergency areas increased

Objective 5

Increasing awareness and practice of personal and environmental hygiene

Outcome 5

Awareness regarding personal and environmental hygiene increased and positive practices adopted in WASH programme supported areas.

Results

5.1 Awareness on personal and environmental hygiene Increased 5.2 Attitudes and behaviour towards positive hygiene practices improved

1.4.3 Methodology

Two approaches were employed for the evaluation: 1) secondary data review and processing; and 2) primary data collection. The former comprises consideration of programme and project documents, previous studies, assessments, and surveys, sector policy and strategic planning documents, WES website, sector guidelines and standards, and more general materials on Sudan (detailed information available under

Objective 3 relates

to increased access

to sustainable

improved water

supply in rural and

emergency-

affected areas.

Objective 4 relates

to increased access

to adequate and

environmentally

friendly sanitation

facilities in rural

and emergency-

affected areas.

Objective 5 relates

to increased

awareness of

personal and

environmental

hygiene practices.

29

“Data Sources”). The latter – primary data collection – depended on a mixed research approach of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Secondary Data Review and Processing

The desk review served two functions: 1) to provide direct information for use in the evaluation report; and 2) to provide insights about issues to be raised and/or confirmed during primary data collection.

As the documents were reviewed, they were mapped in terms of their direct contribution to the statement of outputs and measurement of outcomes and interpretation of results, and in terms of sub-indicator identification for questionnaire development.

Primary Data Collection

The Evaluation Team identified a mix of quantitative and qualitative tools to collect the data needed for the evaluation. This comprised the following:

Quantitative Data:

A wide-scale survey depending on a highly-structured quantitative questionnaire was conducted. The questionnaire collected demographic information, opinions, and factual data. The development of the tool was based on previous experience in similar surveys by the Team, online resources in the water and sanitation sector, a review of project materials, and other resources.

Qualitative Data:

Key informant interviews: Opinions and factual data were sought from stakeholders involved in the water or sanitation sectors, and those involved in the health-related aspects of water and sanitation. Interviews were conducted at national, state, and Mahalia levels, involving WES programme personnel, government officials, and non-state actors such as NGO workers and school officials, in both emergency and regular non-emergency locations.

Focus group discussions: Opinions were sought from a variety of stakeholders at local level, comprising both emergency and regular non-emergency locations.

Technical Observation: A WASH specialist conducted visits to representative water and sanitation facilities to examine the work quality, and functionality of operation and maintenance.

1.5 Sampling

1.5.1 Sampling Approach

The sampling approach used was the household approach in order to target persons at the community level, particularly family members, with a focus on women. The sample included both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in different contexts.

1.5.2 Sampling Frame

Prior to the field sampling stage in order to select the households included in the survey, the identification of the sample frame was conducted at the office level. The first stage of sample frame identification was the selection of states. This was pre-selected through the ToR provided by UNICEF. The second stage was the selection of

The evaluation

relied on primary

and secondary

data, both

qualitative and

quantitative.

The quantitative

data came from a

household survey

conducted in five

states.

The qualitative

data came from

key informant

interviews, focus

group discussions,

and technical

observations in

seven states.

Technical

observation visits

were conducted in

seven states.

The sampling

followed a

household

approach, and

targeted primarily

women.

The sampling

followed a

clustering

methodology to

represent different

community types.

The evaluation

relied on primary

and secondary

data, both

qualitative and

quantitative.

The quantitative

came from a

household survey

conducted in five

states.

The qualitative

data came from

key informant

interviews, focus

group discussions,

and technical

observations in

seven states.

30

localities within the chosen states. This was done in consultation with central- and state-level WES authorities to discuss the number of localities in each state, the population size in each locality, and the ability to access specific areas due to political instability and flooding. The third stage was the identification of community types within the chosen states and localities, focusing on rural communities and camps. This stage was done in consultation with central- and state-level UNICEF, WES, PWC, and MoH officials. The outcome of this discussion was the final selection of accessible villages and camps to be included in the survey. The final stage at office level was to identify the districts within the chosen villages/camps where the field researchers would conduct the field sampling at household level.

1.5.3 Sampling Methodology and Sample Size

The sampling was based on a clustering methodology. The clusters were selected to represent three different community types: Programme-supported communities in facing regular developmental conditions, programme-supported communities facing emergency conditions, and non-programme-supported communities. Programme-supported communities have a larger share in the sample than non-programme areas, which leads to a slight bias in the sample towards programme areas. At the household level, a random sampling approach was used to select respondents to the questionnaire. The total sample size was 1070 respondents comprising the different clusters as follows:

Cluster/Target group Number of Respondents Total

Regular Programme Areas 342 1070

Emergency Programme Areas 517

Non-Programme Areas 211

Women 828

Men 242

Kassala 177

Blue Nile 127

South Kordofan 146

North Darfur 204

South Darfur 416

1.6 Constrains and Limitations

Data Limitations

The secondary data posed a serious challenge for the evaluation team. Some data was difficult to obtain or simply did not exist, rendering some indicators immeasurable. Other indicators did have data but no baseline with which to compare the recent data to, making it difficult to form a chronological picture.

Another common issue was the existence of recent data and baseline data, but measured according to different criteria and definitions (e.g. improved sanitation

The sampling

followed a

household

approach, and

targeted primarily

women.

The total sample

size for the

quantitative survey

is 1070

respondents

comprising the

different clusters.

31

versus adequate sanitation). The inconsistency and lack of unified definitions and scopes made it difficult to accurately aggregate chronologically or even geographically. This hindered or affected the analysis of some indicators and aspects.

Logistical Limitations

Moreover, and expectedly due to the wide scope of the evaluation and the local conditions, some unforeseen difficulties caused delays in the implementation and necessitated adjustments to the work planning. Most important of these are:

Many areas included in the original sample frame were later cancelled due to security conditions or flooding, especially within Blue Nile and the Darfur states. Based on this, accessibility was a determining factor in the selection of villages/communities.

The Team was unable to obtain detailed demographic and geographical information about the villages included in the sample frame.

Many government officials found it very difficult to find time in their schedules to be interviewed. Consecutive cancellation and rescheduling led to some delays.

There were often logistical problems such as electricity blackouts, weak cell phone reception, and inconsistent availability of transportation during data collection period.

1.7 Report Organization

The report is divided into four (4) parts. This first part contains all background information relevant to this evaluation, such as the methodology and context. Part 2 and 3 form the core of the report by presenting, respectively, the findings of the evaluation according to the research questions (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, cross-cutting issues), and the recommendations & lessons learned. Part 4 contains the annexes with more detailed information about the evaluation process.

2. Context

2.1 Country Context

Basic Information

Sudan covers an area 1.8 million sq. km. (695,000 sq. mi.) making it the third-largest country in Africa (after having been the largest until the July 2011 secession of South Sudan). The terrain: Generally flat with mountains in the East and West. Khartoum is situated at the confluence of the Blue and White Nile Rivers.

Sudan hosts a population of 30,894,000, around 8% of which are nomads, and around 2% of which are IDPs (Sudan 2010 MDG Report). Sudan is a country rich in natural resources, including oil, but has been unable to take full advantage due in large part to ongoing conflict between the North and South, and later in Darfur and the Protocol Areas. The comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) signed in 2005 put an end to the North-South civil conflict, but eventually resulted in the separation of the South through the 2011 South Sudan referendum.

The sampling

followed a

household

approach, and

targeted primarily

women.

The evaluation

faced some

limitations and

constraints in

obtaining data and

accessing

emergency-

affected

communities.

The evaluation

faced some

limitations and

constraints in

obtaining data and

accessing

emergency-

affected

communities.

The report is

composed of four

parts: Background,

Findings,

Conclusions /

Recommendations

/ Lessons, and

Annexes

Sudan is the largest

country in Africa,

with around 46.5%

living below the

poverty line

(according to

official estimates)

32

Demographic and Socio-economic aspects

Although Sudan has experienced quite a strong period of economic growth since 1999, few have enjoyed the spoils of this boom. Sudan’s GNP has grown from USD 10 billion in 1999 to USD 53 billion in 2008 (Sudan 2010 MDG Report). According to the 2009 National Baseline Household Survey (NBHS), 46.5% live below the poverty line in Sudan (approximately 14 million people). Disparities are high both in terms of urban-rural (26.5% and 57.6% respectively) and in terms of regional disparities. Expectedly, Khartoum has the lowest rate of poverty, followed by Northern, followed by Eastern and Central Sudan, followed by Kordofan and Darfur regions. North Darfur has the highest poverty rate. There are some exceptions to the urban-rural divide, as Northern is predominantly rural but has the second lowest poverty rate, while Red Sea is predominantly urban and is within the five highest poverty rates. However, overall poverty is mostly rural in Sudan (PRSP, 2011). To overcome its developmental challenges, Sudan has launched a five-year development plan, and is currently developing a poverty-reduction strategy paper (PRSP).

Political aspects

The political system in Sudan is a presidential democratic multi-party republic. The National Assembly and the Council of States are the two legislative bodies. The ruling party is the National Congress Party, but there are over 20 other political parties in Sudan. The CPA signed in 2005 allowed for the establishment of a multi-party system in Sudan by stipulating that elections are to be held for the following (UNDP Sudan Support to Elections Report, 2009):

President of Sudan: Conducted in 2010

President of the Government of Southern Sudan

National Assembly: Conducted in 2010

Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly

State assemblies

State governors

Referendum for separation of South Sudan: Conducted in 2011

Referendum for Abyei joining the South: Postponed indefinitely

WASH-related aspects (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene, Diseases)

Data about access to improved water sources varies from source to source. The 2010 Sudan Household Health Survey (SHHS) states it as 60.5% noting wide regional disparities. According to the 2007 Situation Analysis of Children in Sudan (SITAN) Report, Sinnar, Northern and Khartoum states have the highest coverage of improved water supply (60.7%, 91.1 and 72.7 per cent respectively), while Red Sea, Ghedarif and Kassala States show the lowest coverage (27.4, 27.9 and 48 per cent respectively). More detailed information about water supply and sanitation is available under the water section, however, it can be said now that lack of safe drinking water and sanitation, compounded with poor hygiene practices, are among the leading causes of child mortality in Sudan (Sudan MDG Report, 2010). As a result of these causes, many children suffer from malaria, acute watery diarrhoea, trachoma, skin infections, and until recently guinea worm. A United Nations Joint Assessment Mission to Sudan conducted in 2005 estimated that around 48% of child deaths were due to water and

To overcome its

developmental

challenges, Sudan

has launched a

five-year

development plan,

and is currently

developing a

poverty-reduction

strategy paper

(PRSP).

The CPA signed in

2005 allowed for

the establishment

of a multi-party

system in Sudan by

stipulating that

elections are to be

held for a number

of different

matters including

the presidency and

South Sudan

Referendum.

The Sudan

Household Health

Survey estimates

that 56% of the

population has

access to clean

water.

33

sanitation related disease (JAM Volume I, 2005).During the last 40 years, there have been about 11 localized epidemics of cholera in Sudan. In 2006, a total of 10,138 cases of acute watery Diarrhoea and cholera, including 403 deaths were reported in the 15 northern states, and the main sources of infection were considered to be contaminated water sources such as open wells, hand-pumps, water vendors, and rivers (SITAN, 2007).According to the Ministry of Education, 38% of schools have access to adequate sanitation, 13.5% have inferior facilities, and 48% don’t have any facilities.

In addition to children’s health, lack of adequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene also has a significant impact on people living with HIV/AIDS due to their deteriorating immune system. Although HIV data has not been produced since the separation of the South, and thus data for the North only is hard to come by, the 2010 SNAP report estimates that the current HIV prevalence is at 0.67% and projected it to increase to 1.2% by 2015.

2.2 UNICEF and Country Programme Cooperation

The relationship between UNICEF and the Government of Sudan was established in 1994 through a Basic Cooperation Agreement (BCA). The outlines of the agreement are usually renewed every few years through the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) – the latest of which is for the period 2009-2012. This CPAP is endorsed by both the Sudanese government and UNICEF, and is generally based on a combination of national priorities and the UNDAF framework. Since the inception of support to Sudan, UNICEF has focused on the following priority areas:

i. Immunization and primary health care for children, pregnant women, and conflict-affected and disadvantaged communities.

ii. Improving water supply, sanitation facilities, and hygiene promotion in vulnerable communities (in both developmental and emergency contexts), schools, and health facilities.

iii. Support to basic education through training teachers and school heads on child-friendly school management, life skills, and learner-centred methodologies, among other things.

iv. Enhancing justice for children by establishing police-based Family and Child Protection Units and introducing child-friendly and gender-sensitive procedures. UNICEF also focuses on reducing the abandonment of babies, and providing reunification or alternative family care to abandoned children. Support also included campaigns against the recruitment of children.

v. Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of children associated with armed groups by providing psychosocial support, reunification with families, regular monitoring through case-workers, accelerated learning, and vocational training.

vi. Reduction of vulnerability to HIV/AIDS through peer education on vital information and life skills, as well as regular awareness-raising campaigns.

vii. Strengthening of data on children in Sudan through establishment of databases, capacity-building, and reporting (e.g. the 2007 SITAN cited above).

According to the

Sudanese Ministry

of Education, 38%

of schools have

access to adequate

sanitation, 13.5%

have inferior

facilities, and 48%

don’t have any

facilities.

The Country

Programme Action

Plan (CPAP) is the

document

comprising all the

details of the

agreement

between UNICEF

and the

Government of

Sudan.

The latest CPAP

(2009-2012)

consists of 7

programme, one of

which is the WASH

programme.

34

2.3 WES and WASH Programme in Sudan

2.3.1 History and development

The Water and Environmental Sanitation (WES) programme was initiated by UNICEF in 1975 to support the neediest communities with water supply. Until the mid-eighties, its objectives were to provide safe drinking water to needy communities through low cost technology such as hand-pumps. In 1986 sanitation and hygiene components were integrated in the programme and from the year 1992, with UNICEF support, major changes have been introduced to WES Sudan programme both in objectives and strategies. So far, in collaboration with UNICEF, the Government of Sudan established full-fledged WES projects at the state level, WES units at area and Mahalia levels, a national coordination unit at the national level, and a community-based approach has been adopted. The WES programme is currently managed at the national level by the National Coordination Unit (NCU) under the umbrella of the Public Water Corporation (PWC) within the Ministry of Water Resources. It is managed at the state level by WES projects under State Water Corporations within the Ministry of Public Utilities and Urban Planning or the Ministry of Water Resources.

WES projects are currently operating in several states providing capacity-building measures to local communities under the umbrella of WASH/WES and in close cooperation with the sector stakeholders at the local, state and national levels. Currently the WES programme is a joint programme between the PWC and the Ministry of Health, with support from UNICEF’s WASH programme.

At sub-national level there are Area Coordination Units (ACU) for the Darfur region, the Kordofan area, and the Eastern Sudan region. The ACUs are managed under the State Water Corporations within the Ministry of Water Resources. In addition to the ACUs there are state-level WES Projects in 15 states, some of which are focus states and others that are non-focus states. The NCU has the overall responsibility of coordinating and monitoring the plans of the WASH programme at national and state level. In addition to the ACUs in the states, UNICEF also has its own field offices in the states.

WES projects in the states have the responsibilities of the day-to-day implementation of programme activities under the supervision of the NCU through a core staff seconded from different government departments. Most of the WES projects in the states were established 15 to 20 years ago with the exception of the North and South Kordofan WES projects which were established 30 years ago. WES units at the locality (Mahalia) levels have been established to support the village committees in terms of O&M supervision, monitoring and capacity-building. The WASH Programme began establishing WES Units at community level in the mid nineties to ensure sustainability and ownership of the WASH services. Since then, WASH programme supported the establishment of WES units at Mahalia level and extended genuine efforts in terms of capacity building, advocacy and awareness-raising.

At the community/village level, Village Health Committees (VHCs) of ten members (5 women & 5 men) are responsible for planning and operation and maintenance of WES facilities as well as for sanitation and hygiene promotion related activities.

Until the mid-

eighties, its

objectives were to

provide safe

drinking water to

needy communities

through low cost

technology such as

hand-pumps. In

1986 sanitation

and hygiene

components were

integrated in the

programme.

WES projects are

currently operating

in the 15 states

with support from

UNICEF’s WASH

programme.

35

2.3.2 Structure

In 1976, WES started as a confined centralized UNICEF programme in terms of planning, funding and implementation with minor inputs from government and communities. Over time, the institutional structure has been developed and in 1993, the programme’s structure has taken a form of a central level, represented by UNICEF Khartoum which received some governmental support, as well as a state level, represented by UNICEF in the states, which offered services directly to beneficiaries, aided by some local and governmental support. Eventually, the structure transformed into its current form in which communities play a central role. At this level, the programme acts through Village Health Committees (VHC). The community institutions are directly linked to the second level of the WES structure, namely the locality level represented through the WES Mahalia Units. The level above that is the state level at which WES acts through the State WES projects, which links to the regional Area Coordination Units and WASH UNICEF Zonal Offices (each region comprising 3 states). The below diagram depicts how the government’s WES and UNICEF’s WASH interrelate at the various levels:

Figure 2 WES Organizational Structure

The WES

programme

combines a

number of different

partners at

different levels

including the

Ministry of Water

Resources and

Irrigation, the

Ministry of Health,

and the Ministry of

Public Utilities and

Urban Planning.

The Village Health

Committees have

been established in

several states, and

are responsible for

operation and

maintenance of

WES facilities. They

are also involved in

the planning

phase, and they

conducted

awareness and

hygiene promotion

activities.

36

2.3.3 Budget

The following is a breakdown of the budget allocations by UNICEF and national and state government and communities during the period 2002-2010 (Source: PWC/UNICEF).

Figure 3 Programme Budget Disaggregated by UNICEF & Government 2002-2010

Year UNICEF ($) Gov/Community ($)

2002 3,318,693 1,400,000

2003 3,955,937 2,180,000

2004 14,887,068 12,000,000

2005 23,365,199 1,729,000 (estimated)

2006 17,080,021 1,206,000

2007 25,098,989 1,532,284

2008 19,633,021 2,449,384

2009 18,716,144 3,236,853

2010 16,014,700 2,289,551

Total 142,069,773 28,023,072

2.3.4 Key Stakeholders

Many stakeholders are involved in the funding and implementation of the programme. The main counterpart of the programme is the PWC under the Ministry of Water Resources. The WES projects at the state and locality levels have been the main implementing agencies of the programme. Over the years substantial technical assistance and capacity-building has been provided to WES projects and communities to establish local capacities to sustain the WASH services if UNICEF decreases its support. However, some areas have experienced accessibility problems (e.g. in Abyei). In such cases, NGOs and private contractors have been used in place of WES (EC Midterm Review, 2011). Local NGO partners have received some technical assistance from UNICEF in order to play a role in implementation, especially in hygiene promotion activities (UNICEF Sudan CPAP, 2009-2012). Sector partners also include other international organizations such as Thirst No more, IDRB, TearFund, IAS, CIS, IRW, World Vision, and Practical Action. Local communities have also been key stakeholders of the programme through their participation via the local committees. Other partners include: UNESCO, UNEP, WHO, and private sector. Among donors who have provided financial and technical support are JICA (supported the establishment of the national training centre to conduct courses on WASH topics), and Sudanese Standards and Meteorological Organization (supported the establishment of water quality management systems). Among the partners listed above, the following have been included in this evaluation (through meetings or in-depth interviews): UNICEF, PWC, SWCs, MoH, state- and locality-level WES units, community-based VHCs, NGOs.

The WES

programme

operates at central

level, area level,

state level, locality

level, and

community level

through village

committees.

The programme’s

budget has

witnessed a

significant increase

from 2002-2007,

but has started to

slightly decrease

since 2007.

The programme’s

UNICEF

contribution has

increased from

slightly over $3

million in 2002 to

over $16 million in

2010, while its

government

budget has almost

doubled.

Stakeholders of the

programme include

government

entities,

international

organizations, local

NGOs, and

community/village

based groups.

37

1. Relevance

1.1 Relevance to National Plans & Priorities

The overall goal of the WASH programme is to contribute to the reduction of morbidity and mortality related to water-borne and water-related diseases among the communities in the focus States, especially among children who are the most vulnerable. The programme sought to reach this overall goal through increasing access to safe drinking water, environmental sanitation services, and hygiene education, all of which will improve hygiene practices, reduce diseases, alleviate the work load on women, and generally improve the quality of life for women and children.

By adopting this goal and approach, the programme was basing itself on national priorities. The overall goal of the national water supply and environmental sanitation policy is to contribute to improving the health status and living conditions of the population and the economic growth of the nation by means of providing all of the population with adequate and sustainable access to WASH basic services and hygienic practice.

The objective of the policy is to increase the rates of access to safe water supply in rural areas by 20 litres per capita per day and 90 litres per capita per day in urban areas as well as to increase access to environmental sanitation services to 67% of the Sudanese population in rural and urban areas by the end of 2015. This constitutes an achievement of the objectives of the MDGs.

This policy also aims at achieving the Government Quarter Century Strategic Plan of 2007-2031, which intends to increase the level of access to reach 50 litres per capita per day in rural areas and 150 litres per capita per day in urban areas, in addition to the full coverage of all schools, public health facilities and religious premises by the end of the Quarter Century Strategic Plan in 2031.

WASH programme is consistent with the goal and objectives of the national WASH policy and the long term objectives of the Government Quarter Century Strategic Plan of 2007-2031. The programme interventions are extremely relevant to the needs of the communities at the locality level and hence strengthening the decentralization mechanism. Most of the stakeholders interviewed consider the approaches of the WASH programme as a model that should be adopted in all relevant sectors to achieve proper coordination and effective partnership.

1.2 Relevance to Human Rights

The philosophy of the WASH programme clearly considers the beneficiaries as rights-holders and claimants and no longer regards them as merely the recipients of services. Thus, the programme successfully moved from a "need-based to a rights-based approach. In accordance with this orientation, strategic consideration has been given to build the capacities of community members in order to qualify and empower them

Part II: Findings

The programme’s

overall goal is

based on national

priorities and

plans, namely the

National Water

Supply and

Environmental

Sanitation Policy

and the

Government

Quarter Century

Strategic Plan

The philosophy of

the programme is

largely consistent

with a human

rights based

approach to

development.

38

as programme partners. This empowerment and participation pave the way for a fully community-based management of WASH activities. The programme is also very relevant to the International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), specifically ICESCR Article 12 which stipulates that everyone should have access to the underlying determinants of health, such as clean water, sanitation and housing. Furthermore, clean water and adequate sanitation are widely considered a basic human right, and the programme focuses on the involvement of both rights-holders and duty-bearers in the process of fulfilling these rights. This is also discussed in more detail under the “Human Rights Based Approach” section.

1.3 Relevance to MDGs

The programme’s overall goal as well as the targeted result “Increasing sustainable and equitable access to improved drinking water sources and adequate sanitation in rural and most vulnerable areas” reflects high conformity with Target 10 of MDG 7: to “Ensure Environmental Sustainability”, that is “Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation” and clearly respond to the MDGs 4 and 6, namely to “reduce child mortality” and to “combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases”, through its focus on WASH-related diseases, especially those that affect children. However the programme focused on WASH related diseases, mainly diarrhoea, AWD, Cholera and Guinea Worm while HIV/AIDS and Malaria were usually included in hygiene promotion activities but not explicitly considered, which is justified in light of the nature of the programme and the areas of intervention.

The indicators used to measure contribution towards MDG 7 Target 10 are: i) Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural, and ii) Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation, urban and rural. Both of these indicators are a core part of the programme’s regular monitoring, which reflects its alignment with the MDG priorities. However, environmental sustainability was not explicitly and properly considered in programme policies and plans e.g. there is no WASH comprehensive framework for environment sustainability.

1.4 Relevance to UNICEF Commitments

Relevance to UNDAF Priorities

The WASH Programme’s outcomes are coherent with the UNDAF 2009-2012 Outcomes, specifically UNDAF Sub-Outcome 4 (“Basic Services: Vulnerable groups have increased and sustainable access to, and use of safe water and basic sanitation, and have adopted improved hygiene practices”), and UNDAF Sub Outcome 5 (“Basic Services: By 2012, policies, knowledge‐bases, systems and human resource capacities are improved for enabling decentralized and sustainable integrated water resources management (IWRM) and WASH service delivery”). Through the programme’s focus on increasing the access of vulnerable groups to WASH services, the establishment of the highly decentralized structure as well as capacity-building, the programme serves both UNDAF sub-outcomes. Nevertheless, adopting a clear IWRM concept and framework has been given less priority. However, UNEP has recently engaged in providing tangible support

The programme

indirectly

contributes to

MDGs 4, 6, at the

impact level, and

directly contributes

to 7 (Target 10) at

the outcome level.

The outcomes of

the programme are

consistent with and

directly contribute

to UNDAF Sub-

Outcomes 4 and 5.

39

to relevant institutions to establish sound IWRM frameworks, an initiative that placed the issue of environmental sustainability on the top agenda of the Ministry of Water Resources.

UNICEF Core Commitment to Children

In general, the programme strongly contributes to fulfilling UNICEF’s Core Commitment to Children. However, it responded to the different commitments to varying extents

Commitment 1: Effective leadership is established for WASH cluster/inter-agency coordination, with links to other cluster/sector coordination mechanisms on critical inter-sectoral issues. Benchmark 1: Coordination mechanism provides guidance to all partners on common approaches and standards; ensures that all critical WASH gaps and vulnerabilities are identified; and provides information on who is doing what, where, when and how, to ensure that all gaps are addressed without duplication.

In terms of goals and objectives, the programme aims to strengthen coordination and communication with stakeholders. Sector leadership is clearer in the area of water supply, where it indisputably lies with the Public Water Corporation (PWC) and accordingly the Ministry of Water Resources. However, the programme’s responsibility for the other components (sanitation, hygiene and awareness, environmental issues) is to different extents shared with other bodies, most importantly the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education at central and state levels as well as the state Ministries of Urban Planning and public utilities. The roles, mandates and responsibilities of those and other stakeholders were not sufficiently and realistically determined in programme documents. It is highly expected that the Sector Policy, which is awaiting official endorsement, will effectively address the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders to avoid confusion and contradiction among the WASH partners.

Commitment 2: Children and women access sufficient water of appropriate quality and quantity for drinking, cooking and maintaining personal hygiene. Benchmark 2: Children and women have access to at least 7.5-15 litres of clean water per day.

The programme addresses children’s and women’s access to sufficient and clean water. Besides the implicit consideration of children and women in all activities that support households wash requirements. Children are additionally considered through the programme basic schools component. Women access to services is more implicitly considered through addressing rural and emergency areas and focusing on marginalized population groups in general. The access of women to water is also indirectly addressed through empowering women to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding water facilities in addition to O&M and management of the facilities. Moreover, women benefit more from improved and close water facilities, since they are usually responsible for fetching water from far conventional sources. However, clearer planning for, and reporting on, per capita consumption is not satisfactorily considered. Also, the programme lacks considerations of gender budgeting and sex-disaggregated information and monitoring systems.

Commitment 3: Children and women access toilets and washing facilities that are culturally appropriate, secure, sanitary, user-friendly and gender-appropriate. Benchmark 3: A maximum ratio of 20 people per hygienic toilet or latrine squat hole,

The programme

strongly

contributes to

fulfilling UNICEF’s

Core Commitment

to Children.

While the

programme is

highly consistent

with Commitment

2, Commitment 3

has been

considered to a

lesser extent as in

practice gender-

appropriate

sanitation facilities

have not received

sufficient

attention.

40

users should have a means to wash their hands after defecation with soap or an alternative such as ash.

While the programme’s objectives are consistent with this commitment in that it focuses on schoolchildren’s access to water and sanitation facilities, and has a distinct gender focus as well, in practice the gender aspect requires further effort. Sanitation facilities in public areas such as markets are not sufficiently available, and sometimes not gender appropriate. This is further documented under the “gender mainstreaming” section.

Commitment 4: Children and women receive critical WASH-related information to prevent child illness, especially diarrhoea. Benchmark 4: Hygiene education and information pertaining to safe and hygienic child-care and feeding practices are provided to 70% of women and child caregivers.

The programme is extremely relevant to this commitment as it has a strong focus on training school children and staff through school-based Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion clubs. However, it is recommended that more follow-up and monitoring is conducted regarding the functionality of the established clubs to ensure their sustainability.

Commitment 5: Children access safe water, sanitation and hygiene facilities in their learning environment and in child-friendly spaces. Benchmark 5: In learning facilities and child-friendly spaces, 1–2 litres of drinking water per child per day (depending on climate and individual physiology); 50 children per hygienic toilet or latrine squat hole at school; users have a means to wash their hands after defecation with soap or an alternative; appropriate hygiene education and information are provided to children, guardians and teachers.

The programme is also very relevant to this commitment as it focuses on providing adequate water supply and sanitation facilities in schools. Numbers of schools and schoolchildren benefiting from the programme are provided in most progress reports.

Relevance to UNICEF MTSP

The programme’s relevance to regarding UNICEF’s Mid‐Term Strategic Plan is high, specifically with respect to Focus Area 1 (Young child survival and development) and Focus Area 5 (policy advocacy and partnerships for children’s rights).

Focus area 1 – Young child survival and development: Support in regular, emergency and transitional situations for essential health, nutrition, water and sanitation programmes, and for young child and maternal care at the family, community, service-provider and policy levels.

As it focuses on water and sanitation for children, families, health centres, schools, as well as policy enhancement and institutionalization, the programme makes relevant contributions to this focus area.

Focus area 5 – Policy advocacy and partnerships for children’s rights: Putting children at the centre of policy, legislative and budgetary provisions through: generating high-quality, sex-disaggregated data and analysis; using these for advocacy in the best interests of children; supporting national emergency preparedness capacities;

The programme’s

activities have

been extremely

relevant to

Commitment 4, but

more follow-up is

needed to ensure

sustainability of

awareness

activities.

The programme

has high relevance

to UNICEF’s Mid-

Term Strategic

Plan, especially

young child

survival and

development, and

policy advocacy for

children’s rights.

41

leveraging resources through partnerships for investment in children; and fostering children’s and young people’s participation as partners in development.

The programme’s relevance to this area is constituted by its focus on school children and healthy learning environments. An examination of the National WASH Plan 2011-2016 indicates that children are at the core of planning in terms of providing them with healthy learning environments. The programme also aims to engage them as development partners through their capacity-building in school-based Sanitation & Hygiene Promotion clubs.

1.5 Relevance to Population Needs

The integration of the programme components is relevant to achieving health-related outcomes associated with reduced child diseases; however more studies on the short- and medium-term health benefits of WASH activities through regular household surveys are still needed.

The WASH programme is extremely relevant to the needs of the disadvantaged communities in Sudan in general, and to the programme areas specifically. The programme strategy and approaches widely meet the needs of the population in rural and emergency areas, particularly in scattered and remote areas and IDPs.

The approach to and content of hygiene education is relevant for households and in most cases developed according to the culture and traditions of the specific community. The household survey asked respondents about their own feelings towards the relevance of the hygiene promotion messages they had encountered.

Regarding water hygiene promotion, 80% of respondents found the promotion messages they had encountered to be very relevant to their situation and circumstances, while 17.5% mentioned that they are somewhat relevant, and 1.5% found them very irrelevant. Regarding the messages for human waste excreta disposal hygiene promotion, 79% reported that the messages are very relevant, 18.5% as somewhat relevant, and 1.9% as very irrelevant. Regarding general hygiene promotion messages, 81.5% described them as very relevant, 17.3% as somewhat relevant, and 1% as very irrelevant. Regarding workshops and meetings on hygiene related issues, 87.3% found such activities to be very relevant, while 11.3% found them somewhat relevant, and 1% found them irrelevant. There were no considerable differences across community type or sex.

Figure 4 Relevance of Hygiene Messages

82%

17%

1%Relevance of Hygiene Messages

Very Relevant

Somewhat Relevant

Irrelevant

The programme is

extremely relevant

to the needs of

Sudan in general,

as documented in

numerous studies

on the gaps in

clean water and

adequate

sanitation among

vulnerable groups.

Respondents who

participated in the

evaluation’s

household survey

deemed the

programme’s

interventions

highly relevant to

their needs and

realities.

42

By and large, the communities are very much satisfied with hygiene promotion activities and confirmed that the hygiene messages promoted by programme are very relevant to their situation. This is mostly due to the fact that the programme’s approach in terms of planning and implementation has been built on consultation with sector stakeholders and partners, and taking into consideration previous studies (such as the KAP survey) together with the culture and traditions of the targeted community, which ensures that messages are culturally-appropriate and relevant.

The integration of water supply, environmental sanitation, and hygiene is very relevant for the needs of end users, however related government institutions and communities at the local level need further capacity-building to implement this approach. The integration of water supply, environmental sanitation, and hygiene is very relevant to achieving health-related outcomes associated with reduced child illnesses, but more studies are required to confirm this direct link.

The project outputs are relevant to the communities’ needs and preference. The household survey indicated that communities are familiar with the water technology options and hygiene promotion techniques. Nevertheless, more consultation on water tariff system and appropriate latrines options is recommended to enhance community participation, ownership and sustainability of the services.

The formulation, planning, operation strategy, technology options, activities, implementation process and outputs of the programme were examined and found to be relevant to the basic needs of the target communities in Sudan. The FGDs and KIIs conducted with Director Generals of State Water Corporations (SWCs), WES Project Managers, and UN agencies confirmed that the programme has been very influential and effective in coordinating its WASH interventions with the sector partners including government agencies and communities in particular.

According to the 2002 and 2006 Sudan National Health Household Surveys, UN and WASH sector partners, the focus states3 remains the most needy states in comparison to the other states in Sudan during the last decade. Therefore, UNICEF/WASH programme decision related to the geographic focus and criteria for site selection was appropriate. Selection of the project sites/beneficiaries was based on results of situation analyses and a number of needs assessments, KAP surveys, baseline surveys, and according to the plans developed by WASH sector cluster structure in the specific states.

3 North Darfur, South Darfur, West Darfur, North Kordofan, South Kordofan, Kassala, Gedarif, Red Sea, Blue Nile,

Abyei area and Khartoum peripheral and IDP areas.

The integration of

water supply,

sanitation, and

hygiene has

strengthened the

programme’s

relevance to

beneficiaries’

needs, but

government

institutions need

more capacity-

building to

implement this

approach and

avoid the

fragmentation of

responsibilities.

43

2. Effectiveness

2.1 Policies, Strategies, and Guidelines

Objective:

Developing, obtaining approval for and implementing WASH policies, strategies and technical standard guidelines to support the emergence of a comprehensive and coherent water and sanitation Programme.

Achievements:

In 2006, the Public Water Corporation (PWC) in collaboration with UNICEF started to formulate the National WASH Sector Policy for Sudan which is expected to outline the a road map for WASH sector. The development process has been very comprehensive and was facilitated by many sector partners including government officials, national and international experts as well as representatives of end users. Early in 2010, the National WASH Sector Policy for has been reviewed, finalized and translated into Arabic in agreement with the Ministry of Health. Currently, the Ministry of Water Resources is taking action for formal approval.

WASH sector stakeholders are highly satisfied with both the policy development process as well as with the content of the policy. They consider the National WASH Sector Policy to be the first clear and comprehensive policy of the WASH Sector in the country and urge for a speedy completion of the endorsement process by relevant national authorities. However, some of them believe that the environmental aspects of the policy have been overlooked in comparison to the water, sanitation and public health aspects.

The appropriate implementation of National WASH Sector Policy will considerably help clarify the roles of stakeholder to avoid conflicts in responsibilities and support further integration of programme components. However, the endorsement process of the national sector policy is still in progress; therefore, the policy is not yet operationalised at national and state level.

The Public Water Corporation (PWC), with support from UNICEF, also completed the process of developing the 5 year National Strategic Plan (2012-2016) for the WASH sector. The plan development process has been carried out based on a participatory and integrated multi-sectoral approach. The plan represents an indicative guideline for the enhancement of the WASH sector in consistence with the National Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Sector Policy, the launched Five-Year Development Plan (2012-2016) and the Quarter Century Strategic Plan (2007-2031). The national plan provides an overall framework for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Sector plans in the 15 states. It exceeds the areas of construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of water and sanitation facilities and to focus on strengthening institutional, organizational and human capacities in the sector to ensure improved and sustained WASH services. Moreover, the strategic plans for the period 2010 - 2016 in 14 states have been finalized, approved and some states started enforcing them. The state-based plans address in more detail the local government level. The strategic plans at national and state levels are going to act as guidance for all sector actors and are expected to save time and reduce gaps and duplications in future work phases. Some stakeholders

UNICEF has

provided

substantial support

in the development

of the National

WASH Sector

Policy, leading to

the satisfaction of

many sector

stakeholders.

Once the National

WASH Sector Policy

is endorsed, fully

adopted and

implemented, it

will serve as a

common roadmap

for a sector that

combines many

different

stakeholders with

various

responsibilities and

authorities, paving

the way for

stronger synthesis

of efforts.

44

believe that the database available for strategic planning is not always sufficiently accurate and comprehensive.

Relevant technical 14 WASH Guidelines and Standards (such as those pertaining to the construction and management of Water and Sanitation Facilities) have been developed, approved and widely shared with stakeholders. They were endorsed by the sector stakeholders and authorities in March 2009. The documents were printed, disseminated and uploaded onto the WASH Website. Guideline users are satisfied with them and believe that they have a positive impact on their performance. However, the guidelines are not yet fully recognized and operationalised by all stakeholders, especially the SWCs at state and community levels.

Integrated Water resources Management (IWRM) concepts and consortiums are established in cooperation between UNEP and WES/UNICEF in the three states of Darfur with strong linkages to groundwater monitoring and studying/constructing groundwater artificial recharge systems to enhance aquifers groundwater storage at high-risk IDP locations, where a large quantity of ground water is pumped.

The development of the budget allocated to the WASH programme reflects the success of the policy of the programme as well as the advocacy for a coherent WASH strategy and the confidence in the programme. Between 2002 and 2010, the annual funds released for the UNICEF supported WASH programme increased by about 288% (from $4,718,693 to $18,304,251). The contribution of the government and communities (GoS and communities) increased by 154% (from $1,400,000 to $2,289,551) while the contribution of UNICEF increased by 328% (from $3,318,693 to $16,014,700). In total, funds released for the UNICEF supported WASH programme during the abovementioned period amount to $170,092,845; out of which the contribution of the Sudanese party amounts to about 17% ($28,023,072), while the contribution of UNICEF amounts to about 83% ($142,069,773).

Gaps and obstacles:

The endorsement of the WASH sector policy – which should act as a common roadmap for all sector stakeholders – has encountered significant delays. Moreover, the information systems/databases at local and state levels are not sufficiently operational, although they should be considered to be the basis for planning and policy-making. There is also a relatively limited dissemination and adaptation of the technical guidelines. Another issue is that while IWRM has been applied to some extent in the emergency areas, but in the programme as a whole the linkages between water resources and water supply needs considerable strengthening. Overall, there is a need for a regulatory system for the whole sector that can govern and streamline the various aspects and concerns of the sector.

2.2 Institutionalization and Capacity-Building

Objective:

Building institutional and human capacities and strengthening information and monitoring systems at the different levels for coordination, planning and implementation of sustainable WASH interventions

The WASH Policy

exceeds the

hardware aspects

(facility

construction and

maintenance) and

also focuses on

institutionalization

and capacity-

building.

WASH guidelines

and standards

have been

endorsed, printed,

disseminated, and

uploaded onto the

WASH website.

However, they are

not fully

operationalized by

stakeholders at

local levels.

Local-level

information

systems need

strengthening in

order to

adequately

perform their

function as the

basis for planning.

Relevant technical

WASH Guidelines

and Standards

have been

developed,

approved and

widely shared with

stakeholders.

The programme’s

UNICEF

contribution has

increased from

slightly over $3

million in 2002 to

over $16 million in

2010, while its

government

budget has almost

doubled.

The WASH

programme has

given high priority

to building

institutional and

human capacities

in relevant

agencies and

departments.

45

Building institutional and human capacities in WASH relevant ministries, agencies and departments has been given a top priority and can generally be considered a success area of the programme. WASH Programme in cooperation with UNICEF has provided significant support regarding the capacity development of sector institutions and target communities over the past decades. Institutional capacity building in the frame of the WASH programme covers a wide scope of interventions, including supporting WES structure and institutional setup, providing equipments and facilities, building human capacities, establishing/supporting monitoring and information systems, supporting programme decentralization as well as strengthening the community capability to sustain their services.

2.2.1 WES Intuitional Set-Up

Achievements:

In 1975, WES project started as a confined centralized UNICEF programme in terms of planning, funding and implementation with minor inputs from government and communities. Initially, the programme aimed at providing disadvantaged communities with safe drinking water through low cost technology, basically represented by hand-pumps. In 1986, sanitation and hygiene components were integrated in the programme which continued expanding in terms of activities, coverage areas and number of beneficiaries. The programme also changed its concept and strategies, through moving towards adopting more decentralization as well as more stakeholder participation.

To adapt to those changes, the WES institutional structure developed accordingly as well. Hence, until the year 1993, the programme’s structure comprised of a central level, represented by UNICEF Khartoum which received minor government support, as well as state level, represented by UNICEF in the states, which offers services directly to beneficiaries, aided by a certain measure of local and government support. In light of the aforementioned developments, the programme’s infrastructure gradually transformed into its current, multi-level form, in which the local and community levels represent the basis of the structure. At this level, the programme acts through Village Health Committees (VHCs) which in turn act as the implementers, especially for management and operation and maintenance (O&M) of WASH facilities, community mobilization and hygiene education and sanitation. WES projects and the VHCs often closely cooperate with and act through other community institutions such as the Village Popular Committees and Village Water Committees in some cases. The community institutions are directly linked to the second level of the WES structure, namely the locality level represented through the WES Mahalia Units.

The third WES level is the state level on which WES is acting through State WES Projects in cooperation with UNICEF State Office. WES projects are directly connected to the area level represented in the WES Area Coordination Unit and UNICEF Zone Offices, with each area comprising certain number of states that constitutes one geographical region. The WES projects along with the Area Coordination Units are responsible for planning and executing the programme interventions at state level. The central level, represented by the WES National Coordination Unit under the umbrella of the Public Water Corporation (PWC) along with the UNICEF WASH programme is

WES began as a

centralized

programme but

over the years

developed its

institutional

structure to span

all levels from

central level down

to community

level.

At the community

level, the

programme acts

through Village

Health Committees

which are in charge

of the operation

and maintenance

of facilities, as well

as community

mobilization and

awareness-raising.

46

responsible for management and the coordination of the all the programme aspects at the federal level.

The abovementioned overall WES structure is effective and comprehensive. Vertically, it covers central, zonal, state and local levels. Horizontally, it covers all areas and integrates all relevant stakeholders. The WES overall structure represents an ideal basis for applying a decentralized management approach and thus a basis for sustainability. Most of the programme stakeholders positively evaluate the WES structure and believe that it has the capacity and potential to realize its objectives.

Gaps and obstacles:

The nature of WES as a project not fully integrated in the government structure contradicts the wide coverage and the decade-long duration of WES programme presence in Sudan. The programme operates like a government entity in a parallel structure, a situation that created lack of clarity regarding ownership and complications regarding coordination and financing, such as the insufficient and sometimes irregular flow of governmental funding. It is quite evident that WASH programme has developed successful and sound approaches over the years, but the programme was not able to transform these approaches to improve the performance of the sector institutions.

2.2.2 Establishment and Functionality of WES Units

Achievements:

Most of the WES projects in the states were established 15 to 20 years ago with the exception of the North and South Kordofan WES projects which were established 30 years ago. The performance of the WES projects has been successful in both hardware activities, especially the establishment of water supply and sanitation facilities, as well as in terms of software aspects of the programme (sanitation and hygiene promotion). WES projects have also been very successful in emergency responses, especially in Southern Sudan before cessation, Darfur, Blue Nile and, South Kordofan. However, the projects have been less successful in promoting the community-based approach to ensure long-term sustainability.

The WASH programme began establishing WES Units at community level in the mid nineties to ensure sustainability and ownership of the WASH services. Since then, WASH programme supported the establishment of WES units at Mahalia (Locality) level and extended genuine efforts in terms of capacity building, advocacy and awareness-raising. Considerable progress was made in spreading and equipping WES units in all states. Most of the staff members are seconded to the project from different ministries and therefore their wages are paid by the government. Almost all interviewed key persons believe that there is generally a lack in the required WES staff members, particularly technical staff, compared to the expanding needs and workload. This situation exacerbated throughout the armed conflict in Darfur and other areas that witnessed escalations in 2003 which compelled the WASH programme and other sector actors to focus on emergency response and preparedness due to the large scale nature of conflicts in the country and the massive number of displaced and affected populations. Therefore, for a few years the WES Units’ approach has been

The main obstacle

to more effective

implementation of

WES is its

structural nature

as a project rather

than being an

integrated

governmental

department.

WES Units and

projects at various

levels have been

spreading

throughout the

country over the

past twenty years,

which has greatly

increased the

programme’s

coverage as well as

its response to

emergencies.

Most of the staff of

the state-level WES

units are seconded

to the project from

different ministries,

and there is a gap

in staffing to meet

the expanding

needs of the

programme.

47

compromised. Recently, WASH programme started to revive the approach, yet it may require additional resources and advocacy to render WES units more operational and effective.

Gaps and obstacles:

WES units were also negatively impacted by the same problem affecting the holistic WES structure, namely the fact that the units are not integrated as a part of the Mahalias structure and consequently are not considered in its annual budget allocation. This often leads to shortages in and/or delays of governmental funds. Moreover, the relation between WES Units and Mahalias’ administration is not always clear and differs from one case to another.

Many WES units suffer from limited equipment, mobility and implementation capacity due to inadequate technical and functional staff, appropriate offices as well as computers and internet connection.

Moreover, the employment status of WES staff as seconded employees from different ministries, overwhelmed with heavy workload coupled with unfavourable conditions as well as the low and sometimes irregular salary resulted in a high rate of staff turnover, which diminishes the effectiveness and sustainability of the units.

2.2.3 Human Capacities of WES and Relevant Partners

The WASH programme has been very proactive in upgrading the capacity of professionals of WES and its partners through internal and external training courses and workshops in the various WASH aspects. About 10% of the total expenditures of the UNICEF supported WASH programme have been allocated to capacity building, which reflects the importance of this component.

WASH training has been on-going in the focus states for many years and a considerable percentage of WASH staff benefitted from the training activities. The training programme is reasonably developed and has significantly improved in the course of the last three years. Many of the training programmes are based on the concept of training of trainers. The training activities follow yearly training plans targeting WES staff as well as staff from other organizations on a less wide scale. However, training in issues related to the water sector receives more attention than training on sanitation and community management issues.

The PWC Training Centre in Khartoum has been established in 2007. The centre has been functioning very well over the last three years. Recently, PWC has made significant efforts in training the state WASH professionals and technical cadre. The centre conducted training courses in various aspects of the WASH sector such as ground water recourses, GIS, water quality, operation and maintenance of water facilities and the design of water supply networks. Until now, more than 25 training events were conducted and 300 professionals have benefitted from them.

The annual work plans of WES projects include training courses and workshops on sanitation and hygiene promotion, equipment operation, maintenance, monitoring and water quality, environmental sanitation, monitoring for effectiveness, water quality, information management, GIS emergency response, community-based management,

The main obstacle

to more effective

implementation of

WES is its

structural nature

as a project rather

than being an

integrated

governmental

department.

WES structure at

all levels suffer

from a lack of

integration into the

government

structure which

affects many

aspects including

funding.

The WASH

programme has

placed a great deal

of focus on

strengthening the

capacities of WES

professionals, and

about 10% of

programme

expenditures are

allocated to

capacity-building.

The main obstacles

facing WES units is

that they are not

integrated into the

Mahalia structure

and thus not

considered in the

Mahalia budget.

The WASH

programme has

placed a great deal

of focus on

strengthening the

capacities of WES

professionals, and

about 10% of

programme

expenditures are

allocated to

capacity-building.

The PWC training

centre was a

significant step in

ensuring the

sustainability of

capacity-building

activities.

48

disease control, health education, water management, waste management as well as administrative aspects.

Since the data available about the number of trainees is not collated on the same basis and is therefore it is difficult to be aggregated, the data derived from the last few years might indicate the extent of the training activities.

In 2007, 35 national and international training opportunities were offered to WES government staff (AR 2007). At state level, 248 Water and Environmental Sanitation/State Water Corporation (WES/SWC) and NGO staff members were trained on hygiene, 87 staff members were trained on water supply related issues and 131 staff members on management issues (AR 2007). 344 WES officers participated in WASH training courses related to safe water supply. In 2009, some 500 WES officers from sector partners were trained on WASH related subjects in (AR 2009). In 2010 , the capacity of 507 sector partners at national and state levels was enhanced and strengthened with respect to hygiene promotion, CATS approach, computerized inventory database, use of GIS tools, emergency planning and response, operation and maintenance, water quality monitoring, and WASH MIS (AR 2010).

Regarding the selection of trainees, a considerable part of the consulted programme staff believes that the selection of participants in triaging activities is not always based on objective criteria. Staff members of the health sector also believe that the training programmes do not target them adequately. Gender considerations in the training programme mainly depend on the ratio of women among staff members, thus representation of women and men in the areas of health, awareness and community-based management is fairly balanced, which is not the case in the technical areas where women rarely work in.

The trained staff is generally satisfied with the training activities they participated in. They believe that the training has positively impacted the effectiveness of their performance and significantly contributed to building sector cadres. Senior WASH sector officials at state level confirmed that the training centre is very useful as it currently represents the only entity that supports training of state professionals with reasonable tuition fees. Moreover, the training activities are not only effective in capacity building but also play an important role in supporting the relation and cooperation between relevant organizations and departments.

Gaps and obstacles:

The main problem facing the capacity development of WASH professionals is the inadequate funding allocation relative to the increasing needs. Accordingly, there is still uncovered need for training activities, which is more pressing in some areas, such as community management, M&E, management for sustainability, hygiene education, finance management, emergency response and coordination, computer skills, techniques for developing underground water as well as waste and sewage management and treatment, health issues and on-job-training.

Regarding the type of the activities, the capacity building activities are dominated by short courses. This approach is very useful in targeting as many staff members as possible, but little value has been attributed to more sophisticated capacity building activities such as longer specialized technical trainings, on-job and abroad training.

Training given to

WES staff included

a range of topics

such as monitoring

for effectiveness,

management for

sustainability,

hygiene promotion,

safe water supply,

management,

CATS approach,

databasing, GIS,

emergency

response,

operation and

maintenance, and

water quality

monitoring.

Women are more

fairly represented

in the areas of

health and

community-based

management than

in technical areas

where they rarely

work.

More funding is

still needed to

continue and

increase training

activities,

especially related

to soft skills which

are greatly needed.

49

There is also a concern regarding the sustainability of capacity building activities, since most of them are financed by external support. Regarding the UNICEF supported WASH programme, UNICEF supports most of the related training activities. Therefore, these activities could be seriously affected if this support discontinued or diminished.

2.2.4 Monitoring System

Achievements:

The WASH sector mechanism for monitoring and tracking is established and operationalised. The WASH monitoring system is fully implemented in the 9 WASH focus states and partially in the six remaining states of North Sudan, in addition to the National Coordination Unit in Khartoum. The WES database, which is functioning in 12 states, represents the main information source for the monitoring system. The main references against which monitoring is conducted are: the WASH CCCs Commitments, the WASH MDGs Targets as well as the UNICEF MTSP. The comprehensive WASH-KAP study carried out in all 15 States of North Sudan in late 2008 provides the baseline for many WASH indicators to measure future progress.

UNICEF staff at zone offices, along with WES staff at specific state WES projects, carry the responsibility of monitoring the performance of WES interventions. In all focus states monitoring units are established at project/state level and are provided with mobility facilities to closely monitor project activities. Active WES units at Locality level produce monthly reports and send them to the project level, where data will be analyzed and reports produced. For the areas with inactive or unavailable WES Units, Locality information is collected by state level WES Project monitoring officers. Outputs, progress and constraints are usually shared with relevant actors, mainly at central level.

The monitoring system is tracking the indicators at the four programme levels, impacts, outcomes, outputs and activities. Regarding the programme impact, the monitoring system focuses on the reduction of the number of disease cases, particularly Diarrhoea/AWD against increased access to WASH Services as well as the reduction of malnutrition cases against increased access to WASH Services, both at national and state level. The main sources of data are MICs, SHHS and nutrition surveys besides other combined national and state surveys.

At the outcome level, the monitoring system focuses on the percentage and number of population and schools with access to improved water and sanitation facilities and WASH-related behavioural changes at national and state levels, disaggregated for urban and rural areas. Moreover, the system tracks trends and gaps of those accesses and additionally includes sustainability indicators. The monitoring of outcomes depends on MICs /SHHS, census and other access related surveys, KAP findings, water facilities functionality and water quality surveys. Where data is not available, estimations based on related or previous data are used to fill the gaps.

The output level covers project, locality and community indicators such as the number of communities and school children benefiting from the programme constructed and rehabilitated facilities supported by sector partners, the percentage of population reached by hygiene messages, local capacity-building, coordination with local partners, and groundwater and water quality monitoring. Output monitoring relies on various

Most training

activities are still

funded by external

support.

The WASH

monitoring system

is fully

implemented in the

focus states and at

central level, and

tracks progress

against various

indicators such as

the MDGs, CCCs,

and UNICEF MTSP.

The four-level

monitoring system

looks at impact

level, outcome

level, output level,

and activities.

The monitoring

system is

thematically and

spatially

comprehensive and

built a basis for a

very effective

WASH-M&E, but its

performance is less

satisfactory at local

levels.

The programme’s

four-level

monitoring systems

covers the impact,

outcome, output

and activity levels.

50

data sources, the most important of which are internal reporting and documentation, groundwater monitoring records, water services functionality and water quality surveys, field trips and observations.

The activity level covers almost the same areas of the output level, however in a more detailed manner and within a shorter timeframe. Monitoring and evaluation activities have taken place such as the 2008 KAP study in 15 states, the Water Resources Database established in 9 states in 2006, introducing GIS into the database, and a number of programme evaluations.

The monitoring system is thematically and spatially comprehensive to build a basis for a very effective WASH-M&E. There is also an adequate basis of well-trained human capacities, which is the result of considerable efforts and funds invested in capacity building. The performance and functionality of the monitoring mechanism is satisfactory in general, but less satisfactory at community and locality levels. This is mainly due to the inadequate funds available for monitoring.

Gaps and obstacles:

There is a shortage in qualified monitoring staff at all levels; however it is more significant at locality and community levels, which are also suffering from a shortage in facilities required to ensure an effective monitoring mechanism. Nevertheless, the consideration of training focusing on monitoring and related areas is still inadequate. Another problem area relates to the database on which the monitoring depends, which is not always accurate and reliable and sometimes not available.

2.2.5 Management Information System

Achievements:

UNICEF has been supporting WES to enhance the Management Information System linking states and national levels. The system was established, operationalised and considerable progress has been made. The information system is not only supporting planning and monitoring processes, but also plays an important role in enhancing coordination and building capacities. Recently, the PWC enriched the information system by providing the results of a baseline mapping of water facilities. It is noteworthy that the information system functionality significantly varies from one state to another. This might be explained by the differences in the facilities and staff capacity and attitudes.

In the area of the management information system, WES programme with UNICEF support was able to establish a website (www.wes-sudan.org) containing WASH sector related materials of WES and other WASH stakeholders. The most important website contents are surveys’ results, reports as well as technical guidelines and standards of WASH facilities. Moreover, some online interactive reports of the WASH database are available; and partners, is still to a limited extent, are starting to add and update information. Gender issues are increasingly considered in the content of the database and accordingly on the website, particularly regarding surveys and strategic plans. Gender aspects are more considered in data and information from the Ministry of Health than data from other sources.

At locality and

community levels,

more training is

needed that is

focused on

monitoring, and the

availability of

accurate data

needs to be

enhanced.

The WES

information system

supports planning,

monitoring, and

coordination

capacities.

The WES website

contains sector

related materials,

survey results,

reports, and

technical guidelines

and standards.

51

The WASH database is available as a downloadable software package on the website, for the use of WASH Sector partners. Website users from WES and other partner institutions are highly satisfied with its content and functionality.

Gaps and obstacles:

The database does not yet cover all relevant thematic areas and intervention levels, which is a matter of insufficient funds allocated for the information system due to SWC prioritization of programme components.

The data available in some areas and aspects is not always accurate and updated, mainly due to a shortage in qualified staff and insufficient capacity building opportunities.

The utilization of the website is disproportionate to its potential, since many WES units are not equipped with computers and internet access while staff partially lacks required skills, particularly at local and community levels as well as in emergency areas.

WES partners’ contribution to and usage of the website is still limited, due to insufficient advocacy for the site and capacity building of the relevant partners’ staff.

2.2.6 Transparency and Sector Coordination

Achievements:

Transparency is the most important pre-requisite for effective coordination. The WASH programme is considered transparent; this includes transparency within the programme itself as well as towards external parties and partner. Regarding financial transparency, the programme has a strong accounting and auditing system in addition to regulations and rules. Financial and technical Information is available to whom it may concern at all levels at any time.

Moreover, most of changes and adjustments made to the programme were considered justified and transparent and were usually discussed and agreed upon with relevant stakeholders. However, some key informants, particularly from the Ministry of Health indicate that there is a need to improve the programme transparency in order to improve coordination and cooperation.

The WASH programme initially based itself on coordination through establishing the linkage between the sub-sectors of water, health and environmental sanitation. This linkage started with mere coordination and ultimately resulted in the integration of the three sub-sectors in one programme.

The ministries of health and education participate to varying degrees in programme planning and plan development in order to identify the needs for the basic schools, hygiene promotion, and health facilities. The Ministries of Health at state level fully support the sanitation and hygiene promotion activities.

Generally, the programme succeeded in unifying the vision and including different stakeholders in the planning process. There is also continuing consultation, evaluation, and identification of problems and possible remedies; however the degree of coordination is under the expectation of some partners. The level of coordination and

WES with the

support of UNICEF

established a

website containing

sector-related

materials such as

reports, survey

results, and

technical

guidelines.

Gender aspects are

not always

considered in the

available data.

Many WES units

are not yet

equipped with

computers and full

internet access,

which lessens the

utilization of the

website.

The utilization of

the website

remains

disproportionate to

its potential due to

lack of computers

and internet access

at local levels.

The programme

has a strong

accounting and

auditing system,

and information is

available to

steering

committees and

relevant

stakeholders.

Although in some

states the degree

of coordination

isn’t satisfactory,

as a whole the

programme has

managed to bring

together different

stakeholders –

especially through

steering

committees.

Coordination is

strongest in

Khartoum and the

three Darfur states

where joint

monitoring and

assessment, and

the development of

humanitarian

workplans take

place.

In addition to

central-level and

the Darfur states, a

coordination

mechanism has

also been

established in Blue

Nile and South

Kordofan.

52

satisfaction with it varies clearly from one state to another; there are some areas that successfully initiate and set in motion the creation of real coordination while others do so only formally. Generally, however, most of the interviewees believe that coordination is largely satisfactory.

The most important mechanisms for coordination are committees involving all concerned parties, regular and irregular meetings at different levels, inviting partners to workshops, exchanging knowledge, reports, visits, and equipments as well as strengthening participatory teamwork.

The coordination between WES projects, UNICEF-WASH programme and international organizations works well, particularly through UNICEF support and commitment. There is also distinct and effective coordination between WES and UNICEF concerning the programme activities in schools, not only through the WASH unit in UNICEF but also through the UNICEF-education unit.

Planning and implementation are usually endorsed and approved by the relevant government bodies. However, the coordination between WES and those bodies does not always run smoothly, due to differing understandings and/or overlapping roles, responsibilities and ownership. This is more applicable to sanitation and hygiene and environment components than to water supply, due to the scattering of their mandates among various ministries and departments. The approval of the sector policy is expected to significantly contribute to clarifying roles and hence reduce the misunderstanding among the sector partners.

UNICEF as a sector lead has strengthened WASH sector coordination with a full-fledged coordination HR structure at Khartoum and three Darfur states, resulting in improving joint assessment and monitoring, better data collection, analysis and sharing and the development of a strategic humanitarian work plan for 2011 (AR 2010).

In emergency areas, coordination mechanisms are particularly effective; coordination forums have been established in states with emergency situations. The coordination mechanisms have been very effective in gathering all stakeholders around the objectives of the WASH emergency interventions. Sector actors benefitted from the sharing of information and a new culture of cooperation between the stakeholders emerged for the first time in the sector.

WASH programme works closely with the Humanitarian Affairs Committee (HAC), the State Ministries of Health (SMoH), national and international NGOs and UN Agencies. The programme also collaborates intensively with the local councils/Mahalias, community leaders, Omdas and Sheiks.

A coordination mechanism has been established in the three states of Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan State in addition to the national level. In these areas, the main coordination bodies are functioning well in the headquarters of the states. Sub-coordination forums have been also established in certain towns and locations to coordinate the emergency response. The coordination mechanism in non-emergency states is still either not existent or inactive/weak.

Gaps and Obstacles:

Although in some

states the degree

of coordination

isn’t satisfactory,

as a whole the

programme has

managed to bring

together different

stakeholders –

especially through

steering

committees.

Coordination is

strongest in

Khartoum and the

three Darfur states

where joint

monitoring and

assessment, and

the development of

humanitarian

workplans take

place.

In addition to

central-level and

the Darfur states, a

coordination

mechanism has

also been

established in Blue

Nile and South

Kordofan.

53

The institutional setup of WES as well as the scattering of responsibilities and the overlapping of mandates of different bodies represent a challenge for the coordination efforts of the programme. This challenge cannot be fundamentally overcome through improving the coordination mechanisms, since it mainly depends on changes at policy and structure level.

The relationship with the Ministry of Health is sensitive and sometimes critical, and many health representatives believe that there are cases and procedures which require better coordination and more involvement on part of the Ministry. Additionally, some believe that the situation is even more critical, depicting the ministry as involved only in theory but not in terms of practical implementation.

2.3 Water

Objective:

Increasing sustainable and equitable access to improved drinking water sources in rural and most vulnerable areas

2.3.1 Access to Improved Water Supply

Achievements:

Use of improved drinking water sources increased from 59.8% (MICS, 2000) to 60.5% (SHHS, 2010) during the period between 2000 and 2010. State-level data is presented below:

Figure 5 Use of Improved Water Sources

State MICs 2000 SHHS 2006 SHHS 2010 Northern 70.9% 80.3% 91.0% River Nile 58.2% 73.8% 78.0% Red Sea 72.2% 33.1% 27.4% Kassala 59.6% 38.7% 48.0%

Gadarif 59.1% 37.3% 27.9%

Khartoum 92.9% 79.4% 72.7%

Gezira 77.9% 77.9% 79.2% White Nile 38.9% 46.4% 38.5% Sinnar 73.9% 80.7% 60.7% Blue Nile 23.7% 40.5% 39.9% North Kordofan 42.1% 47.0% 53.8% South Kordofan 73.5% 60.2% 49.7% North Darfur 55.8% 48.2% 59.8% West Darfur 29.1% 39.6% 44.5% South Darfur 49.6% 43.9% 69.4% Northern Sudan 59.8% 58.7% 60.5%

Considerable efforts were invested by the government, communities and international organizations to increase access to safe drinking water during the period 2000-2010.

The institutional

setup of WES as

well as the

scattering of

responsibilities and

the overlapping of

mandates of

different bodies

represent a

challenge for the

coordination

efforts of the

programme.

Use of improved drinking water sources increased from 59.8% to 60.5% during the period of 2000-2010.

54

In spite of the early beginning of the WASH programme in Sudan and its considerable achievements over the last three decades, the years from 1995 to 2001 witnessed a decline in access to improved sources of water supply. Paradoxically, this decline coincided with a positive attitude change regarding the conceptual integration of water, sanitation and health in general as well as increased attention to participation, sustainability and gender considerations as opposed to a focus limited solely to hardware. These factors led to palpable improvements and hence the decline in access to improved sources of water access cannot be associated with structural weaknesses in the WASH programme. Rather, it is the result of factors pertaining to social, political and economical status of the country and thus the programme’s work conditions. Among the most important of these factors are the instability due to civil conflict in the South, the rapid population growth, the imposed economic sanction and hence limited development of new schemes due to the economic pressures and the poor management of existing schemes at state level (Country Status Overview Report, 2010).

This background is essential as a point of departure for the period under evaluation, since it represents the difficult conditions that characterized the programme’s onset in 2002, and underlines the importance of the programme’s achievements thereafter. Due to the lack of a clear chronological sequence from any one direction or a unified definition that allows tracing back development and progress of access to improved water sources, the following section will rely on multiple sources. Although a certain measure of differences in figures and computation methods is expected, the totality should reflect the overall situation to an acceptable extent.

The 2010 Sudan Household and Health Survey (SHHS) estimates that 60.5% of the total population (66.6% urban and 57.7% rural) uses an improved water source as their main source of drinking water.

The 5th Sudan Population and Housing Census conducted in 2008 estimates that 70.4% of the total population (94.5% of urban and 58.5% of rural) use an improved water source as their main source of drinking water. The 2010 Sudan Household Health (SHHS) survey estimates that 60.5% of the total population (69.6% urban and 55.3 % rural) use an improved water sources as their main source of drinking water. The results of the 2009 PWC estimate reported in the CSO Report are comparable to those of 2006 and 2010, but do not match the 5th Sudan Population and Housing Census conducted in 2008. This is mainly because of the different definitions of “improved water” used in each study. For 2008 census, the definition included water that is transported from an improved water source as improved water, while for 2010 SHHS the definition considered such water as unimproved. In order to reflect the magnitude of this issue, the SHHS found that 20% of the total population are drinking transported water from improved water sources and if this is added them to the improved water sources percentage in order to be able to compare 2008 percentage with 2010 value, it shows that that access is actually 80%.

The results of the household survey conducted in 5 states as part of this evaluation indicated that a higher percentage of population have access to improved sources of water. 62.4% of the respondents in South Darfur, North Darfur, Blue Nile, South Kordofan and Kassala pointed out that they have access to improved water facilities. This percentage widely differs between areas with and without WASH programme

The biggest

obstacle against

more effective

coordination is the

fragmentation of

responsibilities

among different

entities, which

results in a lack of

clarity regarding

the real ownership

of some activities.

The years 1995-

2001 saw a decline

in access to

improved water,

but since then

access has picked

up.

Some reports find

that over 85% of

the IDPs in about

76 camps in Darfur

States have access

to improved

drinking water

sources based on

SPHERE Standards.

Although the

period between

1995 and 2001

witnessed a decline

in access to

improved water

sources, it also

witnessed a

positive shift in

attitudes towards

the integration of

water, sanitation,

and hygiene.

The 2006 SHHS

estimates access to

improved water

sources for total

population at

58.7%. The 2010

SHHS estimates it

at 60.5% and this

evaluation’s

household survey

estimates it at

62.4%.

55

interventions as it reaches 77.6% in programme supported areas and drops to 47.4 % in non-programme areas. This result is comparable to the 2010 SHHS finding of 60.5% – especially considering that the sample was biased towards programme areas (i.e. the sample included a higher percentage of programme areas than non-programme areas, further explained under the Sampling section above).

The below graph depicts the chronology of improved water supply statistics over the past 20 years as extracted from the various data sources cited above (including this evaluation’s household survey in 2011), compared to the MDG 2015 target.

Figure 6 Chronology of Access to Improved Water Sources 1990-2011

In the emergency areas, access to safe water supply was found to be about 94% according to the household quantitative survey. However, the percentage may be partially attributed to the limitations that influenced the sampling procedure such as security conditions and accessibility. Nonetheless, other reports find that over 85% (187,000) of the IDPs in about 76 camps in three Darfur States have access to improved drinking water sources based on SPHERE Standards. The main sources of water supply are hand-pumps, water yards and mini water yards.

According to the participants of the FGDs In the areas where the programme exists, water supply services largely meet the needs of the beneficiaries; access to improved sources of water is available to the majority of the population most of the time. Difficulty in fetching water varies from one place to another, depending on location, water supply system, and economic status. A few areas have improved water sources, yet water quantities remain insufficient, especially during summer time (dry season) like some locations in Darfur area).

Regarding the type of water facility used, 34% of respondents reported that they use community hand-pumps as the main sources of domestic water. Hand-pumps are considered to be the most common means of obtaining drinking water for many communities at the village level in the states under study. They are found inside and outside the villages and sometimes inside schools and public premises. The most important advantages of the hand-pumps for beneficiaries are that they are normally close to their homes, inexpensive, and not bound to a specific time, while the most important disadvantage is the occasional insufficiency of water quantities. The latter circumstance is a result of the prevailing geological situation, insufficient geophysical investigations or drilling/design errors. Sometimes, the water quality is entirely

64% 59.80% 58.70% 60.50% 62.40%82%

0%

50%

100%

1990 2000 2006 2010 2011 Target 2015

Improved Water Supply(MICS, SHHS, This evaluation)

Chronology of Water Supply Based on Different Data Sources

Water supply in

emergency areas is

even higher than in

regular

programme areas,

due to the strong

focus on

preventing

diseases outbreak.

Hand-pumps are

the main source of

water supply, and

are sometimes

found inside

houses, but suffer

from occasional

insufficiency of

water quantities.

56

unacceptable due to high salinity or pollution. Additionally, the areas around pumps are sometimes unhygienic and swamp-like in nature and hence become sources of pollution and mosquitoes breeding.

The second type of water sources in use is water yards (deep boreholes equipped with motorized /submersible pumps along with an elevated water storage tank and limited distribution system). 30.5% of the households included in the household survey are using the water yards. 17% mentioned that they obtain their drinking water from donkey carts and water tankers. 11% are using water from unprotected hafeers, 2% from protected hafeers, and 5.5% use unprotected sources such as open wells, rivers, and dams.

Figure 7 Water Sources used by the Communities Based on the Household Survey

The programme in collaboration with key partners has been able to construct 3,657 new hand-pumps, rehabilitate 5,297 hand-pumps, construct 76 new small size systems (mini water yards), and rehabilitate and construct 402 and 233 water yards, respectively during the period 2003-2010. Most of these activities were carried out in the war-affected areas with some efforts in regular non-emergency states.

Figure 8 Total newly established and rehabilitated HPs, WY and MWY

Source: PWC/UNICEF (Darfur Conference 2011)

As for daily consumption, the WASH Sector Policy states that rural population will be provided with at least 20 litres per capita per day (l/c/d) within 500 meter walking distance from the dwelling while urban populations are to be provided with at least 90

0%10%20%30%40%

34% 30.50%17% 11% 5.50% 2%

Water Sources

Water Sources

WATSAN Infrastructure: 2003 to 2010

Small motorized

Systems

(mini water

yards)

Large motorized

Systems

(water yards)

HH

Latrin

es

New Rehabilitat

ion

New Rehabilita

tion

New Rehabilita

tion

2003 121 108 Year Hand pumps

2004 653 1,419 106

2005 702 472 65 69 68,145

2006 654 910 33 79 43,392

2007 731 647 36 18 14 49 25,974

2008 518 726 19 32 12 118 19,862

2009 308 1,015 21 22 3 15 21,064

2010 500 713 26 14,037

Tota

l

3,687 5,297 76 72 233 402 272,59

3

The majority of

respondents

reported that they

use community

hand-pumps as the

main sources of

domestic water.

The second most

common water

supply mechanism

are water yards,

followed by water

tankers,

unprotected

hafeers, protected

hafeers, and finally

open sources

(rivers, wells).

The programme in

collaboration with

its partners has

constructed or

rehabilitated a

substantial number

of hand-pumps and

mini water yards,

mostly in

emergency areas.

Sudan’s policy

target for per

capita daily water

consumption is 20

litres per capita per

day within 1,000

meters from the

home.

Current per capita

daily water

consumption

ranges from 5 litres

in some areas to 40

litres in others.

Walking distances

differ widely

according to

community type.

57

l/c/d within 100 meter walking distance from the dwelling by the end of 2015 The WASH sector strategic plan for states shows that daily per capita water consumption is still poor, especially in rural areas in the three Darfur States, Blue Nile, Gedarif, White Nile, South Kordofan and Red Sea as it ranges between 5 and 17 litres. The situation is better in Khartoum, Gezira, River Nile and Northern State as daily per capita consumption is in the range of 25-40 litres. As of 2009, the Public Water Corporation (PWC) estimates that 62% Sudan’s population (59% urban and 64% rural) have access to a minimum of 20 litres per capita per day within a distance of 1,000 meters from their homes (CSO Report, 2010). Based on the results of the household survey conducted in the six states by the Evaluation Team, more than 90% of the respondents indicated that they obtain more than 20 litres per capita/day. The high percentage could be attributed to the fact that most of the survey samples were biased towards focus areas that have received programme support – especially in Darfur states.

Over 80% of the households included in the survey conducted in the 6 states mentioned that they walk between 100-1000 meters to obtain their water supply needs from nearest water points. There were some differences when comparing regular programme areas, emergency programme areas, and non-programme areas. The below chart depicts these differences:

Figure 9 Walking Distance to Main Water Source (Quantitative household survey 2011)

In emergency areas, the IDPs obtain about 10 litres per capita per day in North Darfur, 14.2 litres in West Darfur and 13 litres in South Darfur (PWC/UNICEF). The situation in the IDPs camps is far better than for the populations of rural areas in Darfur States where access ranges between 5-9 litres per capita/day. Regarding walking distance, the situation in the emergency areas is far better, as most of the IDPs camps are limited in space and the water points are fairly distributed. The evaluation team recognized that communities living in areas where ground water is available walk shorter distances as water sources are made available in almost all cases. Populations in areas where rain water harvesting systems are the only sources usually suffer more due to fluctuations in annual rain falls and the lack of proper rehabilitation of the system on annual basis in addition to the unhygienic use especially for livestock.

As for water safety, populations in urban centres (major towns) obtain chlorinated water supply, especially in towns where proper water supply system has been established. However, this does not apply to all urban centres since recently the high cost of treatment materials and shortage of funds forced many water authorities to provide water supply without proper treatment. Generally, the water supply generated from deep boreholes and hand-pumps is distributed without treatment throughout the country. In emergency areas, especially in Darfur area, 85% of the IDPs in the camps

0% 50% 100%

< 1km

1-2 km

3-4 km

5 + km

56%

14%

19%

11%

Non-Programme

Emergency Programme

Regular Programme

In emergency areas

IDPs obtain around

10 litres per capita

per day in North

Darfur, 14.2 in

West Darfur, and

13 litres in South

Darfur. Walking

distances are very

short as the camps

by nature are small

in size and thus

most water points

are nearby.

The amount goes

down in the rural

areas to 5-9 litres

per capita per day

at longer distances.

Water safety is

highest in urban

centres and IDP

camps. Around

85% of IDPs in the

Darfur camps are

obtaining

chlorinated water.

58

obtain chlorinated water supply through the assistance of WASH partners working in the emergency areas.

Gaps and Obstacles:

The government of Sudan made a tremendous effort in the last six years by providing considerable funds to the water sector in order to improve the access to water supply in rural and urban sectors through financing major water projects and rehabilitation activities. Nevertheless, and despite that effort there are still many gaps that need to be addressed to further develop the water sector. The gaps relate to weak institutional setup, lack of policy instruments, inadequate capacity to deliver WASH services and shortage of qualified staff at the SWC at the state level.

Unless the government at national and state levels addresses these limitations, funds allocations alone will not help achieve the currently established WASH sector strategic plans and the long-term Country Quarter Century objectives. The water supply authorities also need to take the issue of water treatment seriously to avoid major outbreaks of diseases that might cost many human lives among the users/communities. Provision of IDPs in Darfur with chlorinated water supply may be seriously affected if donors discontinue supporting this activity.

As mentioned above, 85% of IDPs in the camps obtain chlorinated water while the rest of the country receives much less chlorination percentage. This reflects the fact that there has been a stronger focus on emergency areas at the expense of other areas under regular development circumstances.

2.3.2 Emergency Response

Since the beginning of 2003, a significant number of people in the three states of Darfur were displaced as a consequence of the conflict. While some crossed over to Chad, the majority of displaced people have settled around the major urban centres. WASH sector partners and international community responded with interventions to improve water supply, environmental sanitation and hygiene in the camps as well as host communities. The same situation prevailed in south Kordofan, Blue Nile and Kassala state but Gedarif and North Kordofan States remained stable over the last 10 years. Darfur has a total population of about 8.2 million (2010 estimate). The majority of the population are agro-pastoralists with a mix of urban (19%) and rural (59%) populations as well as nomads (22%). About 27% (2,200,000) of the Darfur population are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). Most of them are located in South Darfur, followed by West Darfur and North Darfur.

Achievements:

The programme in collaboration with key partners has been able to construct 3,657 new hand-pumps, rehabilitate 5,297 hand-pumps, construct 76 new small size systems (mini water yards) and rehabilitate 76 as well as construct 233 water yards and rehabilitate 402, during the period 2003-2010. Most of these activities were carried out in the war affected areas with some efforts in regular non-emergency states. During the past eight years (2001-2010) UNICEF WASH Programme has spent a total of $142,069,773 while the government and the communities spent $28,023,072. Most of

Gaps include

shortage of

qualified staff at

local levels, and the

need for water

treatment to be

taken more

seriously in rural

areas.

The programme

has been extremely

successful at

emergency

response as the

situation in IDP

camps is

significantly better

than in rural areas.

The programme

has managed to

coordinate sector

partners towards

effective

emergency

management.

59

the investment was directed to the conflict areas to secure and restore the rights and dignity of the affected population where the overall operation cost has been very high due to the nature of the conflict (insecurity, inaccessibility), remoteness (transport of human resources and supplies) and difficulties in engaging the private sector.

The WASH programme has been very efficient and successful in coordinating the response of the WASH sector key partners to the emergencies over the last eight years. Water supply, sanitation and hygiene have been given top priority by sector key partners following onset of emergencies with particular emphasis on conflict victims such as the case of Darfur.

The WASH programme also prioritized the emergency preparedness component through procurement and preposition of most important supplies and necessary requirements for the emergency response at both national and state level. Chlorine powder and construction material like cement, iron bars and water supply pumps, spare parts and casing materials are usually procured and prepositioned in advance at both national and state level. Emergency training including emergency preparedness and response, Rapid Assessment (RA), camp management, human rights CCCs and others have been conducted to strengthen the capacities of the government/concerned institutions in terms of proper response. It is estimated that more than 5000 persons benefitted from these activities over the last eight years including government officials and aid workers.

Gaps and Obstacles:

Most of the WASH interventions have been accomplished through external support. Donors have been very generous in funding emergency response and preparedness over the last eight years. On the other hand, the contribution of the government and communities has been insufficient. The FGDs discussions and key informant interviews indicated that the donor support started to dwindle since mid 2010 and donors started to be very strict and, only channelling their support to certain activities that facilitate exit strategy rather than support the chronic emergency that has been the case over the past eight years.

The average period of rapid initial response to acute emergencies with at least 5 litres of improved water per day per capita approximately ranged from 2 to 4 weeks due to inaccessibility, insecurity and funds availability. The timeframe for WASH responses does not meet the rapid emergency response according to humanitarian procedures and norms, though the constraints are beyond the WASH sector’s control.

2.3.3 Water Quality Monitoring

Achievements:

Normally, before installation of public water facilities, water samples are chemically and biologically analyzed, to determine the suitability for human consumption, yet there no proper or regular tests take place after the facilities begin functioning. In some areas, the system is more developed and monthly water quality reports are generated.

The programme

also prioritized

emergency

preparedness by

procuring and

prepositioning

supplies necessary

for swift

emergency

response, as well

as conducting

trainings on

emergency

preparedness and

response, camp

management, and

rapid assessment

among other

things.

A major issue

regarding

emergency

response is its

dependent on

external support,

which seriously

challenges its

sustainability.

Water quality labs

and monitoring

mechanisms have

been established;

however the

procedures are not

yet consistently

applied in all cases

and areas.

60

PWC and the WASH programme have provided significant support to government counterparts at the state level to ensure that the water delivered to the end users is safe and harmless according to the Sudanese drinking water standards in comparison to WHO guidelines. The WASH Sector Policy states that “Water for domestic use shall be chemically and bacteriological fit for human consumption at all times within acceptable limits. The quality of the water shall adhere to the Sudan water quality standards”. WASH sector has clear guideline in relation to water safety for newly established water sources. The guidelines stipulate that water samples should be taken and chemically and bacterialogically analyzed before the new water sources is used to ensure the fitness of water supply for consumption. PWC supported and provided the 15 states in Sudan with quality testing laboratories.

Particularly in emergency areas the water quality monitoring system is working well and there is regular monitoring of the water supply in terms of chemical and bacteriological aspects. The system provides essential information and advice regarding high-risk areas and on how to manage the water supply to minimize the risk water related diseases in the camps and densely populated areas. The results of water analyses are usually shared with relevant stakeholders, who generally respond immediately to any potential risks.

The WASH sector coordination forums in Darfur established a working group to oversee water quality issues in order to ensure better coordination with all partners. Water quality labs and monitoring mechanisms have been established; however the procedures are not yet consistently applied in all cases and areas.

Gaps & Obstacles:

The water quality monitoring system does not cover all areas, water resources or facilities. The main problem is the unsatisfactory reliability and regularity in the water quality monitoring system except for Darfur area where WHO is the lead agency in charge of water safety. In the other states water quality monitoring does not receive funding priority and in most cases is limited to testing the quality of water from newly drilled boreholes. At present, the water quality monitoring system is operational in the three Darfur States through the support of WASH partners as a component of the emergency response. Water quality monitoring requires adequate laboratory tools, continuous supply of chemical materials, and qualified staff.

Traditional water resources such as rivers and hafeer as well as private wells and hand-pumps are rarely monitored for quality, which represents health threats. Moreover, the criteria for water sampling and testing are not clear for everyone and not unified within the sector despite the existing national water quality standards which affect the results , validity and hinders comparisons.

2.3.4 Operation and Maintenance

Achievements:

The operational status of the water facilities varies from one state another as well as with the different types of the water facilities. The decentralization of WES programme

The water quality

monitoring system

is working better in

emergency areas

due to fear of

disease outbreak.

In non-emergency

areas, the water

quality monitoring

system is not as

well-established or

widespread.

According to

nation-wide

secondary data,

approximately

40%-50% of water

yards experience

malfunctions, while

50-60% of hafeers

are inoperative,

and 30-40% of

hand-pumps are

not functioning

adequately.

61

and the technical capacity building for both WES staff and community members has been a significant contribution to strengthening the operation and maintenance (O&M) system of water facilities. Also, the increasing community sense of ownership and responsibility towards the local water facilities led to a considerable improvement of the O&M system.

According to the estimations used for developing the strategic plans of the 14 states, almost 40%-50% of water yards are not operational (including those with extremely low efficiency) at all times while 50%-60% of the hafeers are inoperative and out of use. In the case of hand-pumps technology, 30%-40% is either not functioning due to inadequate O&M or the lowering of ground water levels (water resources issues). Blue Nile State seems to be an exceptional case, where 95% of hand-pumps were found operational as reported in a survey conducted in early 2011.

However this evaluation’s quantitative household survey indicated significantly more positive estimations. The percentage of respondents who stated that their water facilities had been out of service due to technical problems during the previous month amounts to 24%. While there are no considerable differences between programme supported and non-programme villages, in emergency areas the percentage decreases to only 17%.

Gaps and Obstacles:

The above-mentioned status of water facility functionality indicates a critical shortcoming of the O&M system, which seriously affects programme efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. The main reason for the maintenance problem is the shortage in funding and accordingly the shortage in technical staff, spare parts as well as means of transportation. This problem is associated with the insufficiency of programme financial sustainability, which forces the programme to give lower priority to the M&O relative to establishing new water facilities in villages and camps.

The technical problems are aggravated through the unavailability of spare parts at community and partially at state level. When a technical problem cannot be fixed locally, community members have to wait until a technician, often from state level, investigate the facility, diagnoses the defect and orders the required spare parts. The availability of said technicians determines the duration of the process. The situation is much worse concerning preventive maintenance, which is very poor and in many cases completely absent.

2.3.5 Health Centres

Achievements:

The WASH programme has provided limited support to health centres and hospitals especially in emergency areas in terms of water supply. However, this activity has not been one of the main WASH components in the past and there are no reliable statistics in this regard. The process of developing WASH strategic plans for the states estimated that approximately 60% of the health centres are covered with improved water supply. WES programme also supported the efforts of local authorities by providing 120 health centres with water supply during the period 2006-2010.

The results of this

evaluation’s

household survey

shows that around

24% of water

facilities had been

out of service in the

month preceding

the survey –

keeping in mind

that the sample is

biased towards

programme areas

and emergency

areas.

O&M need to be

given a higher

priority than they

are currently.

The programme

has provided some

water supply to

health centres, but

this has not been a

core activity. The

latest data

estimates that

around 60% of

health centres have

improved water

supply, but the

evaluation team

has observed that

the infrastructure

is not at a

satisfactory level.

62

Gaps and Obstacles:

During the process of this evaluation, the Evaluation Team observed that the infrastructure of the health centres is very poor and required immediate action to improve the environment surrounding these facilities.

Firstly, the Ministry of Health should make a decision to ensure that newly established health facilities are provided with proper water supply systems and latrines during the construction phase. Secondly, the responsibility and funding sources for water supply and sanitation for the existing health centres without WASH services should clearly be defined.

2.3.6 Basic Schools

Achievements:

During the period 2003 – 2010 the WASH programme and sector partners were able to provide 403 basic schools with water supply benefitting about 129,200 school children. The strategic planning process conducted during the period 2009-2011 estimates that 40% of the basic schools in Sudan have access to improved water facilities either through direct connection to the distribution networks as in urban and semi-urban centres or through hand-pumps. The results of the evaluation show that approximately 30% of the basic schools in the selected locations have access to improved water sources but the majority of basic school obtain the water supply for school children either through donkey carts or form the nearest hand-pumps to the school.

Gaps and Obstacles:

There is no proper information system that provides reliable data on the status of water supply in basic schools. No national survey was conducted to assess the WASH services in basic schools in terms of access, technology, quality and use. Most of the information related to basic schools stems from estimates by local authorities.

The evaluation process also revealed that the status of water supply for school children in basic schools is very poor despite the tremendous efforts exerted by the WASH programme and other sector partners over the last three decades. The results of the WASH sector strategic planning process conducted during the period 2009-2011 show that about 60 % of the basic schools do not have access to improved water supply facilities country wide and the situation is extremely critical in rural areas. The spot checks conducted during the evaluation process estimate that only 30 % of the rural basic schools in the six states included in the evaluation have adequate water supply.

Most schools depend on donkey carts and hand pumps near the schools have access to improved water facilities either through direct connection to the distribution networks as in urban and semi-urban centres to make water available for the schoolchildren during school hours.

Inadequate sanitation facilities in basic schools are one of the main reasons for low enrolment, particularly for girls. Maintenance of sanitation facilities is emerging as a major problem in schools due to the lack of awareness and inappropriate facility design

The programme

has provided

around 403 basic

schools (129,200)

with water supply

between 2003 and

2010. The

evaluation team

estimates that

around 30% of

basic schools have

access to improved

water sources, and

the majority obtain

water through

donkey carts or

hand-pumps.

The national policy

states that water

costs should be

borne by the users.

But in reality this is

not always feasible

due to the high

poverty of most

sections of society.

A water tariff

system exists in all

states, but its

implementation

procedures (e.g.

fee collection

mechanisms) are

quite ambiguous.

It is still unclear

who has the

responsibility to

collect water user

fees, in addition to

the feasibility (or

lack thereof) of

imposing fees on

poor communities.

A comprehensive

study on this issue

is needed.

According to

various secondary

sources, nation-

wide access to

adequate

sanitation facilities

decreased from

59.7% in 2000 to

40% in 2006 and

picked up to 56.9%

in 2008, and

dropped to 35.5%

in 2010. Although

the 2010 CSO

estimates the

number at 42%, it

refers to

“adequate”

facilities rather

than “improved”,

which may

encompass a wider

range of facilities.

63

or use. Lessons learned from many global projects indicate that children can more easily be taught to follow adequate hygiene practices than adults. Hence, emphasis needs to be placed on hygiene education in basic schools.

2.3.7 Water Tariff System

Achievements:

The WASH sector policy states that “all consumers – individuals and groups – who use the public water systems for drinking and other uses shall pay the water tariff, without exception”.

The government policy indicates that the cost of production, provision and management of safe water should be borne by the users. As water is essential for each person, poor sections of the society should not be deprived of it because they are unable to pay for it. The WASH sector draft Policy document recognizes that access to safe water is a basic human right according to the Interim National Constitution of Sudan and the UN declarations. The vulnerable sections of the community – children, women and the elderly – should be given attention and priority of service.

At present, water tariffs systems exist in all the states, however the situation is ambiguous in relation to the collection and utilization procedures. In some areas, the Mahalia authority, jointly with local communities, is in charge of the tariff collection while in other cases SWCs are taking the responsibility of operating the water sources and collecting the revenues accordingly. In the case of hand-pumps, the communities have developed their own system to manage the facilities and established their own water tariff at the village level.

48 % of the households interviewed in the household quantitative survey conducted in the 6 states mentioned that they pay for the water supply, while 36% living in emergency areas mentioned that they pay for their water supply from time to time. The evaluation process revealed that populations in urban areas are regularly paying the water tariffs. Communities in rural areas with proper water system also usually pay the tariffs; however, there is no proper tariff system for hand-pumps and hafeers.

Gaps and Obstacles:

Inability to review the tariff to meet the running costs, Improper collection mechanism, conflict between the Mahalias the SWCs in responsibility, Dependency on NGOs and external support on construction and rehabilitation of water facilities during the armed conflict and the reconstruction phase and difficulty in collecting fees from the villages due poverty

PWC through the support of UNICEF should support a comprehensive study on water tariff for the whole country to provide clear guidelines on how to establish a realistic water pricing system, collection procedures and utilization regulations.

2.4 Sanitation

Objective:

It is still unclear

who has the

responsibility to

collect water user

fees, in addition to

the feasibility (or

lack thereof) of

imposing fees on

poor communities.

A comprehensive

study on this issue

is needed.

64

Increasing access to adequate sanitation facilities in rural and most vulnerable areas

2.4.1 Access to Improved Sanitation Facilities

Inadequate disposal of human excreta and personal hygiene is associated with a range of diseases including diarrhoeal diseases, and improved sanitation can reduce diarrhoeal disease by more than a third. An improved sanitation facility is defined as one that hygienically separates human excreta from human contact, and includes flush or pour flush to a piped sewer system, septic tank, traditional latrine, ventilated improved pit latrine, pit latrine with slab, and composting toilet. Access to sanitation has varied over the 2000-2010 time period, as evinced by the state-level trend data presented in the below table:

Figure 10 Use of Improved Sanitation Facilities

State MICs 2000 SHHS 2006 SHHS 2010* Northern 78.6% 79.7% 84.1% River Nile 85.6% 83.2% 53.6% Red Sea 51.2% 51.3% 28.1% Kassala 47.1% 38.9% 27.7% Gadarif 39.8% 14.6% 38.3%

Khartoum 87.0% 78.0% 67.8% Gezira 58.1% 31.9% 45.4% White Nile 54.1% 31.0% 28.4% Sinnar 54.5% 26.1% 22.8% Blue Nile 62.7% 10.7% 6.1% North Kordofan 36.2% 28.3% 22.7% South Kordofan 62.4% 14.2% 25.6% North Darfur 57.4% 32.2% 22.6% West Darfur 48.2% 29.8% 30.9% South Darfur 63.1% 20.1% 7.5% Northern Sudan 59.7% 39.9% 35.0%

*shared and unshared facilities

Achievements:

Respondents who have on-site sanitation facilities were asked when it had been constructed. The majority (83.3%) said it had been constructed between 2005-2010, while 6.7% said it had been constructed between 1989-2004. There were no significant differences across community type or sex. That means the last six years have witnessed a dramatic increase in sanitation promotion compared to the first half of the last decade.

According to

various secondary

sources, nation-

wide access to

adequate

sanitation facilities

decreased from

59.7% in 2000 to

40% in 2006 and

picked up to 56.9%

in 2008, and

dropped to 35.5%

in 2010.

This evaluation’s

household survey

estimates access to

improved

sanitation facilities

at 35%.

Traditional pit

latrines are the

most common

facility in rural

areas, while

private unimproved

pits and public

improved pit

latrines are the

most common in

emergency areas.

65

Figure 11 Chronology of fluctuations in levels of sanitation services provision over the past 20 years

In the household survey conducted during this evaluation, 29% relied on a private improved pit latrine, 33% relied on a private unimproved pit, 7% relied on a public/shared improved facility, and 6% relied on a public/shared unimproved, 25% defecated in the open.

The percentage of population with access to sanitation facilities varies from one area to another according to the presence or absence of the WASH programme and whether it is facing normal developmental circumstances or emergency circumstances. In the communities where the programme has implemented sanitation projects, most of the people have access to improved sanitation, either household latrines (mostly in towns and villages) or communal/shared (mostly in the camps). In the communities where the programme did not implement sanitation projects, the improved means of sanitation are available to a limited segment of the population, while the rest defecate in certain open areas. Traditional pit latrines are an option preferred by the majority of communities in rural areas. However, the design should be improved in order to render the process safer and more cost effective.

The private (inside homes) pit latrines – whether improved or unimproved – are sometimes established by the households and sometimes constructed with the support of the programme (provided that WASH programme supports only improved latrines the only exception may be during the emergency situation). They are characterized by safety, comfort and privacy for the users. They are also considered relatively hygienic and can contribute to the decrease of the spread of diseases. Their main disadvantages are that they attract flies and spread a foul odour inside the house, especially smaller ones. They also need regular maintenance which is not always available. The improved public pit latrines are mainly found in regions of emergency and also in some villages. They have the same features and the same problems as the home latrines, in addition to the obvious lack of privacy.

As for open areas, this is a tradition and common practice in some areas which is associated with many problems, the most important of which, concerns the entailed hardship and lack of privacy. Moreover, women are forced to walk long distances or to wait until nightfall to defecate. The spread of communicable and infectious diseases,

33%

60%

40%35% 36%

67%

Access to Improved Sanitation

1990 Base

2000 MICS

2006 SHHS

2010 STP

2011 This Evaluation

2015 MDG Target

This evaluation’s

household survey

estimates access to

improved

sanitation facilities

at 35%.

Traditional pit

latrines are the

most common

facility in rural

areas, while

private unimproved

pits and public

improved pit

latrines are the

most common in

emergency areas.

Open defecation

differs widely

according to

community type. In

regular

programme areas

31% defecate in

the open, in

emergency

programme areas

the percentage

drops to around

7%, and in non-

programme areas

the percentage

increases to over

50%.

According to both

the 2010 SHHS and

this evaluation’s

household survey,

0% of rural

households are

connected to the

sewer system.

The programme

has managed to

construct around

275,000 household

latrines between

2002 and 2010,

mostly in

emergency areas.

66

pollution, flies and foul odours is also a significant concern. Sometimes these foul odours also transfer to the water.

The dependence on those means of facilities differs from one place to another, as at the programme areas communities usually use improved household or public latrines while non-programme areas mostly use open areas, unimproved pits, and some improved latrines.

Figure 12 Disaggregation of Sanitation Facilities by Community Type

These findings are comparable to the 2010 SHHS which revealed that 27.1% are using private improved pit latrines, 8% are using shared improved latrines, 29% used a private unimproved pit latrine, 31.4% had no facility and defecated in the open (bush/field). One major difference is that 0% of the sample had their households connected to the piped sewer system, while the SHHS found that 6.6% are connected. However, a strong explanation for this discrepancy is that the evaluation sample included only rural areas and camps, while the SHHS includes urban areas. This is corroborated by the fact that in the urban/rural disaggregation of SHHS findings, 0% of rural households are connected. This is also comparable to the estimated STP finding that 35.1% have access to improved facilities (private and shared) as this evaluation’s household survey shows that 36% have the same access.

WASH programme in collaboration with key partners has been able to construct about 275,000 households latrines during the period 2002-2010. Most of these activities were carried out in the war-affected areas with some efforts in regular non-emergency states. The programme usually supports and promotes simple, appropriate, affordable and user-friendly technology options. There has been no mechanism at national and state level to monitor and record the number of household latrines constructed by the communities through their own initiative and resources. During the period 2003-2010, WASH programme and the sector partners managed to increase access to adequate sanitation for an estimated 4.1 million in Darfur, conflict-affected and host communities. However, due to the emergency situation and dependency on external

0%

37%

26%

1%

2%

34%

0%

32%

40%

13%

8%

6%

0%

3%

33%

1%

7%

55%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Connected to piped sewer system

Private Improved Pit Latrine

Private Unimproved Pit

Public/Shared Improved

Public/Shared Unimproved

Open space (bush)

Non-Programme

Emergency

Regular

The programme

aims to promote a

community-based

approach, however

there has been no

mechanism at

national or state

level to monitor

and record the

implementation of

this approach on

the ground (e.g.

number of

household latrines

constructed by

communities

through own

initiative).

According to this

evaluation’s

household survey,

around 50% of

respondents were

highly satisfied

with the quality of

their sanitation

facilities in regular

programme areas,

while around 35%

were highly

satisfied in

emergency areas,

and 15% were

highly satisfied in

non-programme

areas.

67

support, the sustainability of the provided services is doubtful due to inability of the majority of the IDPs in the camps to take ownership and responsibility of managing the their facilities. Over 80% of the IDPs staying in about 76 camps in three Darfur States have access to latrines based on SPHERE Standard. The latrines are provided in forms of communal, shared and for individual household in few cases.

Figure 13 Respondent Assessment of Quality of Sanitation Facilities

The development of the WASH sector Policy and the sector strategic plans is a major milestone towards moving forwards and going to scale. The Policy states that (efforts shall be made to overcome the environmental sanitation gap by increasing access to adequate environmental sanitation to cover 67% of population in Sudan by 2015 and 100% by the end of 2031 to achieve both the MDGs and the government Quarter Century Strategy. It also states that rural environmental sanitation is primarily the responsibility of each household and the community while urban environmental sanitation is primarily the responsibility of local government and households. Maintenance of sanitation facilities at the household level rests with communities without support from any entity except in emergency situation. There have been no records on actual number of the households who used to main the sanitation facilities on regular basis

The major success of the WASH programme over the last eight years has been the contribution with other sector partners in avoiding any serious outbreak of WASH related diseases in the emergency and regular programme areas. This is also an indication that the project interventions were relevant to the identified needs of the community and maximum benefits were obtained for minimum costs. Based on these efforts, we may conclude that the efforts and resources made available by the sector actors have been very effective in reducing the risks of further deterioration of the sanitation component over the last decade.

Gaps and Obstacles:

Access to improved sanitation facilities for rural and urban population including conflict affected areas decreased from 59.7% according to MICS conducted in 2000 to 40%

38%

30%

25%

27%

48%

24%

10%

39%

46%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very Good

Medium

Bad

Regular Programme

Emergency Programme

Non-Programme

Over 22 million

persons are still

unreached with

adequate

sanitation services,

placing great

financial pressure

on sector actors to

meet this need.

Stronger

promotion and

monitoring of a

community-based

approach is crucial

to ensuring

sustainability and

expanding

coverage.

Fragmentation of

responsibilities

among different

entities has had a

negative effect on

the success of this

component.

68

(63% urban and 24% rural) based on SHHS conducted in 2006. The 2010 SHHS revealed that 35% use improved sanitation facilities.

The 5th Sudan Population and Housing Census conducted in 2008 estimates that 56.9% of total Sudan population (87.4% of urban and 41.9% of rural) use ‘adequate’ sanitary facilities at the household level. Based on the WASH Country Status Overview (CSO) developed in 2010, as of 2009, the Public Water Corporation (PWC) estimates that 42% of the population (65% urban and 25% rural) have access to adequate sanitary facilities. The results for 2008 census can't be compared with the SHHS data as they are using two different concepts (improved facilities versus adequate facilities). The concept of adequate facilities is broader and thus includes more types of latrines than the concept of improved facilities.

The magnitude of the sanitation services and funds required for a large number of people still un-reached (over 22 million persons) is immense in addition to the reality that those who have been covered by the emergency response over the years are still in demand of continuous flow of large humanitarian assistance. WES projects through UNICEF assistance have been very successful in emergency response as seen in Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan. However, more effort is needed regarding the promotion of a community-based approach to ensure long-term sustainability.

There will definitely be certain challenges in the future regarding the provision of latrines in the camps. These challenges are related to inadequate space for construction/relocation of latrines and areas for waste disposal sites, these problems will affect the provision of adequate sanitation and final solid waste disposal facilities. Another important, and possibly problematic, issue is the question of who is going to fund and implement this activity in the future in light of the trend of decreasing donor funds.

Maintenance of sanitation facilities at the household level rests with communities without support from any entity except in emergency situations. There have been no records on the actual number of households who maintain their own sanitation facilities on regular basis.

The various household surveys conducted during the period 2000-2010 indicate that little progress has been made regarding the sanitation component. This is due to several factors including population growth, weak local demand, and fragmentation of responsibilities among many different entities. But it is mainly due to recurrent conflicts that tend to detract funding from the sanitation component to providing emergency water supply which expectedly gets a higher priority than sanitation.

2.4.2 Emergency Response

Achievements:

The WASH programme has been very efficient and successful in coordinating the emergency response of the WASH sector key partners to the emergencies over the last eight years. Sanitation and hygiene have been given top priority by sector key partners following the onset of emergencies with particular emphasis on conflict victims such as Darfur case and the flood victims in Blue Nile, Sinnar, River Nile and Northern State.

The magnitude of

the sanitation

services and funds

required for a large

number of people

still un-reached

(over 22 million

persons) is

immense in

addition to the

reality that those

who have been

covered by the

emergency

response over the

years are still in

demand of

continuous flow of

large humanitarian

assistance.

Maintenance of sanitation facilities at the household level rests with communities without support from any entity except in emergency situations. There have been no records on the actual number of households who maintain their own sanitation facilities on regular basis.

69

WASH programme also prioritized the emergency preparedness component through procurement and preposition of most important supplies and necessary requirements for the emergency response at both national and state level. Soap, cement, iron bars, and vent pipes are parts of supplies usually procured and prepositioned in advance by the sector partners. Emergency training including emergency preparedness and response, Rapid Assessment (RA), camp management, human rights, CCCs and others have been conducted to strengthen the community and government institutions’ capacities for proper response. It is estimated that more than 5000 persons benefitted for these activities over the last eight years including community leaders, women’s groups, youth groups, government officials and aid workers.

The results of the key informant interviews, household survey, and the FGDs revealed that the average time span required to respond to emergency cases was found to be in the range of 2 week to one month depending on geographic area and accessibility and security situation.

Gaps and Obstacles:

Average period of rapid initial response to acute emergencies with at least emergency communal latrines has been in the range of 2-4 weeks due inaccessibility, insecurity and issues with funds availability. The level of the emergency preparedness and response is not yet at the desired level within the government institutions at the national and state levels. The emergency response has mostly depended on donors funds and resources as evinced by the response to the floods emergency in a number of states in 2011. Although a lot of effort has been made to strengthen government capacities for emergency response, more effort is still needed to ensure a proper exit strategy and guarantee sustainability.

2.4.3 Health Centres & Basic Schools

Achievements:

Regarding health centres, WASH programme has provided some support to the health centres and hospitals especially in emergency areas in terms of sanitary facilities and water supply, but this has not been a core activity. Concrete numbers are not given for the total number of health centres supported by the programme, but an examination of UNICEF annual reports indicates that over 143 health centers were provided with sanitation facilities.

Regarding basic schools, approximately 50% of the basic schools in Sudan have access to proper improved sanitation facilities, but schools in urban centres are better off. In the areas that have benefited from the programme there are usually latrines in primary schools. In a few cases there are latrines in schools but only teachers may use them, and when the school does not have a latrine, the students go to neighbouring schools or homes or to open areas. There are concrete numbers for the exact number of schools supported by the programme, but an examination of UNICEF annual reports indicates that over 1,825 schools have been provided with new/re-established sanitation facilities.

The programme

has been very

successful in

coordinating

emergency

response, and also

prioritized

emergency

preparedness and

prepositioning of

supplies.

Emergency training

has been given to

government

institutions and

community-based

groups on

emergency

preparedness,

rapid assessment,

camp management

and human rights,

among other

things.

The average period

of initial rapid

response is 2-4

weeks, which is

below the

standard, but is

mostly due to the

inaccessibility of

these areas and

often out of the

programme’s

control.

70

In addition to supporting schools in hardware aspects, the programme has made great efforts to enhance schoolchildren’s hygiene and knowledge of how to use sanitation facilities. This has mainly been done through the establishment of school-based Sanitation & Hygiene Promotion clubs. Based on an examination of UNICEF annual reports, around 29,971 basic schoolchildren and teachers were trained on sanitation and hygiene in schools, and Sanitation & Hygiene Promotion Clubs were established at around 126 basic schools.

Gaps and Obstacles:

There are no reliable statistics regarding sanitation facilities in health centres. Nevertheless, the process of developing WASH strategic plans for the states estimated that the approximately 60% of the Health Centres are covered with sanitation facilities.

As an example, the strategic planning process for the water sector in North Darfur state recently undertaken by PWC, revealed that out of 1,036 basic schools, only 280 schools (27%) have adequate sanitation facilities, while 73% of the basic schools in the state remain without adequate latrines.

There has been no national survey on the status of the WASH services in the basic schools and most of the information related to basic schools is estimates from local authorities. The FGDs and key information interviews in addition to the on-site observation conducted during the evaluation process carried out in six states shows that 60% of the schools in the selected locations do not have access to improved sanitation facilities and most of basic schools in rural have one or two traditional latrines (with one drop hole) and 80% of them are in poor condition and unhygienic with consequent negative impact upon learning quality and school attendance especially for girls. In 2005, WES projects in Ghedarif and Kassala states conducted surveys on WASH status in basic schools. The results showed that 69% of the basic schools in Ghedarif were without sanitation facilities. In Kassala 43% of the basic schools in the rural areas have access to sanitation and 80% for the urban areas. The interviews and FGDs also showed that boys and girls often use the same toilets in mixed schools. Sometimes there are latrines in schools but the students do not prefer to use them as they used to go to open areas. Other times, students use the latrines inadequately, thus polluting or negatively affecting the toilets. The WASH sector has no system in place to monitor the status of the sanitation in the basic schools especially the rehabilitation of the school latrines. This is basically the responsibility of the Mahalias and the communities but the State Ministries of Education should have specific responsibility in monitoring this component in collaboration with concerned partners including WES projects.

2.5 Hygiene

Objective:

Increase knowledge regarding personal and environmental hygiene practices, adequate sanitation, and household water hygiene

Health centres

have received

some programme

support, but it has

not been a core

activity. Basic

schools have

received much

more attention,

and approximately

50% of basic

schools have

access to improved

sanitation facilities.

More monitoring is

needed by MoH

and MoE regarding

sanitation facilities

in health centres

and schools

respectively.

Monitoring of

school and health

facilities can be

carried out at the

locality level, but

state ministries

should have the

ultimate

responsibility in

making the data

available.

71

Hygiene promotion and awareness-raising are key elements of the WASH programme which have been implemented in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, local authorities and communities. Awareness regarding hygiene and environmental sanitation has been successful in most programme areas. The outreach of the hygiene component is satisfactory in many focus states, however overall, hygiene promotion and awareness activities are still insufficient.

Achievements:

Outreach of Hygiene Messages and Training:

According to WASH annual reports from 2003-2010, it can be estimated that almost 20,000,000 people were reached by awareness messages. The large number is due to the utilization of a combination of household visits and public radio/TV programmes which are often estimated to reach the entire population – although actual outreach is probably lower due to low average national access to media sources. The number of households visited can be estimated – based on numbers listed in annual reports from 2003 to 2010 – to be over 2.8 million households. Numbers of households visited are not listed in every report (they are only explicitly listed in the annual reports of 2005, 2006, and 2008), hence the aforementioned number is probably lower than the actual number visited from 2002-2010. Sanitation promotion centres were also constructed to increase local demand for sanitation facilities. According to the annual report of 2005, around 6 sanitation promotion centres were established in Eastern Sudan (2 of them in Kassala). Another type of hygiene promotion consisted of the distribution of soap bars – usually in emergency areas. In 2008, over 20 million soap bars were provided in Darfur and AWD/cholera high risk areas (including IDPs camps) to cover 800,000 people, while in 2009, 11.9 million soap bars were provided to high-risk areas & IDP camps benefiting over 1.55 million people.

Based on the quantitative household survey conducted as part of this evaluation, 51% of respondents have been reached with messages on water hygiene, 49% with messages on human waste disposal hygiene, and 55% with messages on general hygiene (e.g. hand-washing). The percentage of respondents who had seen a water hygiene message was higher than the average in emergency areas (64%), while the percentage of those who had seen excreta disposal hygiene messages was higher in development areas (62%). Regarding general hygiene messages, the WASH focus areas – both emergency and regular development areas – showed above average rates at 68% and 53% respectively. Regarding face-to-face hygiene promotion, 46% of respondents had received hygiene promotion messages through house visits, meetings or public events. Percentages were again higher than average in WASH focus areas – at 49% for development areas and 52% for emergency communities.

Regarding the most effective means of outreach, survey responses indicate that radio is the most accessible by local communities. When respondents were asked if they have regular access to media sources such as television, radio, or print media, 16.5% reported regular access to television, 54.5% reported regular access to radio, and 16.1% reported regular access to newspapers. There were no significant differences across community type or sex.

Hygiene promotion

and awareness

raising are key

elements of the

programme in

collaboration with

national and local

authorities.

The programme

conducted visits to

over 2.8 million

households

between 2003 and

2010.

Sanitation

promotion centres

have been

established in

Eastern Sudan, and

soap bars have

been distributed in

areas considered at

high-risk for

disease (mainly IDP

camps).

Over half of

respondents to this

evaluation’s

household survey

had seen or heard

some kind of

hygiene promotion

message, mostly

through local radio

broadcast.

72

Figure 14 Access to Media Sources (television, radio, newspapers)

(Key: No , Yes )

Television Radio Print

Other printed messages such as brochures, guides and posters also play an important role. The posters have a positive effect with respect to many required behaviours such as hand-washing, home cleaning and latrine use.

Regarding community members trained on hygiene promotion, specific numbers are not mentioned for every year, but an examination of annual reports from 2002 to 2010 indicates that approximately 79,607 people were trained. This number includes women & youth (at least 13,000), NGO staff and civil servants (at least 105), and village health committee (VHC) members. Also, around 29,971 basic schoolchildren and teachers were trained on sanitation and hygiene in schools, and Sanitation & Hygiene Promotion Clubs were established at around 126 basic schools.

Satisfaction with Messages:

In terms of respondent satisfaction with the messages they had received, local broadcasting comes second after the face-to-face approach. Radio programmes convey information on WASH programme plans, activities as well as health and health behaviour generally. In some areas, radio programmes also focus on the achievements of different communities regarding WASH related community activities which stimulate the spirit of competition between the organizers of the activities and also among the local communities. Additionally, some of the local communities use radio programmes to express their needs and opinions. However, face-to-face meetings – even though less efficient in terms of outreach – generated more satisfaction from respondents because they are able to ask questions and clarify any misunderstandings.

The most effective tool for awareness activities among the local communities is the practical evidence, since the people recognize the direct impact of using improved water and sanitation systems and following hygiene rules. The clearly decreased rate of morbidity and mortality, especially among children, and the improvement of the health situation in general indicate the effectiveness of the awareness campaigns.

The content of the hygiene awareness campaigns is developed according to the Ministry of Health guidelines that consider the culture and traditions of each specific community. The awareness activities largely take into account local circumstances

The programme

has also trained

over 79,000 people

on hygiene

promotion,

including women

groups, youth

groups, local

NGOs, civil

servants, and

village committee

members.

Around 29,971

schoolchildren and

teachers have been

trained on

sanitation and

hygiene through

school-based

Sanitation and

Hygiene Promotion

Clubs in 126

schools.

Satisfaction with

the hygiene

promotion

messages is

generally very high,

as messages are

tailored to local

culture and

circumstances.

The programme

has also trained

over 79,000 people

on hygiene

promotion,

including women

groups, youth

groups, local

NGOs, civil

servants, and

village committee

members.

Around 29,971

schoolchildren and

teachers have been

trained on

sanitation and

hygiene through

school-based

Sanitation and

Hygiene Promotion

Clubs in 126

schools.

Satisfaction with

the hygiene

promotion

messages is

generally very high,

as messages are

tailored to local

culture and

circumstances.

73

through using local dialect, depending on local agents and keeping the local character of images and posters which increases their efficiency and the level of interaction.

There is a general agreement among the stakeholders regarding the importance of awareness messages and their impact on the success of the WASH programme, particularly among women. Among the female respondents to the survey, 70%-80% felt they were highly represented in the awareness messages they had received, and found the messages to be practical and relevant to their situations.

Level of Awareness of Hygienic Practices:

Respondents were asked a series of questions related to water and environmental hygiene to gauge their awareness of good hygiene practices. 23% of respondents believed that on-site sanitation brings diseases closer to the house, and only 8% believed that washing one’s hands after using the latrine is too much of a hassle. When asked if washing one’s hands after using the latrine could contaminate the water4, 62% strongly disagreed, and 18.4% somewhat disagreed. Only 8% agreed with the statement and 11% did not know.

While percentages were very similar in programme areas (both regular and emergency), in non-programme areas a much higher percentage (32%) could not answer, as depicted in the below graph.

This finding is consistent across all hygiene questions which received similar agree/disagree percentages across community types, but the percentage of those who could not answer is consistently higher in non-programme areas.

Figure 15 Washing One’s Hands Could Contaminate the Water

Regarding knowledge about the link between hygiene and diseases, respondents were asked about the three most important practices to prevent diarrhoea in under-fives

4 People usually use small containers (Ebrig) to wash their hands after defecation. If water is poured into the

container from the larger container holding the household’s water, it would not contaminate the water. But if the Ebrig is dipped into the larger container to scoop water into it, it will contaminate the water.

Regular Programme

Non-Programme0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Agr

ee

Dis

agre

e

Do

n't

kn

ow

9%

82%

9%9%

88%

4%

8%

60%

32%Regular Programme

Emergency Programme

Non-Programme

There is general

agreement among

key persons and

community

members who

were met during

this evaluation that

the awareness-

raising component

is very important

and has been

highly successful,

but more effort is

needed to spread

the message.

Awareness of

hygienic practices

is generally high in

programme areas

based on the

results of this

evaluation’s

household survey,

but lower in non-

programme areas.

In non-programme

areas, 32% could

not respond to the

statement

“washing one’s

hands could

contaminate the

water”. In

programme areas

this percentage

was a much lower

11%.

74

(multiple answers were allowed). Although 12% could not answer, the majority of respondents reported the protection of food from flies (71%), protection of water from contamination (76%), and washing one’s hands (60%) as the most important practices. Other choices included consuming water from safe sources (18.5%), and using improved sanitation (13%). 3% of respondents chose “other” and gave vague responses mostly related to general cleanliness such as “keeping the house clean”, “keeping kids clean”, “keeping food clean”, and 8 respondents mentioned regularly visiting the local doctor or health centre. These responses are very encouraging and point to a high degree of knowledge of protecting children with good hygiene.

A similar question was asked specifically about cholera. The abovementioned answers received very similar percentages compared to the question about diarrhoea, however, 11.5% of respondents had never heard of cholera. This may be due to the reluctance of the government to use the term “cholera” and the use of the term “acute watery diarrhoea” instead, or simply diarrhoea among local communities.

When asked about the most important practices that could prevent skin diseases in children, keeping children away from dirt and unclean things received a 63% response rate, while using a lot of water – whether for washing hands or bathing – received a 49.8% response rate. However, in non-programme areas only 14% chose this option. Another important finding pertains to the fact that 32% could not answer the question. This percentage can be considered somewhat high, indicating that more focus is needed on the importance of water to avoid dermal infections among children.

To gauge awareness of the general health benefits of water hygiene, respondents were asked if they agree with the statement that improved water supply does not really have health impacts because most illnesses are not related to water. 33% of respondents agreed (16% strongly, 17% somewhat), 61% disagreed (36% strongly, 25% somewhat). The below graph depicts the responses disaggregated by community type.

Figure 16 Water Supply Doesn’t Affect Health Because Diseases are not Related to Water

Respondents were also asked about the statement that hand-washing is only practiced so that food doesn't taste funny when you eat it, and has nothing to do with diseases. To this statement 16% agreed (11.5% strongly, 4.7% somewhat) and 81% disagreed (66% strongly, 15% somewhat). There were no significant differences across sex or

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Agree Disagree Don't know

37%

61%

3%

34%

60%

6%

28%

59%

13%

Regular Programme

Emergency Programme

Non-Programme

Most respondents

were highly aware

of the link between

hygiene and

diseases.

Respondents were

more aware of

effective practices

to prevent diarrhea

than cholera, as

11.5% had never

heard of cholera –

probably because

the government

has opted to use

the term acute

watery diarrhea

instead.

Awareness was

lower regarding

how to prevent

dermal infections

among children.

Awareness on the

link between water

and diseases is very

strong, but it is

higher in

programme areas

than non-

programme areas.

96% of

respondents to this

evaluation’s

household survey

reported that the

messages they’d

seen/heard had a

positive effect on

their family

hygiene

behaviours.

75

community type. This indicates that the health benefits of hygiene are more widely known than the health benefits of improved water supply.

Behavioural Adaptation of Hygienic Practices:

Regarding the messages on water hygiene, 96% of respondents who had been reached with such messages reported that they had a positive effect on their family hygiene behaviours (64% of whom reported a very positive effect). Similar percentages were given for waste-disposal hygiene messages, and general hygiene promotion message, and percentages were even higher among those who had attended a workshop or any face-to-face sessions on hygiene-related issues.

To gauge respondents’ self-perception of their hygienic practices, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which water is handled in a hygienic manner in their households. 60.5% chose “very hygienic”, 31.8% chose “somewhat hygienic”, 5.1% chose “very unhygienic”, and 2.6% would not answer. The highest percentages of those who responded with “very hygienic” came from respondents in emergency areas (68.6%), followed by those in regular programme areas (58.8%), followed by non-programme areas (44%). Survey responses point to a gradual improvement in household hygiene in programme areas, as 30% reported an improvement from five years ago in emergency areas, while 47% reported an improvement in regular programme areas. In non-programme areas percentages were much lower as only 15% reported improvement from five years ago, as depicted in the below graph.

Figure 17 Improvement in the Household Water Hygiene Practices since Past Five Years

Those who reported improvements attributed this to learning how to handle water more hygienically (43.8%), or to increased water reliability (26.4%). 16.7% said there is now more water available for use, and 13.1% said the water source is now closer. It is important to keep in mind that behavioural adaptation of hygienic practices is not only related to awareness but also dependant on the availability of materials such as soap and sufficient water.

Regarding water hygiene, 13% of respondents had recently washed clothes, dishes, themselves and/or a child at a surface water source. 43% said that fingers are often put

Regular ProgrammeEmergency ProgrammeNon-Programme

0%20%40%

60%

80%76%

16%8%

59%

24%18%

38% 47%

13%

Regular Programme

Emergency Programme

Non-Programme

Survey responses

point to a gradual

improvement in

household hygiene

in programme

areas as 38.5%

report an

improvement

compared to five

years ago, while

only 15% give that

response in non-

programme areas.

Those who

reported

improvements

attribute this to

learning how to

handle water more

hygienically, and

increased water

reliability and

quantity.

Only 13% of

respondents had

recently washed

clothes, dishes,

themselves and /or

a child at a surface

water source.

Less than 1% of

households visited

in this evaluation’s

household survey

had a very foul

odour emanating

from their water

storage containers,

but 83% had a

slight foul odour.

The vast majority

of respondents

reported that it is

normal to wash

one’s hands before

cooking, before

eating, and after

defecation.

76

into water while collecting it and 45% of households visited had some water storage containers left uncovered (10% of whom had all storage containers left uncovered). Field observers also reported that 54% of water storage containers are stored in areas likely to be contaminated. To get a more accurate assessment of water cleanliness, field observers also requested to check if there was any odour emanating from the water storage container. Less than 1% of households had a very foul odour emanating from their storage containers, and 17% said there was no odour at all. However, a very high percentage of households (83%) had a slight foul odour emanating from the water container. This corroborates the above statement that a stronger focus on the health benefits of water hygiene is needed. Many respondents also face a problem with mosquitoes around the water storage area, as 64.4% said they sometimes deal with this issue (24.4% of whom always face this problem).

Given the sensitivity of issues related to washing one’s hands after excreta disposal, the questions in the survey were phrased in an indirect manner to reflect the norms in the community, rather than the respondents’ personal practices.

95.7% of respondents found it normal to wash one’s hands before eating. Percentages were slightly lower than average in non-programme areas (89.6%) and higher in programme areas (97%). 76% of respondents said it is normal to wash one’s hands before cooking, and again percentages were lower in non-programme areas (69%) and higher in programme areas (72% in regular programme areas, and 83% in emergency areas). 79.6% of respondents said it is normal to wash one’s hands after using the toilet, with lower percentages in non-programme areas (62%) and higher percentages in programme areas (80% in regular programme areas and 85% in emergency areas). According to the 2008 KAP survey, 61% of respondents clean their hands with soap and water after defecation, while 47% use water only, and 3% use rags and the rest use paper, grass, stones, soil or sand.

Gaps & Obstacles:

The hygiene promotion component of the programme has generally been successful at awareness-raising, but more effort is needed as proper hygiene awareness and practices are still below the desired standard. The main weaknesses and obstacles facing the hygiene promotion and awareness raising programme component are the limited, inadequate and irregular budgets (there are many activities that decreased or were discontinued due to budget cuts) constitutes a main problem area. This is corroborated by more than one progress report that mention a lag in hygiene promotion activities due to insufficient resources, in terms of budgets, tools and materials, follow-up systems, and household resources. Another key area that needs enhancement is local demand for sanitation facilities, as many people still give a lower priority to sanitation facilities than other household needs, due to high poverty. More capacity-building of local partners is also needed especially focused on how to broach hygiene-related topics in culturally appropriate and sensitive ways. A stronger focus on the health benefits and importance of improved water supply and water hygiene is also needed.

Despite the significant outreach efforts and the success in reaching local communities, especially through radio broadcast, there is still a considerable part of the population

The biggest

obstacle facing the

hygiene promotion

and awareness-

raising component

is limited and

irregular budgets.

More tools are

needed that are

accessible to poor

and illiterate

sections of society.

More training is

needed on how to

broach issues that

are culturally-

sensitive.

The biggest

obstacle facing the

hygiene promotion

and awareness-

raising component

is limited and

irregular budgets.

More tools are

needed that are

accessible to poor

and illiterate

sections of society.

More training is

needed on how to

broach issues that

are culturally-

sensitive.

77

that does not have access to radio or television. There is a need for more tools that are accessible to the poorest sections of society that have no media access, while also taking into consideration the high illiteracy rates among certain segments of the society.

Findings generally point to the high success in tailoring awareness messages to local cultural circumstances. However, more training is needed for government institutions non-governmental parties on how to deal with such culturally taboo issues. The outreach efforts cannot be sustained in their culturally-appropriate fashion without the relevant training on how to deal with these topics.

While the health benefits of good hygiene practices such as washing one’s hands are widely known among local communities, the health benefits of improved water supply are less known – which seems to be viewed more as an issue of convenience and safety rather than health. A stronger focus on the health benefits of improved water supply could ameliorate this gap.

3. Efficiency

The programme interventions during the period 2000-2010 were implemented against a background of instability in many parts of the country creating tension among aid workers and negatively affecting smooth delivery of water, sanitation and hygiene services. Despite these challenges the programme was able to expand its interventions to cover large areas including southern Sudan (before cessation) and twelve States while supporting the non-focus states during the emergency occasions. Cost efficiency has been considered but the operational costs for delivering WASH services in generally found to be very high in comparison to estimates from late nineties, especially in emergency areas. However, the vulnerable groups of war affected people and IDPs could have been endangered without such life-saving activities and interventions rendered through the huge humanitarian response.

Over the last 7 years, considerable amounts of money were spent to sustain and expand the WASH services in Darfur, mainly focusing on IDPs. The emergency funds from donors to respond to crises increased dramatically from 2003 to 2010. Many WASH programme counterparts continued to point out funding shortages on the part of the government according to the Annual Work Plan. However, UNICEF funding decreased from 60% to 40% despite of the increasing needs. Furthermore, there is a difference in funding pace, whereby the government pays its share quarterly while UNICEF pays annually. Government funding is not always available on the determined dates and in the obligatory amounts which impedes the implementation. The total of funds does not cover all the requirements, and budgets do not match reality and do not cover all items.

The programme focuses more on the small projects even in the areas in which large projects would have been more efficient. An important example is providing numerous hand-pumps where a (small) water yard would have been more efficient.

The programme has

faced many

implementation

challenges over the

years that have

affected its

efficiency, such as

the recurring

conflicts, high

operational costs in

Sudan, and the

government funding

pace which is

different from the

donor pace.

The programme

focuses on small

projects (e.g. hand-

pumps) even when

large projects (e.g.

water yards) would

have been more

efficient.

Hand-pumps are

efficient for a

maximum of 50

families and have a

per capita cost of

$28-30.

78

If cost is analyzed based on the specific water source and the number of people served by the source, the per capita cost of each source can be estimated. Hand-pumps are efficient and cost effective for maximum 50 families (250 persons) to get at least 20 litre/capita/day based on 6-8 hour working day. The capital investment for one hand-pump is about $6,000-7,000 (very much higher in Darfur due to insecurity). This gives a per capita cost of $28-30 (see below table). Hand-pumps are a simple technology that can be operated entirely by communities without any external support. If the number of families increased to more than 50 then the rate will decrease accordingly and the community either opts for more hand-pumps or another technology option like water yards.

Water yards are efficient and cost-effective, and can provide safe water to a range of 1500-5000 persons (300-1000 families). Water yards are a more sophisticated technology that cannot be handled by the community alone and require some back up to run smoothly. The capital investment for one water yard is about $100,000 – $150,000 (also much higher in Darfur due to insecurity). This gives per capita/cost of $50 -75 (see below table).

Figure 18 Technology Distribution and Per Capita Costs (US$) - Water Supply

Technolgy Options Technology distribution Cost (2009)

Rural Urban Cost per capita

Piped scheme - House

connection

14% 70% 353

Piped scheme - standpipe 15% 26% 150

Water Yard 28% 4% 75

Dug well with pump 37% 0% 28

Hafeer Dams with slow

san filter

6% 0% 67

100% 100%

Source: Sudan Country Status Overview 2010 (Costing Model Analysis Technique developed by AMCOW for comparison purpose among African countries).

The cost for establishing water facilities is very high compared to Asia and some countries in Africa. However, this is not in the hands of the programme as it is basically due to fact most of construction materials are imported, in addition to the economic crunch due to imposed sanctions.

The programme could have reached more needy communities, if the national and state government financial obligations were met and secured in a proper and timely manner. The fact is that the impact of the hostilities and the unstable security situation in southern Sudan (before cessation), Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan over the last 3

Water yards are

efficient for 1500-

5000 persons

(300-1000

families) and have

a per capita cost

of $50-75.

Cost per capita is

higher in

comparison to

other initiatives in

other countries,

but this is due to

the high costs in

Sudan as a whole,

the importation of

construction

materials, and

imposed

sanctions.

Irregular financial

transfers from the

government,

recurrent

emergencies, an

insufficiently

strong

maintenance

system, and a lack

of focus on pre-

implementation

geological and

hydrological

studies are the

main factors

impeding

efficiency.

79

decades has directly resulted in interruption of the livelihoods of the communities including the IDPs, destabilized their coping mechanisms and severely affected their access to normal traditional water supply and sanitation facilities. This situation created a total dependency of the IDPs on humanitarian assistance and accordingly limited and restricted their ability to contribute.

General comments from key informants indicate that the programme could have been implemented in a more cost-efficient and time-efficient manner, and that there is significant room for improvement with respect to the programme’s efficiency. The key informants referred basically to the delays related to water supply projects implemented through government funds, as these projects sometimes take years to be completed and put in use. For example, they drill a borehole to establish a water yard but in some cases it may take 2-3 years to install the pump and construct the elevated tanks. The communities believe that the budget for the projects should be fully released to complete the work in a reasonable time. In addition to that, the communities also mentioned that the quality of the work does not always meet the specifications and standards when it is not accompanied with close supervision and follow-up from the relevant government authorities.

The main factors that undermined the programme’s efficiency are:

Irregular financial transfers from the government

Large scale emergencies.

Weakness of the maintenance system

Relatively poor quality of the wash infrastructure due to inadequate quality assurance and quality control.

Inadequate focus on technical studies, especially geological and hydrological ones, prior to project implementation.

Recurrent failure of partners to fulfil their obligations and commitments in time

4. Impact

Objective

Contribute to the reduction in levels of morbidity and mortality related to water- and sanitation-related diseases especially among children

Although there are no specific studies and researches that provide an evidence basis for the direct impact of WASH Sudan services in improving the health and living standard of the target communities, reducing school dropout rates (especially of girls) and reducing conflicts among pastoralists and farmers/resident communities, there are some indications and impressions of those impacts. In emergency situations, measuring of effect and outcome could be more practical than impact, as impact takes longer to develop and become measurable. The major success and impact of the WASH programme was the contribution along with other sector partners to avoiding any serious outbreak of WASH related diseases over the last 8 years as indicated in the

There are a

number of factors

that if improved

could significantly

impact the

programme’s

efficiency,

including

strengthening the

maintenance

system, and

increasing the

focus on technical

studies.

The major impact

of the

programme has

been the

reduction of

many water-

borne diseases,

and even

eradication of

some.

The main health

impacts include

the improvement

of children’s

health in

emergency

camps, significant

decline in

particularly acute

watery diarrhea /

cholera,

eradication of

guinea worm,

and a significant

decline in skin

diseases, allergies

and eye diseases.

80

weekly Morbidity and Monitoring Bulletin (generated by SMoH in collaboration with WHO). Other major impacts of the programme, according to interviewed key informants, include the complete interruption of Guinea Worm transmission with zero reported cases since 2008, a considerable focus on poor and vulnerable groups, especially women, increasing health awareness and community ownership, increasing local demand for sanitation facilities, improving school environments and improving institutional capacities. However, this improvement is relatively limited to some thematic and spatial areas and is inadequate in some states as well as at locality (Mahalia) level.

4.1 Prevalence of Water-Borne Diseases

Overall, the health benefits of the programme are most pronounced in regards to water-borne diseases, a fact strongly corroborated by the key informants interviewed by the Evaluation Team. The main health impacts listed by key informants include the improvement of children’s health in emergency camps, significant decline in diseases transferred by water, particularly acute watery diarrhoea/cholera, as well as eradication of guinea worms and a significant decline in skin diseases, allergies and eye diseases. However, a 2009 report by the Sudanese Ministry of Health mentions that 80% of the diseases are related to water (acute watery diarrhoea, malaria, typhoid, jaundice, acute liver, etc.).

Infant Mortality:

Many key informants – especially government officials – mentioned a decline in children and infant diseases and mortality as one of the main impacts of the programme. However, this impact is less pronounced than others mentioned above, as the 2010 MDG report mentions various indicators of child mortality (under five mortality rate, infant mortality rate) that have declined only marginally since the 1990s. For example, U5MR decreased from 130 deaths per 1000 live births (LB) in the mid 1990s to 104 in 1999 to 102 in 2006. Similarly, IMR decreased from 80/1000 LB in the mid 1990s to 68 in 1999, but then increased again to 71 in 2006. It has now retreated back down to 66 according to the most recent WHO data.

AWD/Cholera:

Although the “Why Wait for Cholera” report (2006) states that the last cases in Northern Sudan were reported in November 2006, the UNICEF Annual Report (AR) for 2009 states that during 2006, 2007, and 2008 9,973, 2,299 and 335 cases were reported respectively (AR 2009). No Acute Water Diarrhoea (AWD)/cholera cases were reported in North Sudan in 2009 or 2010 (AR 2009 and AR 2010). According to the Why Wait for Cholera (2006) report, since the last outbreak in 1999, there have only been sporadic outbreaks in North Kordofan and the Darfur states. The “Is Cholera Here to Stay” report (2007) credits the quick confinement of the potential outbreak in 2007 to “the quick response measures that were put in place across the states by SMOHs and SWCs and in particular epidemiology departments and WES, and UNICEF/ WHO and NGOs”. According to the report, Sudan was in much better shape to respond to the 2007 epidemic due to the large pre-positioning of emergency supplies, coordination between UNICEF-WES, FMOH and SWC to avail emergency chlorine, and the “very effective flood response plan” put

There has been a

significant decline

in many water-

borne diseases.

That is what of

the main impacts

of the

programme.

The “Is Cholera

Here to Stay”

report (2007)

credits the quick

confinement of

the potential

outbreak in 2007

to “the quick

response

measures that

were put in place

across the states

by SMOHs and

SWCs and in

particular

epidemiology

departments and

WES, and

UNICEF/ WHO

and NGOs”.

.

81

in place by UNICEF, WHO, and other NGOs which provided temporary water tanks and emergency latrines.

Although cholera cases have significantly declined and completely controlled by 2009, it is clear that diarrhoea among children still poses a challenge. Among the respondents to the household survey conducted as part of this evaluation, 36% had children under five who had experienced three or more watery stools in any 24 hour period over the past month, while the 2008 KAP survey reports that only 16% of respondents indicated that diarrhoea was prevalent in their families over the past month. A 2009 report by the federal Ministry of Health mentions that recurrence of acute watery diarrhoea remains a problem in some states, particularly Ghedarif. A 2009 report by the MoH reports that diarrhoea patients have declined from 1,897,584 cases in 2005 to 383,909 cases in 2006, and then rose again to 618,748 cases in 2007 and have started to decline once more to 543,200 cases in 2008.

The below graph is the results of 2006 SHHS that shows the clear link between the increased access to both improved water & sanitation facilities and decreased incidence of diarrhoea in Sudan

Figure 19 Link between Decreased Diarrhoea and Increased WATSAN facilities

Skin & Eye Infections:

A comparison between the household survey conducted as part of this evaluation and the 2008 KAP survey shows a considerable difference between the two studies. While this evaluation found that 25% of respondents had under-fives who had suffered from a rash on the body and/or face or swollen glands, in the 2008 KAP Survey only 5.6% of respondents mentioned dermal infections as a disease prevalent among their families. In this evaluation 29.5% had a member in the family who suffered from an eye disease in the past month, while the KAP survey found that only 10.4% of respondents

U5MR decreeased

from 130 deaths

per 1000 live

births (LB) in the

mid 1990s to 104

in 1999 to 102 in

2006.

No Acute Watery

Diarrhea were

reported in 2009,

and between 1999

and 2009 there

have only been

sporadic

outbreaks.

Despite the

decline in AWD,

diarrhoea among

children still poses

a challenge, as

36% of

respondents had

children who had

experienced three

or more watery

stools in any 24

hour period in the

month preceding

the survey.

82

described eye infections as prevalent among their families. The difference in findings is most probably due to the use of the word “prevalent” in the KAP survey while this evaluation’s survey asked if the disease had been experienced at least once.

Guinea Worm:

Guinea Worm disease is one of the areas in which the programme has been the most successful, as it has been almost completely eradicated from North Sudan. According to UNICEF’s 2009 annual review, there was a 25% decline in Guinea Worm cases reported in 2009 compared with 2008 (AR 2009). The following table shows prevalence of guinea worm from 1992 to 2010 (WHO 2011 statistics). These statistics do not disaggregate North and South Sudan, however one can see the spread of the disease until it peaks in 1999 at over 66,000 cases and eventually declines to less than 2000 cases by 2010.

Figure 20 Guinea Worm in North Sudan

Year South Sudan +North Sudan Cases

North Sudan Cases

2001 49,471 85

2002 41,493 90

2003 20,299 29

2004 7,266 11

2005 5,569 4

2006 20,582 1

2007 5,815 3

2008 3,618 0

2009 2,733 0

2010 1,698 0

Source: Guinea Worm Eradication Programme

25% of

respondents of

this evaluation’s

household survey

had under-fives

who had suffered

from a rash or

swollen glands in

the month

preceding the

survey.

There is a very

strong link

between

improved water

and sanitation

facilities and a

decline in

diarrhoea cases in

Sudan.

83

Figure 21 Guinea Worm in Sudan

Other Diseases: Malaria & Malnutrition

As for Malaria, between 2004 and 2008, malaria deaths declined from 1,814 per 100,000 people in 2004, to 1,700 in 2005, 1,686 in 2006, 1,254 in 2007 and 632 in 2008 (AR 2009). In 2008, malaria was the most prevalent disease among the respondents at 29.4% (KAP Survey 2008). However, this cannot be directly linked to improved water supply unless more specialized studies are conducted to compare Malaria prevalence in programme areas versus non-programme areas.

According to the “Special Report: Government of Sudan and FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to the 15 Northern States of Sudan January 2011”, the majority of localized surveys in Darfur continue to show global acute malnutrition rates over the emergency threshold of 15%, and the range in 2010 was 11.1% to 29.8%. The Special Report relied on measuring the Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) on children between the age of 6 months and 5 years (international standards are >115 mm for severe malnutrition and high mortality risk and >225mm for moderate malnutrition). The study found the following results:

Figure 22 Malnutrition in Sudan by State

47977

66097

54890

49471

41493

20299

7266 5569

20582

5815 3618 2733 1698

Guinea Worm in Sudan1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Guinea worm has

been all but

eradicated in

Sudan, one of the

most significant

impacts of the

programme’s

interventions.

Malaria has also

been in decline,

but it is difficult to

directly link this to

the improved

water and

sanitation

facilities as many

other factors

influence Malaria

prevalence.

84

(Special Report: Government of Sudan and FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to the 15 Northern States of Sudan January 2011)

The graph shows that Red Sea and West Darfur – the former is not a focus state while the latter is a focus state – have the highest rates of severe malnutrition. Kassala and West Darfur – both focus states – have high rates of moderate malnutrition, followed by North Darfur. However, other focus states – namely, South Kordofan and North Kordofan – both have low malnutrition rates. Based on these mixed results, it is difficult to assess the direct link between improved water and sanitation and malnutrition rates unless a more targeted study is conducted.

4.2 Improved Well-Being

The community members mentioned various contributions by the programme to the overall well-being of their families. Specific impacts that were mentioned by those interviewed in this evaluation are outlined below:

Household economy:

Improvement in the economic status of beneficiaries through health improvements, the decline of diseases, the availability of time and energy for productive activities, and the increase in the physical ability to work;

Reduction in the cost of water as it becomes nearer to the residences of water users;

Creation of direct sources of income through breeding animals as a result of water availability;

Safety and comfort:

General improvement in the quality of life and comfort of the beneficiaries, which differs from one case to another due to the kind, locality and accessibility of the facilities provided;

Malnutrition rates

are inconsistent

across states,

making it difficult

to establish a

direct link.

Many other

impacts can traced

to programme

activities, as

reported by

beneficiaries.

These include

improved

household

economy,

improved security

for women who

used to rely on

open defecation or

and thus had to

wait until late at

night, and

improved health

and comfort.

85

Increased security and reduced risk, especially for girls and women who were predominantly forced to seek remote and deserted areas by night in order to defecate, which exposed them to several dangers (rape and attacks);

Shorter walking distance from the household to the water point, as well as shorter queuing time as well;

Fewer drowning incidents, which previously tended to occur when water was fetched from rivers, especially among children;

Facilitation of construction works due to the availability of water;

Improvement of the educational process, since children are no longer forced to interrupt their classes to go home or to remote open areas to defecate;

Decrease in the cases of school dropouts, especially among girls, due to the improvement of schools environments in general and the availability of water and sanitation facilities at schools.

Overall, the programme’s contribution to the reduction of human suffering, particularly for the vulnerable groups compared to the situation 2 decades ago, is significant and clearly evinced through the responses of those who participated in this study.

5. Sustainability

5.1 Institutional Sustainability

Achievements:

The programme successfully established a basis for programme sustainability. The decade-long acceptance, adaptation and support that the programme has received from the communities and government institutions represent a determining factor for programme sustainability. The attitude GoS displays toward the programme contributed to the programme’s high relevance to governmental strategic objectives and priorities.

Another significant factor in ensuring sustainability is the decentralized WES structure, which is realized through the WES projects at state level and particularly through the wide coverage and spread of WES units at local level as well as village committees at community level.

The development of sector policy and strategic plans is also a factor enhancing sustainability, since it defines a medium and long term road map for the sector and helps clarify roles and responsibilities as well as eliminate overlaps in the mandates of different sector actors. An important step represents the active participation of the MoH in developing the WASH sector’s strategic plan.

The presence of well qualified WES staff as a result of the extensive capacity-building programmes and the accumulation of experience throughout the duration of the programme plays an important role in ensuring sustainability, which is further enhanced by the building and improvement of logistic capacities of WES units.

Gaps and Obstacles:

Walking distances

to water points

have been

decreased in

many areas,

learning

environments are

more child-

friendly, and

quality of life has

generally

improved as a

result of the

programme

interventions.

The WASH

programme

successfully

established a

basis for

programme

sustainability. The

decade-long

acceptance,

adaptation and

support that GoS

has provided the

programme with,

represent a

determining

factor for

programme

sustainability.

Although WES is

the main player in

the WASH sector,

it still retains the

image of a donor,

mainly a UNICEF-

supported body,

and many staff

are seconded

from other

government

entities.

The contribution

of the government

of Sudan has

almost doubled

between 2002

and 2010.

Local inhabitants

volunteer for a

significant

amount of O&M

work, bearing the

expenses

associated with

minor repairs and

the purchase of

spare parts that

are locally

available.

86

The institutional setup of WES as a project and not as an integrated governmental body negatively impacts the programme’s sustainability, since a project has a temporary character and specific mandates by definition. Although WES is the main player in the WASH sector, it still has retains the image of a donor, mainly a UNICEF-supported body. This situation creates misunderstandings and sometimes conflicts between stakeholders as well as overlapping mandates, responsibilities and ownership. The water supply component is less affected in this regard than the environmental sanitation and hygiene components, where the Ministry of Health (MoH) is responsible by mandate for public health, hygiene promotion and household sanitation while the Ministry of Education (MoE) is responsible for basic schools latrines and school hygiene promotion beside the state ministries of Urban Planning and Public Utilities/State and Water Resources.

Another factor that dilutes sustainability is the understaffing of the SWCs/ WES relative to the needs and increasing work load. This does not apply to technical staff only, but sector professionals concerned with planning, polices, monitoring and evaluation, management of information system, community development, as well as financial management.

The staffing problem is exacerbated by the high rate of staff turnover due to low salaries. This problem is multidimensional; besides sustainability, it also affects effectiveness and efficiency, since the staff members who leave are normally those who are well qualified and have received substantial training. Moreover, it hinders interaction and trust-building with partners and communities.

5.2 Financial Sustainability and Cost-Recovery

Achievements

At the initial phase in 1975, the WASH programme was almost fully financed by UNICEF, with limited contributions from the communities and Government of Sudan. As the programme grew increasingly integrated and decentralized, government/community contributions also increased. In fact, one of the programme’s success indicators is the increase in budget allocated to it, be it the total budget or the government/community component, as a result of advocacy and coordination efforts and as a reflection on its effectiveness. Thus, the programmes budget increased from $4,718,693 in 2002 to $18,304,251 in 2010, while the Sudanese government’s contributions from $1,400,000 in 2002 to $2,289,551 in 2010.

However, financial contributions are not limited to the sums directly delivered to the programme. They also include indirect support such as expenditures (in-kind) within the concerned institutions budgets as well as budgets in other related entities such as NGOs. Similarly, GoS contributes by seconding of officials and employees affiliated to governmental authorities and ministries to the programme, and paying their salaries and incentives.

This also applies to the local communities, which contribute in the form of joint efforts in establishing facilities necessary for water and sanitation as well as providing materials for household latrines. Additionally, local community inhabitants volunteer for a significant amount of O&M work, bearing the expenses associated with minor repairs and the purchase of spare parts that are locally available. These in-kind supports

Although WES is

the main player in

the WASH sector,

it still retains the

image of a donor,

mainly a UNICEF-

supported body,

and many staff

are seconded

from other

government

entities.

The contribution

of the government

of Sudan has

almost doubled

between 2002

and 2010.

Local inhabitants

volunteer for a

significant

amount of O&M

work, bearing the

expenses

associated with

minor repairs and

the purchase of

spare parts that

are locally

available.

87

represent considerable contributions to cost recovery and pave the way for an increasing progress towards ownership.

As for the direct implementation of water tariff, there are indeed initiatives in this regard; however they differ in type, degree and coverage from one state to the other, or from one area within a state to another, respectively. The most common form of cost recovery is the monthly fees to be paid by each household as a contribution to the O&M running costs. Another common type of cost recovery is charging for water based on quantity (determined through the used container and tanks), which is usually limited to water yards and not applicable for hand-pumps. At any rate, the expenses to be paid are not cost covering in terms of economic measures, but only represent a contribution to the running costs. Moreover, the beneficiaries occasionally make some additional payments to cover the urgent need for spare parts, when unexpected defects occur in the absence of a maintenance budget. The latter is limited to minor damage and spare parts available locally or at state level.

A success of the community capacity building and awareness raising efforts is represented by the fact that the majority of the beneficiaries display a primarily positive attitude towards beneficiaries’ contribution to water and sanitation costs. Most of the participants in the FGDs find that such a contribution is acceptable and necessary to achieve sustainability. They also added an important aspect, namely that sharing costs is not only a result of a sense of ownership, but also a prerequisite to enhancing sense of ownership, commitment and responsibility and accordingly to enhancing sustainability. However this willingness is not granted unconditionally. Rather, it requires that the amount of financial contributions made by the beneficiaries remains within acceptable and realistic limits, taking their income situation into consideration. Some participants linked the willingness to contribute to the improvement of the provided services. A minority of qualitatively interviewed respondents believe that the government is obliged to bear the entire costs of water and sanitation facilities, while another minority believes that water must be completely free of charge while the disposal of human wastes should be paid for.

Regarding the quantitative results, the survey largely confirmed the qualitative results. 70% of the total sample agree that the financial contribution of the beneficiaries is the only way to achieve sustainable services (44.6% strongly agree and 25.4% somewhat agree). This percentage is considerably higher in regular programme areas, where it reaches 89.4% (61.7% strongly agree and 27.8% somewhat agree); it is noteworthy that the increase of the percentage responding with “strongly agree” is much higher than the increase in the “somewhat agree” responses. In non-regular programme areas strongly resemble the overall figures: 70.6% agree with the idea, out of which 48.8% “strongly agree” and 21.8% “somewhat agree”. The lowest percentages were found in emergency areas with 56.3% (31.4% for strongly agree and 25.6% for agree), which appears rational, since sustainability is expected to be less of a priority under emergency and conflict conditions.

Sharing costs is not

only a result of a

sense of

ownership, but also

a prerequisite to

enhancing sense of

ownership,

commitment and

responsibility and

accordingly to

enhancing

sustainability.

70% of

respondents to this

evaluation’s

household survey

agree that the

financial

contribution of the

beneficiaries is the

only way to

achieve sustainable

service. This

percentage is

considerably higher

in regular

programme areas.

88

Figure 23 Service-Users Must Contribute Financially to Ensure Sustainability

The majority of the respondents agree to relate water prices to the financial capability of the users, either directly based on their income or indirectly based on their water consumption. 63.2% of the respondents agree that “those who can afford to pay more for water should pay more regardless of their consumption”, while 65.5% agree that “those who use more water should pay more for this water”. The highest degree of consensus was found regarding relieving the very poor from water charges. 81.3% of the respondents agree that “those who cannot afford to pay for water should be exempt from paying, even when this means that those with more money should pay more”.

Figure 24 Those who use more water should pay more

Figure 25 Wealthier people should pay more regardless of their consumption

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Agree Disagree Don't know

90%9% 1%

57%39%

4%

71% 24%5%

Non-Programme

Emergency Programme

Regular Programme

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

AgreeDisagree

Don't know

80%

20%

0%

55%

43%

2%

69%

26%

5%

Regular Programe

Emergency Programme

Non-Programme

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.876%

23%

1%

56%

38%

5%

59%

32%

9%Regular Programme

Emergency Programme

Non-Programme

Other respondents

believe water

prices should be

connected to the

financial capability

of users, regardless

of water usage, the

same way taxes

are calculated as a

percentage of

income.

The 2008 KAP

survey found that

76% of

respondents had to

pay for water one

way or another.

This evaluation’s

household survey

found that only

35% of households

paid for their water

during the month

preceding the

survey.

Levels of payment

found in this

evaluation as well

as the 2008 KAP

survey are less

than 2 SDG per

Jerry Can for 57.6%

of respondents,

and 2-5 SDG for

47.6% of

respondents.

70% of

respondents to this

evaluation’s

household survey

agree that the

financial

contribution of the

beneficiaries is the

only way to

achieve sustainable

service. This

percentage is

considerably higher

in regular

programme areas.

Some respondents

believe payment

levels should be

tied to quantity of

water used.

89

Regarding the extent of the cost recovery of water supply, the 2008 KAP Survey found that almost 76% of respondents had to pay for water in one way or another. This percentage amounts to 71.8% and 47.9% in rural and emergency areas, respectively. However, the current survey found that only 35.4% of households paid for their domestic water consumption during the previous month. The percentage increases in programme areas to 48.5% and decreases in non-programme areas to 21.8%, while it reaches 34.7% in emergency areas. In all types of communities the percentage is much lower than the equivalent findings of the KAP survey, which could be explained by differing definitions of “paying for water” and the targeting of different type of areas.

Levels of payment stated in the 2008 KAP survey and this study are more or less consistent. In the KAP survey, 47.6% reported paying 2-5 SDG per barrel/drum (barrel capacity is 220 litres). In this study, 57.6% reported paying less than 2 SDG for the same amount, with the majority of respondents reporting a purchase of 6-10 litres at a time.

As for sanitation facilities, 83% of respondents who have on-site latrines financially contributed to the establishment costs of their latrines, with slight differences between community types. The majority paid a sum between SDG 50 and 300. Payment for the use of public sanitation facilities is very limited; the percentages of those who have to pay amounts to 11% in total, 10% in non-programme areas and 16% in emergency areas. In regular programme areas, the value is negligible.

Gaps and Obstacles

The financial sustainability of the WASH programme implemented by WES and supported by UNICEF is not satisfactorily ensured. The financial situation of the programme is constrained by three main problem areas: a) the overall budget is insufficient compared to the increasing needs, b) the contribution of GoS is proportionally low and often irregular and c) the programme depends to a wide extent on donor funds, mainly UNICEF.

The first two elements affect programme effectiveness and efficiency, and thus indirectly impact sustainability. However the third problem area represents the most serious threat to programme sustainability, regardless of effectiveness and efficiency. This problem is associated with external factors relating to the holistic country context as well as to the abovementioned institutional setup. The project character and mandates of WES hinders appropriately and permanently considering it adequately in government budget planning. Moreover, the work situation of WES employees as seconded staff renders them dependent on the authorities they affiliate to in terms of salaries and incentives, which represents yet additional threat to sustainability.

In fact, all programme components are threatened by the fragile financial state which endangers the entire WASH programme, however the extent differs for the various components and aspects. In other words, in case the UNICEF funding is stopped, programme components and aspects will not be affected to the same extent. For instance, it is expected that the sustainability aspect and accordingly long-term impacts would be more affected than effectiveness and efficiency aspects. Similarly, hardware components will be more threatened/less sustainable than software components. It would be rational and understandable that in light of severe financial shortage, GoS would be forced to give priority to water and sanitation facilities at the expense of staff

83% of

respondents who

have on-site

latrines financial

contributed to their

establishment. The

majority paid a

sum between 50

and 300 SDG.

The financial

sustainability of

the programme’s

services is not

satisfactorily

ensured and faces

specific problem

areas.

Problem areas are

a) insufficient

overall budget is

compared to the

increasing needs,

b) the contribution

of GoS is

proportionally low

and often irregular

and c) the

programme

depends to a wide

extent on donor

funds, in this case

UNICEF.

90

and community capacity building, information and monitoring systems and/or hygiene issues.

What renders the situation even more critical is the fact that such activities (software aspects) are almost completely financed by UNICEF. The case of Sinnar confirmed this expectation; since the withdrawal of UNICEF support in 2002, the hardware component has been relatively well functioning, while the capacity building and other software activities almost discontinued entirely.

Furthermore, extending the coverage of water and sanitation services would have higher priority than the improvement or even the functionality of the O&M systems.

In addition, within the hardware component the financial pressure threatens the sustainability of sanitation services more than water services, due to the higher necessity of water. Based on programme history, emergency cases represent an additional threat to sustainability. Providing basic WASH services to those areas often took place at the expense of budgets allotted to regular programme areas.

In spite of the promising indicators regarding the implementation of cost recovery, it remains implemented only to a limited extent or not at all and thus does not yet significantly contribute to the programme financial sustainability. Certainly the low economic status that most beneficiaries suffer from and the frequent emergencies limit the beneficiaries’ capability to contribute financially, and no thorough economic studies were conducted to determine the exact ceiling of possible monetary contributions by the beneficiaries. Nonetheless the results of the current study seem to suggest that this ceiling has not yet been reached, since the concept remains completely absent from some areas that are not necessarily poorer than others where the concept is implemented in one way or another. Moreover, contributions in the form of volunteering are very limited in some areas, even though this constitutes a compensation, if only partial, for inability to pay/contribute in cash.

The fact that a considerable part of the beneficiaries still believe that the government is obliged to bear all costs of WASH services and accordingly refuse to contribute to those costs represents one of the challenges facing the implementation of the cost recovery concept. However the quantitative results in this respect are very promising; even though 27.6% of the total sample is unwilling to pay, this opinion is represented by only 9.4% in the programme regular areas while it reaches 39% and 24.2% in non-programme and emergency areas, respectively.

5.3 Community Capacity-Building

Achievements

The empowerment of community members through building their capacities and local organizations has been an important pillar of the WASH programme, aiming at ensuring medium and long term sustainability, ownership and self-reliance. The WASH programme invested genuine efforts in training, advocacy and awareness-raising as a prerequisite for applying participatory approach as well as for the encouragement of the communities to become involved in the management of WASH services, moving towards sophisticated community-based management of WASH interventions.

The low economic

status that most

beneficiaries suffer

from and the

frequent

emergencies limit

the beneficiaries’

capability to

contribute

financially, and no

thorough economic

studies were

conducted to

determine the

exact ceiling of

possible monetary

contributions by

the beneficiaries.

Community

empowerment has

been an important

pillar of the WASH

programme, and

many local

community

members have

participated in

capacity-building

activities.

91

A significant portion of local community members participated in capacity building activities in various programme related areas, most importantly operating, maintaining and repairing the facilities as well as hygiene, advocacy and awareness activities. The technical areas have been men-dominated, qualifying them for the installation and maintenance of the provided facilities and equipment. On the other hand, women mainly concentrated on gaining the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out hygiene activities in their communities. Building the capacity of local communities varies from one area to another; some areas received intensive training and awareness interventions and accordingly witnessed an improvement in skills and knowledge leading to more effective participation and a higher sense of ownership and responsibility.

Concrete data on the exact activities implemented is not available, but an examination of UNICEF annual reports yields some examples that can give a general idea of the scope of such activities. In 2008, improved basic school WASH facilities were supported by means of training 10,240 students and teachers on hygiene and sanitation promotion and forming 183 school hygiene clubs. Also, in the same year, sanitation promotion activities targeting community empowerment and demand creation were implemented by means of training 560 persons. Some 4,033 hygiene promoters/supervisors and 1,821 women and youth groups were trained on hygiene and sanitation promotion and 1,365 village health committee (VHC) members were trained on hygiene promotion, sanitation and management of water and sanitation facilities (AR 2008). In 2010 the capacity of 11,070 community members from the targeted communities was strengthened in planning, implementation, management and sustained O&M (operation and maintenance) of water and sanitation services, including peace building and HIV/AIDS (AR 2010). Three WASH sector coordinators were trained on the cluster approach in the regional training organized by the UNICEF Regional Office. Training manuals for VHCs, women and school hygiene clubs were developed. They are currently under review and will be finalized in the first quarter of 2011.

In the majority of villages in the programme areas there is a kind of local committee involved in the programme activities. The most important committees which are related to programme activities are designated water, health and environmental sanitation committees and called Village Health Committees (VHCs). The committees were established in different phases of the WASH programme; some of them are relatively recent while others are older than the administrative establishment of the local unit itself. In general, the water committees were established before the establishment of the health committees.

The committees cooperate with the society on one hand and with the local administration and WES units on the other hand; accordingly, they link those parties. The most important tasks of the water committees are managing and operating public water facilities, resolving conflicts on water, providing guidance, raising awareness, receiving officers and representing the village and its requirements as well as expressing its needs. The non-existence of organized communities does not mean the absence of collective community involvement, as often the residents meet to discuss and make decisions regarding water, sanitation and other affairs of the village without having a formal committee.

In the majority of

villages in

programme areas,

there is some type

of local committee

involved in

implementing

programme

activities at the

village level.

The local

committees link

the needs of local

communities with

the responsible

local authorities.

Around 59% of

respondents to this

evaluation’s

household survey

reported that the

local committees

play a significant

role in the

establishment of

facilities.

92

The results of the quantitative survey indicate a wide spread of local VHCs, since 72.2% of respondents reported the existence of such committees in their respective local communities. This percentage increases to reach 86.4% in regular programme areas, while it reaches 76.5% in emergency areas. In rural areas where the WASH programme is not in place the percentage amounts to 37%.

Figure 26 Existence of VHCs by Community Type

In terms of the level of activity of these committees, about 59% of respondents found that the committees play a significant role in the establishment of facilities. This was largely the case regardless of the extent programme’s focus in that area.

The survey also indicates that more than 72% of respondents resort to the committees when defects occur in the facilities. In this regard, some differences are found between areas where the programme is present and others where it is not, since 73.3% of respondents in the former and 65.8% of respondents on the latter resort to committees in the case of defects or disruptions. Resorting to the committees seems to be most common in emergency areas where there are mostly no alternative institutions, since 85.7% of respondents report seeking out committees support when defects occur.

The results furthermore seem to reflect adequate committee performance, since more than 91% of the respondents report that the committees respond to the community complaints. In regular programme areas the percentage reaches 94.8%, while it sinks to about 88% in areas where the programme is not present and emergency areas, respectively.

Moreover, participants’ evaluation of the overall performance quality of the committees is considered an important indicator of their success, since around 85% of respondents deem the committees’ performance to be either very good or good (52.8% and 29.7%, respectively). In regular programme areas, 90% of respondents evaluate the performance positively, while only 77% do so in emergency areas and areas where the programme is not present.

Gaps and Obstacles:

There is no comprehensive strategy translated into concrete action plans for community capacity building at national or state level. Although capacity building of local communities is in general making progress, the related activities are scattered among different actors without effective coordination. This could explain the wide discrepancy among communities with respect to the existence of capacity building

86% 77%37%

0%

50%

100%

Existence of Water Committees

Existence of Water Committees

72% of

respondents resort

to the committees

when defects occur

in the facilities.

An important gap

is that there is no

comprehensive

strategy for

community

capacity-building

and current

activities, while

substantial, are

scattered among

different actors.

More

knowledgeable and

skilled individuals

are usually those

who are more

mobile and often

leave their

communities in

search for better

opportunities.

93

activities and accordingly with respect to the level of knowledge and skills gained by community members, as indicated by the qualitative results. As discussed before, the financial and institutional aspects are the main reasons for this problem. Particularly affected are remote areas as well as less secure or less accessible areas.

The situation is exacerbated through the fact that the more knowledgeable and skilled individuals are usually those who are more mobile and often leave their communities in search for better opportunities.

Moreover, community capacity building mainly focuses on technical and hygiene related issues while aspects such as communication skills, community mobilization, community management and participatory planning are not properly considered. This reflects the low priority of those aspects in the capacity building of WES staff themselves, since a very limited number of WES staff obtained related training.

5.4 Community Ownership and Responsibility

The concepts of community ownership and social responsibility of the programme have been increasingly established among beneficiaries. Community organizations, such as water and health committees, development NGOs and schools played the main role in creating this attitude. Not less important are the capacity building and awareness activities conducted over the years by the WASH programme and its stakeholders as well as the application of the participatory approach in planning and implementing programme interventions.

Most of the participants in the focus group discussions clearly communicated their feeling that they are owners of and responsible for their water and sanitation facilities. This has been confirmed by the results of the quantitative survey, according to which over 87% of the respondents feel that the facilities of water and sanitation are the responsibility of the community. This percentage increases to 94.2%in rural areas with WASH programme interventions while it decreases to 73.9% in rural communities without programme interventions and to 87.7% in emergency areas. Moreover 79.3% of the respondents believe that this responsibility is actually held. This rate increases to 91.7% and 80.5% in rural areas with and without programme intervention in that order, while it decreases to 55.5% in emergency areas.

The qualitative meetings showed that the sense of ownership and responsibility is higher in the regions which have received awareness and training activities as well as in the regions which have effectively participated in planning and/or implementing WASH interventions.

The sense of ownership and responsibility is more crystallized with respect to water than regarding sanitation facilities. This is due to the priority assigned to water in their lives on one hand and to the consequences that water disruptions have on the other. Water disruptions are associated with significant efforts and/or expenses, while renouncing of sanitation is less difficult in light of its recent establishment in a large sector. Similarly, the lack of sanitation is not associated with hardship or any expenses since the affected communities simply return to traditional practices. In addition, water facilities require more effort in terms of operation and maintenance. The sense of ownership and responsibility by local communities is closely related to the community

Most of the

participants in the

focus group

discussions clearly

communicated

their feeling that

they are owners of

and responsible for

their water and

sanitation facilities.

The qualitative

meetings showed

that the sense of

ownership and

responsibility is

higher in the

regions which have

received awareness

and training

activities.

Often the

programme takes

environmental

concerns into

consideration, but

because of other

priorities (such as

the recurrent

emergency

situations, it is not

always given the

attention it

deserves.

94

capacity building and awareness raising and thus suffers from almost the same obstacles.

5.5 Environmental Sustainability

Achievements

The environmental impact was improperly considered in the WASH sector in the past, however the WASH programme has increasingly taken environmental concerns into consideration. Yet because of other priorities (such as the recurrent emergency situations), it is not always given the attention it deserves. Nevertheless, the environmental benefits of the programme in terms of providing improved water supply and sanitation cannot be discounted. This can be clearly seen at the impact level when examining the programme’s effect on the spread of diseases that are directly linked to one’s surrounding environment. This can be clearly seen at the impact level when looking at the programme’s effect on the spread of diseases directly linked to one’s surrounding environment. Local communities also benefit from a decrease in water pollution as a result of improved sanitation facilities, as evinced by the fact that only 4.5% of respondents to this evaluation’s household survey said there were often animals around the water point that could contaminate the water, and only 2% said that other forms of pollution posed a contamination risk.

As the risk of future water depletion is a real one, the programme has made significant strides in taking this issue into consideration, especially in emergency areas. Groundwater M&E system was established in three Darfur states and over 60 locations are monitored. Groundwater depletion/mitigations studies were conducted at eight sites and one artificial recharge system was physically constructed for one of the ground water vulnerable IDPs area in North Darfur State as part of the Integrated Water Resources Management project jointly implemented by UNICEF and UNEP. UNICEF is supporting a sector-wide groundwater monitoring and evaluation operation for IDP locations in Darfur with the aim of identifying groundwater capacities and vulnerabilities due to excessive pumping in order to then identify mitigating actions and develop plans to manage water as a valuable resource. The integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) concept and consortiums were established in three states of Darfur with strong linkages to groundwater monitoring and the studying/construction of groundwater artificial recharge systems to enhance aquifers groundwater storage at high-risk IDP locations, where high quantities of ground water is pumped. With UNICEF support, geophysical surveys have been strengthened by providing equipment and training technical cadres to locate positional site for providing needy areas with water supply. Most drilling sites are now selected on the basis of geophysical surveys to increase the success rate. The groundwater monitoring programme in the critical Darfur IDP locations is currently in place and uses automatic recorders and manual dipping methods (AR 2008).

The outcome of these efforts was clearly represented in this evaluation’s household survey, as only 11% of respondents in programme areas had ran out of water at least

The programme

has made

significant strides

in taking the issue

of groundwater

depletion into

consideration,

especially in

emergency areas.

Groundwater M&E

system was

established in three

Darfur states and

over 60 locations

are monitored.

Only 11% of

respondents to this

evaluation’s

household survey

had ran out of

water in the month

preceding the

survey.

95

once in the month preceding the survey, while in non-programme areas the percentage was much higher at 24%.

Gaps & Obstacles

The major environmental impact and challenges facing the country is the degradation of natural resources with its many negative consequences. The problem can be largely attributed to lack of proper management of these resources. As a result land degradation and desertification continued to spread into large areas of Darfur, White Nile, North Kordofan, Northern State, River Nile, Kassala and Red sea over the last 30 years. Forest resources were depleted at an alarming rate, and rangelands face overgrazing. Deforestation and soil erosion contributed to siltation of the surface water supply systems such as dams and hafeers, reducing their efficiency and storage capacities. The strategic planning process revealed that 60% of the hafeers are non-operational and the bulk of them requires rehabilitation. Much of this is due to soil erosion and environmental degradation.

The environmental aspects related to water resources is the concern for pollution of ground and surface water sources as well as issues related to the spread of water-related diseases. Open hafeers and ponds are always subject to pollution. Shallow groundwater is also subject to contamination and pollution from urban, agricultural and industrial effluents. For example, the method and location of construction of latrines can sometimes lead to faecal matter seeping into the water source, especially when tanks are improperly emptied. This can especially be a risk when local communities are involved in the planning phase and are not given the comprehensive technical information. Signs of pollution as faecal pollution were detected in shallow aquifers zones and hafeers in Sinnar, Blue Nile and South Kordofan (Kadugli). Increased nitrate concentrations are also detected in many hand-pumps in Dali and Mazmum (Sinnar State) (PWC Sources). Also, many latrines are constructed without doors, which can lead to pollution of the surrounding area. Overall, the programme currently has no environmental framework guiding programme personnel on which technology and equipment is environmentally-friendly in which contexts.

The major environmental vulnerability in the country are: i) the recurrent droughts in Darfur, Kordofan, and almost all central and eastern parts of Sudan; ii) floods along the Nile and its tributaries; iii) Desertification/degradation; iv) Water pollution; and v) Resource-based conflicts. The conflict in Darfur and other area could be attributed to competition over meagre resources including water supply and land.

The displacement in Darfur and other areas has it impact on the water resources, and there is evidence that some IDP camps are facing significant depletion of groundwater already. Water resources in Dereig and other camps ran dry after a drop in the water level. Therefore groundwater, monitoring is essential. There may be a need for capping the number of wells drilled in an area if the demand outstrips available resources (Sources: WES, UNICEF, Sudan National Groundwater and Wadis Department, UNEP). The Groundwater and Wadis Directorate at the Ministry of Water Resources maintains a matrix with the groundwater levels in IDP camps vulnerable to groundwater depletion. A particular risk exists as one year or two years of low rainfall could undermine water supplies in the new larger settlements that have been created as a

Land degradation

and desertification

continued to

spread into large

areas of Darfur,

White Nile, North

Kordofan, Northern

State, River Nile,

Kassala and Red

sea over the last 30

years.

Open hafeers and

ponds are always

subject to

pollution. Shallow

groundwater is

also subject to

contamination and

pollution from

urban, agricultural

and industrial

effluents.

In many IDP camps

(especially in South

Darfur), the drying

of boreholes and

the reduction of

well yields coupled

with the lowering

of groundwater

tables is a

recurrent issue.

The programme

has made

significant strides

in taking the issue

of groundwater

depletion into

consideration,

especially in

emergency areas.

Groundwater M&E

system was

established in three

Darfur states and

over 60 locations

are monitored.

Only 11% of

respondents to this

evaluation’s

household survey

had ran out of

water in the month

preceding the

survey.

96

result of the displacement during the ongoing crisis. Nyala (state capital of South Darfur) is particularly vulnerable given its huge increase in population and the scarce water resources. However, perhaps the most significant gap revealed by the evaluation process is the absence of functional groundwater monitoring systems in states except for the Darfur area. This is a major area that needs strengthening to avoid water scarcity crises in areas outside the current emergencies.

In addition to these key challenges, further environmental issues exist: The excavation of soil for brick-making has a significant environmental impact, and it is a health risk when pits become flooded. This is taking place in most of the states including the camps in Darfur.

The accumulation of solid waste in towns is a significant health risk and solid waste management requires much more attention from local authorities.

It is crucial for WASH sector stakeholders to raise local awareness on importance of water conservation and following an Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) approach.

It is vital to recognize that community consultation and participation is a key part of environmental management. Local communities know best the importance of the environment and will be able to advise on priorities for environmental restoration and management.

6. Cross-Cutting Issues

6.1 Decentralization

Achievements:

In response to the expanding coverage of the WASH programme and the increasing areas of intervention, and as part of the efforts striving for programme sustainability through promoting the contribution of states and communities, WES adopted the concept of decentralization. The process towards decentralization started in 1994 with the development and approval of the decentralization framework. The main pillars of this process were advocacy, institutional restructuring as well as capacity building.

Advocacy consisted of addressing policy and decision makers, donors and stakeholders at all levels, aiming at convincing them of the advantages of the decentralization approach in terms of increasing programme effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. The full adaptation of the WASH programme concepts by GoS, national and international stakeholders as well as states and communities and the permanent increase of WASH programme budget from 4,718,693 in 2002 to 18,304,251 in 2010 indicate the success of the WASH programme advocacy component.

The institutional element of the decentralization process has been reflected in the elaboration and restructuring of the WES programme, transforming it into a four level, country wide structure. In the end and despite of gaps and challenges, the WES successfully established the basis for a decentralized management of the programme,

The process

towards

decentralization

started in 1994

with the

development and

approval of the

decentralization

framework.

WES successfully

established the

basis for a

decentralized

management of

the WASH

programme,

however has not

yet reached a

decentralized the

decision making

mechanisms.

It is expected that

the endorsement of

the WASH sector

policy will support

the programme,

steering it towards

more

decentralization,

mainly through

clarifying the roles

and responsibilities

of different actors

and levels.

97

however the process is not yet fully established at the community local institutions (mahalia).

The institutionalization process could not have been possible without massive efforts in the field of capacity building including enhancing the physical institutional infrastructure (offices, equipments, and means of transportation), building staff capabilities as well as promoting and empowering targeted communities (see Capacity-Building and Community Capacity-Building).

As a result of this long term process, WES has now a well-defined institutionalized and decentralized structure starting with community water and health committees, passing by WES units at mahalia level, WES projects at state level, WES coordination units at area level and ending with the WES programme Coordination Unit at national level affiliated to the Public Water Corporation under the umbrella of the federal Ministry of Water Resources. UNICEF supports WES activities on all levels, through a three level structure at national, area and state levels. The social and political acceptance of the decentralization concept and the decentralized WES structure represent a very convenient basis for applying a bottom-up and community based management of the WASH programme. However achieving this stage still requires very considerable investment in capacity building at all levels. It is expected that the endorsement of the WASH sector policy will support the programme, steering it towards more decentralization, mainly through clarifying the roles and responsibilities of different actors and levels.

Gaps and Obstacles:

The gaps and factors that negatively affect decentralization have been discussed above under the section “Institutional Sustainability”. In summary, the most important of these factors are: the limited budget allocation to programme activities, and human capacity building, the delay of the sector policy endorsement, the institutional setup and status of WES projects and the weaknesses of the coordination mechanism.

6.2 Community participation

Achievements:

In the frame of the abovementioned decentralization process, the WASH programme increasingly applied a participatory approach, particularly at community level. The qualitative interviews indicated that all programme representatives and stakeholders have a clearly positive opinion and attitude towards community participation. There is almost a consciousness of the fact that more community participation and decentralization means higher efficiency and effectiveness. Moreover, community participation is considered a prerequisite for programme sustainability.

The level of participation still varies from one area to another depending on the understanding of the society, its customs and traditions and the prevailing level of education. Also, individual differences play an important role since some officials or local leaders believe in participation more than others. Usually, community participation level is low in the most disadvantaged remote and instable areas.

WASH programme

increasingly

applied a

participatory

approach,

particularly at

community level.

Individual

differences play an

important role

since some officials

or local leaders

believe in

participation more

than others.

Communities are

more involved in

operational

planning and

implementation,

while their

involvement in

strategic planning

and policy-making

is very limited.

98

The most important mechanisms of participation are local committee meetings, seminars, workshops, and the presence of representatives of the local communities in states and Mahalias administrations.

In general, community members believe that their participation is essential for programme effectiveness and sustainability. They also feel that participation issues have been considered seriously by the programme and that their points of view are partially or entirely taken into consideration. The quantitative survey indicated that 45.6% of the respondents participated in at least one awareness raising activity, which is considered to be a high percentage. However this percentage is even higher in programme areas, since it reaches 49.1% in regular programme areas and 52.3% in emergency areas. The difference to the non-programme areas, where it decreases to 28.2%, is also significant.

Figure 27 Participation in Awareness Activities based on programme geographical focus

The role of the communities in the development of overall strategies and policies of the programme was very limited and indirect, as the level of strategy and policy making does not directly rely on a bottom-up approach. In contrast, community participation plays an important role in operational planning and implementation of WASH interventions. In most programme areas, community members participate to different degrees in identifying needs and priorities and selecting facilities’ locations.

In the case of water facilities, communities usually participate in making decisions about the location of the provided improved facilities (hand-pumps, water yards, open wells hafeers). Besides the financial contribution (see cost recovery), the community members also contribute to the installation of pumps, the O&M of the facilities as well as protection of the facilities.

Regarding sanitation facilities, there is a high degree of community participation, however it is almost entirely restricted to the installation and maintenance of the facilities, as their role in the planning phase is almost exclusively limited to determining the criteria for the distribution of latrines among the households. The type of required latrines is a matter of discussion only in rare cases, since the community members usually do not have information about the types of latrines and the differences between them. In the implementation phase, the residents participate in fetching local

0% 20% 40% 60%

Regular Programme

Emergency …

Non-Programme

49%

52%

28%

Participation in Conducting Awareness Activities

Participation in Conducting Awareness Activities

Communities are

also very involved

in the installation

and maintenance

of sanitation

facilities, and

determining the

criteria for

distribution of

latrines among the

households.

The establishment

of water and

health committees

at community

village and camp

level, which are

widely spread, laid

the foundation for

the

institutionalization

of community

participation.

99

raw materials required for the construction of the latrines such as sand, gravel, in addition to the digging process, while the programme provides technical support such as technical engineers who decide if the soil and site are appropriate and the health officers who participate in selecting the construction sites according to health considerations. The programme also provides in-kind support such as latrine bases (concrete slab, vent pipe) and covers.

As for community participation in hygiene promotion, training community members on hygiene promotion is an important part of the programme. Specific numbers of people trained are not mentioned for every year, but an examination of annual reports from 2002 to 2010 indicates that approximately 79,607 people were trained. This number includes women & youth (at least 13,000), NGO staff and civil servants (at least 105), and village health committee (VHC) members. Also, around 29,971 basic schoolchildren and teachers were trained on sanitation and hygiene in schools, and Sanitation & Hygiene Promotion Clubs were established at around 126 basic schools.

In camps and emergency regions, there are fewer opportunities to participate in the construction stage due to the crises nature and the priority usually given to ensure timely and rapid response. Nevertheless the beneficiaries effectively participate in the management and maintenance of the facilities.

The establishment of water and health committees at community village and camp level, which are widely spread, laid the foundation for the institutionalization of community participation. 72.2% of the respondents have a water committee in their communities. Additionally, there is a considerable difference between programme and non-programme areas; the percentages reaches 86.3%, in regular programme areas, 76.5% in emergency areas and only 37% in non-programme areas. However, the availability of such committees varies among Mahalias. While in some Mahalias almost all communities have one or more committee, other Mahalias do not have any local committees. Nevertheless, the absence of organized communities does not mean that there is no space for community participation and collective work, as sometimes the communities meet to discuss and make decisions regarding water, sanitation and other affairs of the village without having a formal committee.

The most important tasks of the water committees are managing and operating public water facilities, resolving conflicts on water, providing guidance, raising awareness, receiving officials and representing the village and its requirements as well as expressing its needs. Regarding health committees, the mandates and tasks are not unified throughout the states. There is often an overlap of tasks among health, water and environmental committees, which is sometimes well managed through effective coordination and sometimes negatively impacts the effectiveness and efficiency of the conducted activities.

As for the attitude and capability of WES staff regarding community participation, most stakeholders believe that WES staff members can satisfactorily communicate with the communities and properly consider and understand the local situation, community preference and culture. However, relatively few of them obtained training on related areas (e.g. communication, community management, participatory planning).

Gaps and obstacles:

Most stakeholders

believe that WES

staff members can

satisfactorily

communicate with

the targeted

communities and

possess

appropriate

understanding of

local circumstances

and culture.

However, relatively

few of them

obtained training

on related areas

(e.g. participatory

planning).

Sometimes the

community’s

wishes contradict

technical

considerations,

since their criteria

is often different

from hydrological

and geological

criteria.

100

Poverty, illiteracy and inadequate awareness along with limited budget for community capacity building represent the main problem areas regarding community participation. In some areas, local culture and or community power dynamics as well as individual interests additionally hinder the creation of a suitable environment for equal participation. The efforts to empower and build the capacities of local communities are indeed seriously considered and progressing; however, they remain insufficient and scattered, since they are not following a clear strategy. Furthermore, the capacity building is almost entirely restricted to technical skills in the O&M of water and sanitation facilities and hygiene issues, and rarely considers community mobilization and management.

In accordance with the low priority of such aspects, the democratic practices in applying community participation are not always maintained. For example, the members of water and health committees are supposed to be selected through free and open elections; however in reality, the election process is not always correctly conducted. Moreover, in many cases only educated or powerful people have access to candidacy and voting. In other cases the election takes place only on paper, while the committees are established by agreement on which different social groups should be represented. In yet other cases, the election has been properly conducted at the very beginning of the committee formation, however was never repeated after that. The quantitative survey indicated that only 37.7% of the households in communities with at least one local committee participated in a voting process for their committees.

Sometimes the community’s wishes contradict technical considerations, especially regarding the location of water facilities, since the main criteria from the community’s point of view is the distance between their homes and the water facility, which is not always in line with hydrological and geological criteria. The qualitative interviews indicated some cases in which the community succeeded in imposing their opinion which negatively affected the efficiency of the facility in terms of water amounts and/or quality.

6.3 Gender Consideration

Achievements:

The programme documents focus on women participation as an essential element in increasing effectiveness and sustainability as well as realizing the programme’s impact.

Regarding the access to water and sanitation facilities men and women have almost equal opportunities. However women benefit more from water and sanitation facilities, not because they are more advantaged when the facilities are available, but because they are more disadvantaged when they are not available. The survey indicated that 61% of female and only 23% of male respondents are responsible for collecting water from whatever source. Thus, each and every improvement of the water collecting conditions is much more to the benefit of women than of men. Also regarding sanitation, women suffer much more than men if there is no close sanitation facility; since women are forced to walk long and often insecure distances or to wait until nightfall to defecate in open areas.

According to

secondary data as

well as this

evaluation’s

household survey,

most committees

are highly gender-

balanced. But the

qualitative data

indicates that some

local committees

are not.

Around 50% of

community

members who have

obtained training

in constructing and

maintaining

sanitation facilities

are women.

101

There is also a difference between men and women regarding the source of WASH related information and awareness; men have more access to TV, radio and newspaper, thus women depend more on all kinds of face-to face activities. In general and regardless of the source of information, women showed a higher level of awareness related to hygiene issues. They are also more critical in observing and evaluating the quality of the delivered WASH services.

The programme encourages women participation in all phases and areas in practice as well. However, the actual degree and kind of women’s participation in the programme activities depends on the nature and culture of the society as well as its history with participation in general. In some of the communities, women are only involved in raising awareness among females while in others, women are members in local committees and actively participate in developing plans and setting priorities.

According to the estimation of the stakeholders who participated in the qualitative interviews, the share of women in local committees massively varies from one place to another and ranges from zero to one-third of the total number of committee members. Nevertheless, the quantitative survey indicated a higher degree of women participation. The percentage of women who have at least once participated in awareness raising activities is almost equal to the percentage of men and ranges around 46% of respondents. Also, the percentage of women who have voted in an election of a local committee amounts to 46.7% of those who have voted. The secondary data confirms these results; Village Health Committees are gender balanced and comprise of five men and five women (AR 2010) and about 60% of the community-based WASH committee members are women (AR 2009).

Although there is a common impression that women are underrepresented in or even excluded from technical capacity building and thus from carrying out technical tasks, the survey results contradict this impression. Around 50% of community members who have obtained training in constructing and maintaining sanitation facilities are women. However, this percentage decreases in non-programme areas to 33.3% and increases in emergency areas where it reaches 66.3%. The higher degree of women participation in emergency areas is not restricted to the technical training but extends to include to their roles in the community in general and in relation to WASH issues in particular. This is due to the higher percentage of women in the population of camps compared to villages.

The programme also widely conducted women-specific training activities, which usually address health, environment and hygiene issues as well as children rights.

Regarding WES information system, the data related to UNICEF-supported WES project activities are usually sex-disaggregated, but most of the data available to the information system as well as on the website is not sex-disaggregated. Thematically, health related data are considerably more sex-disaggregated than data related to other WASH aspects.

Finally, the improvements in sanitation facilities especially in emergency areas has significantly reduce security threats faced by women, as well as the potential for diseases.

Gaps and Obstacles:

The programme

has conducted

many women-

specific training

activities, which

mainly address

health,

environment,

hygiene, and

children’s rights.

Sometimes women

are also given

training on

technical issues.

The data related to

UNICEF-supported

WES project

activities are

usually gender-

disaggregated, but

most of the data

available to the

information system

as well as on the

website is not

gender-

disaggregated.

In basic schools

separate latrines

for girls are often

not available in

mixed schools, and

women public

latrines are rare.

102

In basic schools separate latrines for girls are often not available in mixed schools. Furthermore, women public latrines are rare. However as of 2010 it was decided by WES that for all UNICEF/WES supported school latrines, separate latrines for boys and girls is a must in every mixed schools. There is no concrete information based on proper surveys, but based on the on-site observation conducted as part of the evaluation process, many public places do not have proper sanitary facilities at all, not to mention facilities for women. The situation is more critical for women and girls as there are no latrines for women in market places and when they exist they do not ensure the privacy and security required. This is corroborated by the findings of the household survey in which 84% of respondents said there are no public sanitation facilities for women in the community. Only 6% of the respondents indicated the presence of women latrines in their communities. In programme covered villages the percentage reaches 3.2%, while in non-programme areas it amounts to only 0.5%. However in emergency areas the percentage increases to 11%, which is nonetheless a very low value taking into consideration that those camps basically depend on public latrines.

Figure 28 Availability of Public Sanitation Facilities for Women

In spite of the high percentage of women in WASH activities in some areas women participation is still very weak, mainly due to socio-cultural conditions. For the same reason, in some areas women complain of not being invited to consultation meetings, especially those which are held in schools and Sheikhs` residents. Moreover, many of the interviewed women believe or at least have an impression that even if they participate in discussions and decision-making processes, their opinions will not be taken into account as much as men’s opinions.

Another gap represents the shortage of women latrines in communities, particularly in emergency areas. Finally, the data included in the WES information system is not satisfactorily sex-disaggregated.

6.4 Social Justice

Achievements:

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

YesNo

Don't Know

3%

89%

8%

11%

80%

9%1%

84%

16%

Regular Programme

Emergency Programme

Non-Programme

The programme

has conducted

many women-

specific training

activities, which

mainly address

health,

environment,

hygiene, and

children’s rights.

Sometimes women

are also given

training on

technical issues.

The data related to

UNICEF-supported

WES project

activities are

usually gender-

disaggregated, but

most of the data

available to the

information system

as well as on the

website is not

gender-

disaggregated.

In basic schools

separate latrines

for girls are often

not available in

mixed schools, and

women public

latrines are rare.

In spite of the high

stake of women in

WASH activities,

women are rarely

considered in

public sanitation

facilities, and in

some areas

women’s

participation in

consultation

meetings and

decision-making is

weak.

The programme

always gives the

poor the priority in

facilities

construction, and

needs assessments

are usually

conducted based

on field

data/surveys,

reports and

participatory

consultations.

103

Social justice criteria in distributing WASH projects and services have been satisfactorily considered. Needs exigency and population density play the main role in the distribution of WASH programme services. Needs assessments are usually conducted based on field data/surveys, reports and participatory consultations. Furthermore, the distribution of facilities at community level is generally a participatory and transparent process.

Regarding sanitation facilities, the programme always gives the poor the priority in the construction of household latrines. Based on a participatory approach, the communities have to equally deliver local material and personally contribute to the actual construction work. In some areas the programme actors even pay incentives for their work especially in conflict areas.

Gaps and obstacles:

Often men, particularly educated and better off group, play a more significant role in the decision making process. Moreover, security conditions and political pressure/influence sometimes lead to deviations from needs and justice criteria in distributing WASH facilities.

Concerning water supply, the poor usually have to spend more efforts to obtain safe water, since they have to fetch and carry the water by themselves. If safe water is not available free of expense, they often fetch water from unsafe sources such as rivers and unprotected sources.

As for sanitation facilities, elderly, ill and/or disabled populations are disadvantaged, since they are not able to deliver the in-kind contribution to the construction of the latrines. They are more disadvantaged if the fetching and digging work is paid by the service providers.

1. Conclusions & Recommendations

Overall Considerations

1. The WASH programme in Sudan is one of the most successful development interventions, despite the challenges it encountered over the years. This is due to and at the same time reflected in the development process that the programme has been undergoing and which has been moving:

Part III: Conclusions, Recommendations, Lessons Learned

There is a very low

availability of

public latrines for

women.

Distribution of

projects are based

on needs

assessments

conducted based

on field

data/surveys,

reports and

participatory

consultations.

Elderly, ill and/or

disabled

populations are

disadvantaged,

since they are not

able to deliver the

in-kind

contribution to the

construction of the

latrines. They are

more

disadvantaged if

the fetching and

digging work is

paid by the service

providers.

104

from full dependency on UNICEF support in almost all programme aspects with a minor governmental contribution, to a government programme supported by UNICEF at the forefront among other donors.

from providing only water supply at the initial phase, to providing an integrated WASH package that comprises water, environmental sanitation and hygiene promotion.

from a need-based to a rights-based approach from applying a top-down approach to applying a participatory approach. from a highly centralized to a decentralized institutional structure from focusing on hardware (equipments and improved water and sanitation facilities)

to focusing on sustainability through software components such as awareness, education, community mobilization, ownership and women participation

2. UNCIEF played a crucial role in this development process. Thus, the linkages between the

three WASH programme components are particularly strong in UNICEF supported areas/interventions but less practiced within government institutions where the programme components are relatively scattered among different entities.

3. The programme based itself on the government national plans and priorities as well as the goals and objectives of the national WASH policy. It is generally in compliance with the MDGs, UNDAF sub-outcomes and the UNICEF Core Commitment to Children. Moreover, the programme philosophy, strategy and planes are highly relevant to the needs of the communities in regular programme and emergency areas. However, some aspects of these criteria are not satisfactorily considered such as gender mainstreaming, environment-friendly technology and the IWRM concept. A more serious consideration of those aspects could have led to more effectiveness and sustainability of the programme.

4. The programme has generally been designed and implemented as per agreement with the government and usually based on participatory decision making and in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. Also, most changes conducted throughout the programme’s life cycle have been discussed with programme partners and related actors during mid-year reviews, Annual Reviews and MTRs .

5. In almost all programme aspects, the household quantitative survey, the FGDs and the key informant Interviews confirmed that areas that received WASH programme support over the last 10 years show better indicators than other areas where the programme is not active. This is not restricted to the access to water and sanitation facilities, but also affects the level of awareness, the adoption of hygiene practices as well as the sense of responsibility and ownership towards WASH services.

6. The programme interventions during the period 2002-2010 were implemented against a background of instability in many regions of the country, sparking off tension among aid workers and negatively affecting the smooth delivery of water, sanitation and hygiene services for IDPs and other war affected populations, especially in Darfur. However, the livelihoods of the vulnerable groups affected by armed conflicts and IDPs could have been endangered without the life-saving interventions extended by the massive humanitarian response of the WASH programme. Nonetheless, these repeated major emergency interventions often came at the expense of development interventions, which

105

more negatively affected programme coverage, particularly regarding sanitation and the soft programme components.

In spite of the programme’s success, there is considerable room for improvement with respect to the programme’s effectiveness. The following summarized conclusions and the related recommendations address the dimensions and elements of possible areas of improvement.

Sector policy, plans and regulations

7. It is expected that the sector policy will effectively contribute to facing and overcoming various challenges and obstacles affecting the WASH programme, particularly the overlap of mandates and responsibilities of various sector actors. In addition, it will expectedly help strengthen the harmony and consistency of used approaches and achieved results. The policy will represent a long term comprehensive framework to support the WASH programme sustainability. In order to set in motion the endorsement process, PWC/WES, UNICEF and other sector partners should follow up on and advocate for the approval and endorsement of the WASH sector policy.

8. In the frame of the (endorsed) sector policy, an integrated and independent sector regulatory system should be developed. The regulatory system should address the different frameworks, sector components, as well as the vertical levels of the WASH sector. Ideally, water resources will be integrated in order to enable a wide application of the concept of “Integrated Water resources Management” (IWRM). It is essential that the development process of the regulatory system is built on a participatory approach including all sector actors as well as potential actors to ensure acceptance and smooth implementation.

9. Policies and regulatory systems should explicitly encourage the involvement of the private sector and NGOs in WASH and WASH related activities for more efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability.

10. The operationalization of the (endorsed) sector policy as well as the national and state strategic plans should be given a high priority by PWC/WES, UNICEF and other sector partners. In this regard, thematic frameworks and operation plans should be developed and existing ones should be adjusted to be compatible with the sector policy. Moreover, related manuals, guidelines and standards should be produced, disseminated and adopted.

11. After 8 years of continuous WASH interventions in emergency support, and in light of funding decreasing trends, WASH programme priorities should be shifted, giving programme areas and long term interventions more attention and paying increased attention to the reconstruction and recovery phase. This necessitates changing WASH current programme priorities approaches, management styles, financing modalities and adoption of more practical sustainable approaches.

106

12. There is a need to conduct research, investigations and assessments in various thematic fields relating to the programme aspects (e.g. training needs assessment, impact, socio-economic analysis, ground water, alternative/green technologies, sector mapping, and feasibility studies) to improve performance and results. In cooperation with universities and research institutions, WES should develop a research strategy tailored on its needs and covering existing gaps in knowledge.

WES institutional setup

13. The institutional structure of WES should be changed; it is contradictory that WES has been existing, expanding and acting on a country-wide scale for decades, yet maintains its status as a project. A considerable part of problems facing WES projects and accordingly the WASH programme as a whole are attributed to its current institutional status. Thus, WES should institutionally affiliate to PWC/SWC as an integrated organ of the governmental structure. This will not only clarify argumentative ownership issues and improve coordination, but will also massively support the programme’s institutional and financial sustainability. Obviously, turning into a governmental body should apply for all WES levels. Particularly, the integration of WES units at local level in the administrative structure of Mahalias is strongly called for.

14. The ownership of and responsibility for sanitation facilities and hygiene activities are more affected by the scattering of tasks and budgets as well as the overlap of mandates. It is highly recommended that only one actor should have clear leadership of this component. This could optimally be realized if PWC expands its mandate to include sanitation and hygiene components.

15. The decentralized multi-level WES structure, particularly the wide spread of WES units at local level, represents a solid basis for decentralization and thus sustainability. Nevertheless, WES units, particularly at Mahalia level, suffer from the shortage and irregularity of funds and accordingly from shortages in equipments, skilled staff, means of transportation and even sometimes offices. More attention and budget should be allocated for the physical and human capacity building of WES at all levels.

WASH Programme funding:

16. The WASH Sector’s national and external funding is inadequate, considering both the current level of WASH services as well as actual and increasing needs. Due to the pressing needs as well as the high effectiveness of the WASH programme in Sudan, it is strongly recommended to continue and increase UNICEF and other donor’s financial support to the WASH programme provided that the programme moves towards more sustainable options.

17. In parallel, an increase and regularity of GoS financial contribution to the WASH programme is essential, since the national? and external funds are not substitutable in the foreseeable future. On one hand, external support remains indispensable, due to the

107

severe economic challenges GoS faces and which limit its capability to keep the programme running and growing. On the other hand however, the extent to which the programme is currently dependent upon UNICEF (and other donors) represents a serious threat for programme sustainability, particularly when taking the political circumstances into consideration.

18. It is recommended that UNICEF funds should not be allocated to hardware components (e.g. water and sanitation services) rather than to software components (e.g. promotion of sanitation and hygiene information management system, community participation, human capacity building). UNICEF should no more focus on variable/running cost elements such as salaries, maintenance, operational costs

19. Nevertheless cost recovery or more specifically the cost sharing is a main pillar of sustainability; in light of this it is recommended to widely apply this concept, based on the distinct acceptance of cost sharing by a clear majority of the study respondents. It is important to bear in mind that cost recovery is not limited to water tariff but a much broader concept. Contributing to the construction, maintenance and operation work on a voluntary base, fetching or purchasing local construction material, creating a local fund to cover running costs and obtain spare parts are examples of effective but not classical forms of cost recovery, which are already applied to different extents. These contributions merit deep investigations that quantitatively measure their value and impact and suggest a framework to guide and improve them.

20. The above does not mean excluding direct water tariff, if some perquisites are considered. The most important of these prerequisites are: a) calculating the tariff based on household income and/or water consumption clusters and not based on actual cost economic estimates (this is essential to conform with human rights and a rights-based approach and b) relieving poor households from additional burdens. In this regard it is also recommended to conduct socio-economic studies investigating the different aspects of water pricing in the light of different conditions and its impact on the WASH sector objectives.

Information and Monitoring Systems

21. The programme created the basis for effective information and monitoring systems. Both

systems are somewhat responding to the planning and operation needs. The relatively low priority given to soft components in general, limits the development and enhancement of these basic and very important programme elements. Moreover, information and monitoring systems are highly dependent on UNICEF financial support and hence less sustainable than other programme components. Thus, it is recommended to strengthen these two elements, mainly depending on government funding.

22. More specific efforts should be made to unify the definitions, elements and ways of measurements of the data included and used in both systems, since the chronological sequence regarding most of the programme related data is extremely unclear. Simultaneously, the mechanisms of sharing data should be further elaborated to enhance

108

transparency, coordination and cooperation. The WES website could play a very important role in this regard.

Water Supply

23. In spite of the early beginning of the WASH Programme in Sudan and its considerable achievements over the last three decades, the years from 1995 to 2001 witnessed a decline in access to improved sources of water supply due to various factors both internal and external to the programme. This background is essential as a point of departure for the period under evaluation, since it represents the difficult conditions that characterized the programme onset in 2002, and underlines the importance of the programme achievements in the field of water supply thereafter.

24. Against this background and in light of the repeated emergency and crisis situations, the sustainable access to improved drinking water sources in areas supported by the WASH programme considerably increased. Actual needs, particularly among marginalized and fragile population groups, have been the determining factor for water service distribution with minor deviations. Most weaknesses in the water supply component are attributed to the chronic or occasional shortage in funds. However, the lack of integrated frameworks for important aspects related to water supply also affected the programme. In this respect, there is a pressing need for two frameworks, namely a framework covering environmental aspects and a framework for integrated water resources management (IWRM), linking water supply and water resources in one package. The over-exploitation and pollution of ground water represents an aspect common to both frameworks and accordingly requires proper coordination. IWRM as a comprehensive tool for planning and managing the entire water cycle would significantly contribute to an economic and sustainable water allocation among different uses of water based on the overall social and economic goals.

25. The programme strongly considered the empowerment and engagement of local communities in planning, implementation, managing and maintaining improved water facilities supported by the programme. These efforts considerably paved the way for a full implementation of the concept of community based management for water resources and facilities. However, the current status of community participation remains far from reaching this stage. It is highly recommended to develop strategy and action plans, supported by appropriate funding, that aim at strengthening community participation and culminate in community based management.

26. Training for water Committee members on the operation and maintenance of water facilities in addition to spare parts outlets are key factors in sustaining the existing WATSAN facilities. A further step would be the mobilization of communities and local authorities to establish proper water tariff system for all water sources including hafeers to ensure smooth operation as well as medium and long term suitability of water supply, taking social factors and human rights into consideration.

27. The programme should give more consideration to the used technology regarding its efficiency and environmental impact. In this respect, a) updated feasibility studies should

109

be conducted to ensure more accurate selection of proper water facilities for different circumstances, b) innovative and green technology and energy should be tested, introduced and adopted based on pilot-interventions and demonstrations, c) technical studies, prior to the implementation of the activities should be taken more seriously and d) the results of updated and effective monitoring of groundwater quantities, and quality should be strictly considered during the planning of water supply services.

Sanitation & hygiene promotion

28. The various household surveys conducted during the period 2000-2010 indicate that little progress has been made regarding the sanitation component. This is due to several factors including population growth, poor local demand, and the fragmentation of responsibilities among many different entities. However, the main factor are the recurrent conflicts that tend to detract funding from the sanitation component, since providing emergency water supply becomes a higher priority than sanitation. The recommended restructuring and distribution of mandates represents a good opportunity to improve the sanitation component in two ways; a) directly through better coordination of efforts and clear ownership and responsibilities and b) through the implicitly higher likelihood that sanitation should be permanently considered in government budget allocation.

29. Sector partners should seriously consider adopting the Community Action for Total Sanitation (CATS) as a new strategy for sanitation and hygiene promotion. These requires intensive training of communities and WASH staff on how to implement this approach.

30. Regarding the technology aspect, environmentally affordable and friendly designs of latrines are recommended. Exploring other technology options to avoid the frequent collapse of constructed latrines and reduce the use of large quantities of woods and sticks is highly recommended.

31. The hygiene promotion component of the programme has generally been successful at raising awareness and positively changing attitudes and behavior towards hygiene practices, which is clearly reflected in the improvement of the health status.

32. Indeed communities, particularly in programme areas, are considerably involved in hygiene promotion. Therefore, a strategic plan should be developed to transfer the responsibility of this component to the local communities. In this respect, the roles and cooperation mechanisms should be clearly stated and agreed upon. This mainly applies to health committees, water committees, environment agencies as well as local NGOs.

Basic Schools

33. Since there are relatively numerous actors involved in WASH activities at basic schools, precise definitions of roles and responsibilities as well as a strong coordination mechanism is of a particular importance. The education authority at the Mahalia level could be a significant body and play the a main role in the coordination process.

34. More focus on personal hygiene promotion at basic schools is essential to ensure hygienic and proper use of facilities. This can be done through enhancing and expanding the

110

training activities of both schoolchildren and teachers, as well as establishing school committees or WASH clubs for hygiene promotion. In this regard, CHAST approach can be adopted to clearly emphasize roles and responsibilities of children and teachers as well as practical activities for promoting behavioral change among schoolchildren.

35. The WASH sector has no system in place to monitor the status of the water and sanitation in the basic schools especially the use and rehabilitation of the school latrines. This is basically the responsibility of the Mahalias and the communities but the State Ministries of Education should have specific responsibility in monitoring this component in collaboration with concerned partners including WES projects.

36. The sector partners have a big role to help schoolchildren develop skills, knowledge and attitudes for effective hygiene practices at school and at home. There should be separate toilets for girls and boys in the schools. The standard norm should be no more than 50 boys or 30 girls to use one drop hole.

37. New schools that are yet to be constructed should have reliable water supply, sanitation and hygiene facilities as part of the initial construction components and costs.

38. Cost for the water supply, sanitation and hygiene services in schools, including operation and maintenance costs should be covered by adequate budgetary allocations by the respective institutions.

Environmental Issues:

39. WASH sector should consider the environmental impacts of their projects by assessing the projects for potential negative environmental impacts based on the nature, objective, and location of the project. This could be done through conducting a Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) especially for IDPs staying in camps.

40. Reduce deforestation can be ameliorated by reducing consumption of wood for construction of latrines, cooking and shelters. The programme can also promote alternatives that are sustainable at the community level.

41. Environmental issues should be considered from the outset at the initial stage of implementing wash projects infrastructures and camp planning.

42. Measures should be taken to ensure that negative impacts of closed and abandoned camps are addressed. Such risks include risks from unfilled latrines, erosion gullies and uncovered wells and these should all be considered during the “camp closing” stage.

43. Emergency waste disposal site planning should be undertaken with local authorities to avoid potential contamination of water sources and the generation of disease vectors and odours.

111

Gender Consideration:

44. Women play the most important role in their households regarding reaching the WASH program objectives at impact level. Moreover, women benefit more from WASH program activities and are generally equally involved in WASH related community activities. However, in some areas and communities women are not empowered to play this role, since traditions hinder their active participation in community organizations and awareness activities. In addition, women in general have less access to media than men.

45. It is highly recommended that more efforts and funds be invested in activities that encourage and support women participation in WASH related bodies and activities at community level, particularly where women are more marginalized. Those efforts have to depend on face-to-face activities rather than media or printed material in general. A very determining factor is also cultural sensitivity while planning and implementing the needed programs.

2. Lessons Learned:

1. Long-term and wide spectrum cooperation agreements such as the CPAPs represent a solid basis for sustainable and effective cooperation between the national authorities and UNICEF. The common understanding, acceptance and adaptation of the WASH programme by both parties massively contributed to programme success and sustainability for more than 30 years.

2. Financial sustainability is not only a result of the proportion of national and external funds, since the budget allocation of both contributions is also a determining factor for programme sustainability and programme success at large. The dependency on external funding in covering running and software costs threats sustainability more than the allocation of these funds for fixed hardware costs.

3. The shortage and instability of financial resources as well as external dependency negatively affect programme sustainability. However, different components and aspects are affected to different extents. For example, the experience of the WASH programme showed that sustainability aspects and accordingly long-term impacts are more affected than effectiveness and efficiency aspects. Similarly, software components are more threatened/less sustainable than hardware components. It is rational and understandable that in light of severe financial shortage, priority would be and has been given to water and sanitation facilities at the expense of staff and community capacity building, information and monitoring systems and/or hygiene issues. Also, priority would be and has been given to water facilities rather than sanitation facilities. Furthermore, extending the coverage of water and sanitation services would have, and has in fact received, higher priority than the improvement or even the functionality of the existing ones.

4. Water pricing/ cost sharing is not only an economic aspect, but also plays an essential role in increasing the sense of ownership of and responsibility for the improved water and sanitation facilities.

112

5. Cost sharing must be viewed as a broader concept than simply paying water tariffs, since contributing to the construction, maintenance and operation work on a voluntary basis, fetching or purchasing local construction material as well as creating a local fund to cover running costs and obtain spare parts are examples for effective but not classical forms of cost recovery. The economic value of those contributions are underestimated and not economically investigated.

6. Projects and activities which are preceded and followed by awareness activities are generally more successful, received more acceptance and cooperation from the local communities and are usually implemented in a timely manner.

7. The clearer the institutional affiliation and the more defined the mandates, the higher is effectiveness. A good example is the water sector with its clear affiliation to PWC while the other components are scattered between various actors.

1. List of Primary Data Sources

Communities where the WASH/WES programme has been implemented

Communities where the WASH/WES programme has either not been implemented, or it is not a core area

Communities that are facing emergency circumstances

Communities that are facing recovery & developmental circumstances

Central-level WES staff

Primary schools managers , mayors and village elders

State-level MoH officials, WES Staff, MoE officials

Local and international NGOs

Community water and health committee members

2. List of Secondary Data Sources

The evaluation relied on the following sources of secondary data:

2008 KAP Survey, Annual Reports from 2002-2010, Country Programmes from 2002-2012, 2011-2016 WASH Sector Strategic Plan-North Darfur State, UNICEF Global WASH Strategy, Why wait for cholera-2006 evaluation, Is Cholera here to stay-2007 evaluation, 2008 Census WASH Analysis and 2000-2008 Trend Analysis, Sudan March 2011 Bulletin, Sudan in Figures 2009, Sudan 2009 National Survey, SITAN 2007 Final, OCED Evaluation Manual(2008), UNICEFE valuation Report

Part IV: Annexes

113

Standards, A World fit for Children, 2010-CCC-FinaI, 2010 Comprehensive and Coherent Review of the Northern Sudan Schools Health Programmes, Final Report - EC-UNICEF Mid-Term Evaluation, WASH Sector Evaluation 2008, WES Evaluation 1991-1997, Other secondary data obtained directly from UNICEF, PWC, and MoH staff.

3. Data Collection& Analysis

Mobilization & Data Collection

Dialogue & Coordination with Client

This phase consisted of collecting from the Client and UNICEF field offices the necessary information about the beneficiaries and target groups that we would include in the fieldwork. A series of field visits took place to liaise with the Client and present the assignment to local government officials in the States. An operational plan was then devised to outline the process through which the field teams would conduct the sampling and data collection.

Selecting & Hiring Field Teams

Field teams were established in each of the States in which data was collected. Each team consisted of a supervisor, field managers, enumerators, PRA researchers, interviewers, and data entry clerks. The hiring of the teams took place based on a profile of the skills needed for each member of the team.

Preparation and Training

Data collection was preceded by a “preparation” period. This period involves setting up a regular communication system with local government in each state where fieldwork will take place, and the UNICEF field offices in each of these states. A field research operational manual for implementation and quality control was prepared and distributed to the field teams. The team included field supervisors (one for each state), enumerators for the quantitative research (approximately 4 in each state), PRA researchers for the qualitative work (1-2 in each state), and data entry officers (1-2 in each state).

Supervisors received an intensive Training of Trainers (ToT) from a group of experienced trainers consisting of the evaluation Team Leader, a field survey expert, and an IT expert to who trained them on data entry and general computer use. They then went on to train the remaining team members in the states. The training included data collection methods, how to conduct field sampling, and how to conduct data entry.

Pre-Test of Instruments

The training of the supervisors doubly served as a means of pre-testing the research instruments, as adjustments to the instruments took place to some questions and answers that the trainees found difficult to understand. This was followed by another more thorough pre-test in a rural area outside Omdurman subsequent adjustment of the research instruments.

Data Collection and Entry

Data collection and entry in each state was handled by the field team in that state and took place simultaneously over the period of four weeks in each of the five states. Field observation was also conducted in each of the five states, in addition to Sinnar state.

114

Quality Control

Each field team was provided with a mini-laptop (netbook) on which to conduct the data entry and a USB internet key. An email and Skype account was created for each state field supervisors to ensure consistent communication. But most communication was done via telephone. Once the teams were in place in their States and ready to commence fieldwork, a Field Quality Control Manager was sent from Egypt to oversee the sampling and data collection in cooperation with the Field Survey Manager and Assistants in Sudan. His tasks included assisting in reaching the sample, answering any questions on part of the field teams about the questionnaire, and reviewing all questionnaire responses (both on SurveyMonkey and hard-copy when available) to ensure that no data is missing and that data collection and entry is proceeding according to plan.

The system for quality control was multi-tiered as follows:

4. Research Tools

4.1 Quantitative Questionnaire

Quantitative Questionnaire

Evaluation of the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme (WASH)

Prepared by NSCE for the Government of National Unity, PWC and UNICEF/Sudan

115

001 State: ____

1- Blue Nile

2- South Kordofan

3- North Darfur

4- North Darfur

5- Kassala

002 Type of Community: ____

1- Within WES – Recovery & Development

2- Within WES - Emergency

3- Outside WES – Recovery & Development

4- Outside WES - Emergency

003 Date of Interview [Day, Month, as a single 4 digit code] _________________________ ____

004 Start Time: ___________ Finish Time: ___________ TOTAL Time (min): ____________

005 Total number of visits: _________

006 Interview status 1-Done

2- Partially done

007 Signature of the Enumerator after the interview

008 Signature of the field Supervisor

009 Signature of the field work Manager

116

MODULE 1: INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 101 Gender Male

Female

1

2

102 How old are you? 1

103 Are you the head of this household? Yes

No

1

2

117

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 104

How many people in total ‘belong to’ this household? By ‘belong to’,

105 What is the number of

children in the following ages:

Less than 5

5-10

11-15

Number:

Number:

Number:

106 What is your highest level of education? No Education

Basic Literacy

Religious Education

Primary Education

Secondary Education

College or higher

1

2

3

4

5

6

107 If the interviewee is not the head of house

hold, what is the highest level of education of the household head?

No Education

Basic Literacy

Religious Education

Primary Education

Secondary Education

College or higher

1

2

3

4

5

6

MODULE 2: MEDIA ACCESS AND INFORMATION EXPOSURE

Q#

Questions and Enumerator

Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup.

201 Do you have access to any of the following on a regular basis (daily or weekly)

201a Television yes

no

1

2

201b Radio yes

no

1

2

201c newspapers/magazines/other printed media

yes

no

1

2

If No skip to the question number 206

202 Have you ever seen any message or

programme on water hygiene through any media, whether television, radio or print

media?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

202a

203

If No or I do not know skip to the question number 206

118

203 Consider the extent to which you feel that

these messages/ programmes were relevant to your situation

very relevant

somewhat relevant

very irrelevant

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

204 Consider the extent to which you feel that

these messages/ programmes are practical in

your situation.

very practical

somewhat practical

very impractical

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

205 Consider the extent to which you feel that

these messages/ programmes affected your

family hygiene behaviours

very practical

somewhat practical

very impractical

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

206 Have you ever seen any message or programme on human waste disposal hygiene

through any media, whether television, radio or

print media?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

If No skip to the question number 210

207 Consider the extent to which you feel that

these messages/ programmes were relevant to

your situation

very relevant

somewhat relevant

very irrelevant

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

203a

204

208 Consider the extent to which you feel that

these messages/ programmes are practical in

your situation.

very relevant

somewhat relevant

very irrelevant

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

209 Consider the extent to which you feel that these messages/ programmes affected your

family hygiene behaviours

very practical

somewhat practical

very impractical

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

119

210 Have you ever seen any message or

programme on hygiene more generally through any media, whether television, radio or printed

media?

very practical

somewhat practical

somewhat impractical

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

If No or No answer skip to the question number 214

211 Consider the extent to which you feel that

these messages/ programmes are practical in

your situation.

very relevant

somewhat relevant

very irrelevant

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

212 Consider the extent to which you feel that these messages/ programmes are practical in

your situation.

very practical

somewhat practical

somewhat impractical

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

213 Consider the extent to which you feel that these messages/ programmes affected your

family hygiene behaviours

very practical

somewhat practical

very impractical

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

214 Have you ever personally attended a presentation, workshop, or meeting with a

health worker or other officer/advisor where

hygiene issues were discussed?

yes

no

1

2

If No go to the question number 301

215 Consider the extent to which you feel that these discussions/meetings were relevant to

your situation

very relevant

somewhat relevant

very irrelevant

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

216 Consider the extent to which you feel that these discussions/meetings are practical in

your situation

very practical

somewhat practical

very impractical

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

217 Consider the extent to which you feel that

these discussions/meetings affected your family hygiene behaviours

very practical

somewhat practical

very impractical

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

120

MODULE 3: WATER

[OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS CAN BE PRESENT FOR FACTUAL QUERIES]

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 301 What is this household’s current main source

of water for domestic use? By domestic use, I

mean for human use for drinking, cooking, and

bathing. [Tick only one]

in-house plumbing (own)

On-property surface well with bucket

Own well with hand pump

Own rainwater tank

in-house plumbing (other household)

Public water point

Public well with handpump

Unprotected spring

Protected spring

Deep well with handpump (tlomba) with tank (aka

Donkey)

Protected haffir (with fence and treatment unit)

Unprotected haffir

Tanker

vender (purchase)

River

Other

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

301a

301a

301a

301a

302

302

302

302

302

302

302

302

302

302

302

302

121

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 302 What was this household’s main source of

water for domestic water use three years ago? [Tick only one]

Piped into dwelling

Piped into compound, yard or plot

Public tap / standpipe

Water yard/hand pump

Protected/ covered well

Protected spring

Filtered (river, stream, dam, hafir, lake, pond,

canal or rain water

Transported by tankers/ carts from improved

source

Bottled water

Unprotected well

Unprotected spring

Unfiltered (river, stream, dam, hafir, lake, pond,

canal or rain) water

Transported by tankers/carts from unimproved

source

Other

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

122

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 303 If water is unavailable at your main water

point, what type of water supply does your

household rely on as a substitute? [Tick only one]

Piped into dwelling

Piped into compound, yard or plot

Public tap / standpipe

Water yard/hand pump

Protected/ covered well

Protected spring

Filtered (river, stream, dam, hafir, lake, pond,

canal or rain water

Transported by tankers/ carts from improved

source

Bottled water

Unprotected well

Unprotected spring

Unfiltered (river, stream, dam, hafir, lake, pond,

canal or rain) water

Transported by tankers/carts from unimproved

source

Other

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

[Enum: If in-house plumbing or other on-property water supply, skip to 324]

304 How far is the main source of water for your house?

305 Over the past month, how many days

has any household member collected

water at least once from a surface water source, an unprotected spring, or an

unprotected well where the water was

used for domestic use (cooking, drinking, bathing/washing)?

none

1-2

3-4 times

5+ times

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

306 On average over the past month, how many people were in front of you in the

queue when you went to collect water?

up to 5

6-9

10-19

20+

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

123

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 307 Over the past year, have conflicts over

water use broken out at your main

waterpoint?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

308 [Over the past month, which household

members collected water at any waterpoint?

adult females

adult males

female children (up to age 15)

male children (up to age 15)

1

2

3

4

309 Over the past month, how often would you say that livestock have been present

at the same waterpoint where you were

collecting water for domestic use?

all of the times

most of the times

some of the times

none/almost none of the times

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

If the respondent rely on natural facilities which do not include installations (non-protected spring, river… )

310 Over the past month, has your main

waterpoint had any of the following

problems:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

308ai

308b

Leakage Yes

No

1

2

broken equipment Yes

No

1

2

broken/cracked platform/wash Yes

No

1

2

not yielded water Yes

No

1

2

animal waste around the waterpoint Yes

No

1

2

124

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. poor taste that meant it could not be

consumed at all/easily

Yes

No

1

2

mosquitoes around the waterpoint Yes

No

1

2

In absence of any of the following problems skip to the question number 312

311 Have these been the problems for most

or all of the past year

Leakage

broken equipment

broken/cracked platform/wash

not yielded water

animal waste around the waterpoint

poor taste that meant it could not be consumed at

all/easily

mosquitoes around the waterpoint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

308hi

309

312 Do the devices used to collect water all

have lids, only some, or none? [Enum: if only one container, the

response can only be ‘all’ or

‘none’, 1 or 3]

all

some

rarely/none

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

313 Can you say that fingers were put into the water during collection?

all

some

rarely/none

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

314 Is water transferred from one container to another for storage in the home, or is

it usually/ always kept in the collection

container?

other storage container

collection container

1

2

315 Do the devices used to store water all

have lids, only some, or none? [Enum: if only one container, the

response can only be ‘all’ or

‘none’, 1 or 3]

all

some

rarely/none

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

316 Enum:

Look at the storage container

and check whether it has a

cover or not

all have

Some of them

Rarely and don’t have

Can not do

1

2

3

4

125

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 317 Observation: Indicate

whether the main storage

container is in an area

where contaminants can

easily be introduced into

the water and rate

accordingly

very likely to be contaminated

somewhat likely to be contaminated

very unlikely to be contaminated

not observed

1

2

3

4

310ci

310d

318 Observation: Indicate

whether there is any smell

coming from the water

storage container and rate

accordingly

very bad smell

somewhat bad smell

no bad smell

not observed

1

2

3

4

319 Is water drawn from a larger storage

container using another device, or is it poured

drawn

poured

do not know/ cannot say

1

2

3

[If ‘drawn’ skip to the question number 321]

320 Are the storage containers

protected from the

pollution?

Yes

No

don not know/ cannot say

1

2

3

321 Enum: look at where it is

stored, and rate whether it

might have been exposed to

flies or other contaminants]

Exposed to contaminants

Not exposed to contaminants

cannot establish

1

2

3

322 Over the past month, have you had a problem with mosquitoes around your

water storage area?

all

some

rarely/none

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

322a Is water mixed from more than one

water source or from one source?

More than one source

(only one source)

1

2

[If water mixed from one source skip to question number 324]

126

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 323 Beyond your main source, what is

the other source/what are the other

sources?

in-house plumbing (own)

Shallow borehole with bucket (own)

borehole with handpump (own)

rainwater tank (own)

in-house plumbing (other household)

Public waterpoint (kioske)

Public borehole with handpump

unprotected spring

protected spring

Public deep well with handpump (tlomba) with tank (aka Donkey)

Protected haffir with fence/wall and treatment unit

Unprotected haffir

Tanker

Vender (purchase) on cart/wagon

River/Creek

other (specify):

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

324 Over the past month, have you run

completely out of water for at least a day because water is not available

from any source?

none

once

2-3 times

4+ times

1

2

3

4

If no skip to the question number 327

325 The last time this happened, has

water been provided as an emergency to overcome this problem

when it did take place?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

326 [If yes to 325] How many

days did you have to wait for these

emergency supplies?

1

2

3

4

5+

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

6

127

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 327 The last time that your main water

source was without water, how long

did it take to repair it?

same day

within a week

1 week – 1 month

> 1 month

never repaired

never broke down

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

328 Is there a committee or similar

structure in this community responsible for community

management of the rural water

supply you are most reliant on?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

If there is not any committee skip to question number 338

329 [If yes to 313] Were you or

another household member ever involved in any community meeting

or other methods whereby someone

in this household was able to vote on the membership of this committee?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

If No skip to question number 337

330 Were any of these household members female?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

331 Has a vote for this committee taken

place in the past year?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

332 When the waterpoint you are most reliant on for domestic use was first

considered, was the committee at

that time involved in siting your main waterpoint?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

333 The last time your waterpoint broke down, was the problem reproted to

this committee?

yes

no

It has never broken down

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

334 The last time your waterpoint broke down, did the committee take any

action?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

128

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 335 Overall, how well do you feel that

the committee has performed its

duties? Have they ‘performed very

well’, ‘performed somewhat well’, ‘performed somewhat poorly’, or

‘performed very poorly’.

performed very well

performed somewhat well

performed somewhat poorly

performed very poorly

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

If ‘somewhat well’ or ‘very well’ skip to 337

336 Was this largely or completely due

to the fact that they had no influence

over those who needed to resolve the problem, or was it a problem with

the committee itself?

lack of influence

problem with committee itself

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

337 Over the past month, have you washed clothes, dishes, yourself

and/or a child at a surface water

source?

yes

no

do not know/ cannot say

1

2

3

In this next section, we want to present you with a number of attitudinal statements and ask whether you agree or disagree with the statement. For each,

also indicate whether you strongly agree or disagree with the statement. If you do not know, just indicate so.

338 The main benefit of having this water supply

system is that we can use more water

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

339 Even with an improved water supply, there are

few to no positive health impacts because the causes of most if not all illnesses are not

related to water

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

340 Hand washing is only done so that food

doesn’t taste funny when you eat it, it has

nothing to do with diseases

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

129

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 341 Do you usually treat water for domestic use in

the household in any way before consumption

and how do you usually treat it

we do not treat water

boil

add bleach/chlorine

use filter (cloth, ceramic, sand, other)

solar disinfection

stand and settle

other (specify): _____________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

342 Enum: Establish how much water

was used at the house by

household members present over

the past 24 hours, and indicate

total litres here. If large

container, establish depth of

amount used to establish

quantity. If small containers,

establish number and use to

estimate quantity.

_____________ litres

_____________ household members

343 Considering the amount of water

how does this compare to your

‘average’ use per capita in the

past, say three years ago? Is it

higher, about the same, or lower

per capita than three years ago?

Lower

Higher

The same

1

2

3

344 Observation: distance to main

water supply [Enum: distance

estimate for group of households

in same area, indicate average

distance for main water source]

< 500m

501m – 1km

1-2km

3-4km

5-9km

10+km

Cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

MODULE 4: ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION

130

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 401 What is this household’s main source of

human waste disposal?

Flush to piped sewer system

Flush to septic tank

Flush to pit (latrine)

Flush to unknown place / Not sure / DK where

Ventilated Improved Pit latrine (VIP)

Pit latrine with slab

Composting toilet

Flush to somewhere else

Pit latrine without slab / Open pit

Bucket

Hanging toilet, Hanging latrine

No facility, Bush, Field

Other

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

402 What is your assessment of the quality of

performance of the sanitation system which

you use?

Very good

Medium

Bad

Do not know

403 For the under-fives in this household who are

no longer in diapers/similar, do they use the same human waste disposal system directly?

yes

no

there are no children under five

1

2

3

404 If there is a different system for the under-

fives, what is their waste disposal system?

Seats for children

In an open patio

1

2

405 For children who are using diapers or something similar, where is the waste normally

disposed? [Tick only one]

in main human waste disposal system

rinsed away down a drain

thrown on garbage pile

thrown elsewhere on property

thrown off property

buried in yard

burned in yard

other (specify): ________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

131

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 406 [For those who use improved

infrastructure, whether on their

own property or another] Over the

past month, have any household members used

the bush for human waste disposal, either here

or while away from home?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

407 [For those with improved

infrastructure on property] How

long has this household had this type of human

waste disposal system?

< 1 year

1-2 years

2-3 years

3-4 years

4-5 years

> 5 years

Never

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

408 [For those with improved

infrastructure on property] When

was the last time any repairs were made to this

infrastructure, including home repairs?

< 1 year

1-2 years

2-3 years

3-4 years

4-5 years

> 5 years

Not applicable (no repair needed)

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

409 [For those who rely on a

neighbour’s facility] Over the past

year, have you contributed in cash for use of this facility?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

410 [For those who rely on a

neighbour’s facility] Over the past

year, have you contributed in kind for use of

this facility?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

411 Are there any sanitation

facilities for women in the

community?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

412 Did any member of the family had training of use, establishment or maintenance of the

sanitation system?

Yes

No

1

2

132

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 413 If yes, where any of these members women?

Yes

No

1

2

In this next section, we want to present you with a number of attitudinal statements and ask whether you agree or disagree with the statement. For each,

also indicate whether you strongly agree or disagree with the statement. If you do not know, just indicate so.

414 The location and/or structure of any pit latrine

on this property would make it difficult to

wash one’s hands after using the toilet

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

415 Washing ones hands after using the latrine is a

bad idea as this could contaminate the water

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

416 The main reasons for investing in on-site sanitation is convenience and safety

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

417 The problem with on-site sanitation is that it

brings disease close to the house

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

418 Washing your hands after using the toilet is too much of a hassle

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

133

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup.

In this next section, we want to present you with a number of satisfaction statements. For each, also indicate whether you are ‘very satisfied’, ‘somewhat

satisfied’, ‘somewhat unsatisfied’, ‘very unsatisfied’, or if you do not know.

419 How satisfied are you with the convenience of your human waste disposal system compared

to not having access to this system?

very satisfied

somewhat satisfied

somewhat unsatisfied

very unsatisfied

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

420 How satisfied are you with the cleanliness of

your human waste disposal system?

very satisfied

somewhat satisfied

somewhat unsatisfied

very unsatisfied

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

421 How satisfied are you with the healthiness of

your human waste disposal system?

very satisfied

somewhat satisfied

somewhat unsatisfied

very unsatisfied

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

422 How satisfied are you with the safety of your human waste disposal system?

very satisfied

somewhat satisfied

somewhat unsatisfied

very unsatisfied

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

423 [If on-site sanitation] Overall,

how much would you say the latrine has

improved your household’s well-being, if at

all?

a great deal

somewhat

not very much

not at all

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

424 [If on-site sanitation] When was

your in-house sanitation facility constructed?

MODULE 5: DISEASES AND ILLNESSES

134

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 501 Over the past month, has any under five you

are caring for had three or more watery stools in any 24 hour period?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

there are no children under five

1

2

3

4

502 [If yes skip to question number

501] How many under fives that you are

caring for had this problem?

________ with problem

[Enum: __________ # of under fives caring

for in total]

503 Over the past month, have any underfives begun to suffer from a rash on the body and/or

the face and has the child scratched him/herself

continuously, or had chicken pox, and perhaps has swollen glands in the neck?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

504 Over the past month, did any member of the

family suffer from eye diseases?

Yes

No

Total number of the family members

1

2

505 Is it usual in the region washing hands after using the toilet?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

506 Is it usual in the region washing hands before

eating?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

507 Is it usual in the region washing hands before cooking?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

508 What would you consider to be the three most

important practices that would prevent

diarrhoea in underfives? [Tick up to 3 responses]

do not know [tick by itself]

consume water from safe sources

avoid feacal contamination of water

use improved sanitation

keep water stored in home clean

do not contaminate water in transit

protect food from flies

wash hands regularly

other (specify): __________________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

135

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 509 What would you consider to be the three most

important practices that would prevent skin

diseases in underfives? [Tick up to 3 responses]

do not know [tick by itself]

use plenty of water for washing/bathing

do not get dirty

other (specify): __________________________

1

2

3

4

510 What would you consider to be the three most

important practices that would prevent cholera

in underfives? [Tick up to 3 responses]

do not know [tick by itself]

never heard of cholera [tick by itself]

consume water from safe sources

avoid feacal contamination of water

use improved sanitation

keep water stored in home clean

Protecting sources of water from pollution

protect food from flies

wash hands regularly

other (specify): __________________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

511 Considering the situation now in your

household, how would you rate the extent to which water is handled in a hygienic manner?

very hygienic

somewhat hygienic

very unhygienic

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

512 Compare this to your household’s situation,

say, five years ago. Would you say that the

situation is ‘much better now’, ‘somewhat

better now’, ‘no change’ ‘somewhat worse

now’, or ‘much worse now’, or ‘do not know’?

much better now

somewhat better now

no change

somewhat worse now

much worse now

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

6

510a

510a

510a

510a

511

513 [If the situation is now

better] What is the main reason that this

has changed? [Tick only one]

learned how to handle water more hygienically

water more reliable

water greater quantity

water nearby now

other (specify): _______________________

1

2

3

4

5

136

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 514 Consider the situation now in your household

in terms of human waste disposal. How would

you rate the hygiene of the current human

waste disposal system? Would you rate it as ‘very hygienic’, ‘somewhat hygienic’,

‘somewhat unhygienic’, or ‘very unhygienic’,

or ‘do not know’?

very hygienic

somewhat hygienic

very unhygienic

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

511a

511a

511a

512

515 Compare this to your household’s situation,

say, five years ago. Would you say that the situation is ‘much better now’, ‘somewhat

better now’, ‘no change’ ‘somewhat worse

now’, or ‘much worse now’, or ‘do not know’?

much better now

somewhat better now

no change

somewhat worse now

much worse now

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

6

511b

511b

512

511b

501b

512

516 [If any change to 511a] What is the

main reason that this has changed? [Tick only one]

learned how to handle sanitation more hygienically

improved sanitation compared to before

other (specify): _______________________

1

2

3

MODULE 6: COST RECOVERY

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 601 Over the past month, has you household paid

anything for the water it secures for domestic

use?

yes

no

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

If no skip to question number 606

602 Was this payment made each time water was collected, or was payment made less often

based on an agreed procedure?

each time

other arrangement

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

603 Interaction: using the storage

container or collection

container, establish levels of

payment for a quantity of water

_____________ litres

_____________ level of payment (in Sudanese pound)

Cost of litre

137

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 604 Which source do you most commonly

purchase water from? [Tick only one]

committee/community via shared resource

vendor from off-property site (non-hh)

vendor who comes to household

household with on-property water supply

tanker

other (specify): ______________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

605 How affordable do you consider this payment

rate to be? Is it ‘very affordable’, ‘somewhat

affordable’ ‘somewhat unaffordable’, ‘very unaffordable’, or do not know?

very affordable

somewhat affordable

very unaffordable

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

606 [If household has a latrine on-

site] How much did you invest in the latrine

when it was built? [Enum: if exact number not known, get estimate]

I didn’t have to pay anything

Less than 50 SDG

50-99 SDG

100-199 SDG

200-299 SDG

+300 SDG

Not applicable (no latrine)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

607 Over the past month, have you spent any

money on the on-site sanitation?

yes

no

1

2

608 [If yes] How much would you estimate

you spent this past month?

_____ (in Sudanese pounds)

609 Have you used a neighbour’s or

public latrine

yes

no

1

2

610 [If Yes] Over the past month, have you paid for latrine use in any way?

Yes

No

611 [If yes] How much would you estimate

you spent this past month?

_

__________(in Sudanese pounds)

612 [If yes to 603a] How affordable do

you consider this payment rate to be? Is it

‘very affordable’, ‘somewhat affordable’

‘somewhat unaffordable’, ‘very unaffordable’,

or do not know?

very affordable

somewhat affordable

very unaffordable

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

138

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup.

In this next section, we want to present you with a number of attitudinal statements and ask whether you agree or disagree with the statement. For each,

also indicate whether you strongly agree or disagree with the statement. If you do not know, just indicate so.

613 The only way to ensure that we have good water infrastructure is for people to pay for this

water

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

614 Those who use more water should pay more

for this water

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

615 Those who can afford to pay more for water

should pay more for their water

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

616 Those who cannot afford to pay for water should be exempt from paying, even when this

means that those with more money should pay

more

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

617 [If paid for water in the past

month] The cost of water is so high that there

is no way that I can invest in soap and towels

and similar

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

do not know/cannot say

1

2

3

4

5

618 Do you feel that the facilities

of water and sanitation are

responsibilities of the

community?

Yes

No

Do not know

1

2

3

139

Q#

Questions and Enumerator Instructions

Responses

Codes

GO TO

Sup. 619 Do you feel that the property or responsibility

actually held?

Yes

No

1

2

620 If No why do you feel that it doesn’t hold?

MODULE7: Final Questions

Do you have any final comments to make before we close? Any questions of your own?

End of interview. Thank the person for their cooperation. Tick level of co-operation below. Record finish

time. If there are any responses that you think are unreliable, write under "comments" which questions and

why you think that they are unreliable.

701) Enum: rank household economic status: ____

____ - 1 wealthy ____ - 3 poor

____ - 2 middle class ____ - 4 very poor

____ - 5 destitute

702) Level of co-operation ____

____ - 1 high

____ - 2 medium

____ - 3 low

PLEASE RECORD THE FINISH TIME: __________________ [Enum: Please transfer

finish time to Q11, page 2 and calculate total time]

Enum: If there are any of your own comments or answers you feel are untrustworthy write them

here

140

4.2 Qualitative Guides

Focus Group Guide

Members of water or health committees

1 Questionnaire number

2 State

3 Mahalia

4 Village

5 category of the village according to

the study criteria

Benefited from the WASH project

Didn’t benefit from the WASH program

6 Interview location

7 Participated group Women

Female and male members of the local

committee (health or water committee)

Date

Date and duration of the interview Start Time: ___________

Finish Time: ___________

TOTAL Time (min) ____________

Enumerator name

Interviewee name

At the beginning:

Introduce yourself to the group Speak with the group about the reason, purpose and importance of the program theme of the

dialogue Assured the group that the information given will not be used in any other purpose except the

evaluation. Assured the group that the information will not be attributed to their owner as we will not write

the names of any of the people we talk to in the report.

141

Ask the participants if they have any questions To talk over, every participant has to say his first name and talk a little bit about himself. Required

information: name, age, marital status, period of staying in this region, number of children (if present)

Interview Questions

1. About the Committee 1.1 How and when the committee established? 1.2 What are the roles the committee was originally established for? And what is the committee actually

doing now? 1.3 Who are the members of the committee? What was the mechanism to choose them? And what is

the percentage of females? 1.4 How many elections have been held since initiating of the committee? 1.5 How is the relationship between the committee and the local community? And how is its relationship

with the relevant local official agencies? 1.6 What are the obstacles facing the committee and how can it improve its performance? 1.7 Did the members of the committee or some of them receive any training or capacity-building to

better qualify them to perform their assigned roles? 1.8 If yes, tell us about this capacity-building, your opinion about it and your suggestions to improve it?

2. Facilities and systems to supply the region with water 2.1 What are the available systems for supplying drinking water in your village? 2.2 What are the advantages and disadvantages of this system? 2.3 What were the previous systems? 2.4 Who are the other beneficiaries from the current system other than those who rely on it for

domestic use? 2.5 Are the equipments and structures (if present) fixed most of the time and maintained and repaired if

malfunction or interruption in the water occurs? 2.6 What is the frequency of the interruption or breakdowns of water and how much time it takes to

return water? 2.7 How do people get water when this happens?

3. Human waste disposal system/ sanitation 3.1 What is the sanitation system of your village? 3.2 What are the advantages and disadvantages of this system? 3.3 What were the previous systems? 3.4 How would you evaluate the quality and functionality of these systems? 3.5 Are there improved latrines in the primary schools? Is it usually used by the students and teachers? 3.6 How do you evaluate the quality and functionality of the school latrines? Is there any difference

between boy’s and girl’s schools? 3.7 How about the proportion of households with private latrines? Is poverty the main factor of the

absence of latrine for the family? Are there other reasons? 3.8 How do the families deal with children’s waste – whether they have a latrine or not?

142

4. Health and environmental awareness 4.1 Does the committee have any activities to raise the awareness about water, health, environmental

issues and its related topics? 4.2 If yes, tell us about these activities, your evaluation of them and their effect in the local community 4.3 Do you think that there is a general high level of awareness and behaviour related to these issues? 4.4 What aspects does the committee monitor in order to evaluate the community’s awareness? And

what are the reasons that cause you to believe that these aspects in particular are responsible for the current situation? (whether the awareness increased or not)

5. Participation of local community in the management of affairs related to water 5.1 Did anybody consult with you – or did you consult with the local residents – before the construction

of improved facilities for water and sanitation in the region (regarding, for example, the location of the site, type of equipment and systems to be established)? If yes, who managed these consultations? Who participated in it? And did women have role in it?

5.2 What were the consultation mechanisms (visits, local meetings…) and their results? Is it true that people’s point of views have an effect in the decision making?

5.3 How do you evaluate the people's sense of responsibility and ownership of the local residents towards the facilities of water and sanitation?

5.4 If there is a local system of pricing water services and sanitation, can you describe this system, its success and people satisfaction about it?

5.5 If this system is not available, how do you evaluate local residents’ willing to bear part of expenses of water and sanitation?

5.6 Are there parallel (unofficial) systems for water management and sanitation? What are these? How do they work in parallel with the improved systems?

6. Effectiveness and impact of the programme 6.1 To what extent do you think that the improved systems of water supply and sanitation facilities have

met the needs of population in the village? 6.2 How did it affect their life, health, comfort and safety? 6.3 Does it have the same effect on men, women, children, elder people, poor people and non-poor? 6.4 Do you think that improved means of water supply and sanitation have led to a general

improvement in the environment? If so, How? 6.5 Do you think that the public awareness of the personal and environmental hygiene has improved

because of the programme? Please elaborate.

7. Final question: Do you have any other inquiries, comments or additions?

143

Focus Group Guide

Female Local Residents

1 Questionnaire number

2 State

3 Mahalia

4 Village

5 category of the village according to

the study criteria

Benefited from the WASH project

Didn’t benefit from the WASH program

6 Interview location

7 Participated group Women

Female and male members of the local

committee (health or water committee)

Date

Date and duration of the interview Start Time: ___________

Finish Time: ___________

TOTAL Time (min) ____________

Enumerator name

Interviewee name

At the beginning:

Introduce yourself to the group Tell the group the reason, purpose and importance of the program theme of the dialogue Assured the group that the information given will not be used in any other purpose except the

evaluation. Assured the group that the information will not be attributed to their owner as we will not write

the names of any of the people we talk to in the report. Ask the participants if they have any questions To talk over, every participant has to say his first name and talk a little bit about himself. Required

information: name, age, marital status, the period of staying in this region, number of children (if present)

144

Interview Questions

1. Facilities and systems to supply the region with water 1.1 What are the available systems for supplying drinking water in your village? 1.2 What are the advantages and disadvantages of this system? 1.3 What were the previous systems? 1.4 Who are the other beneficiaries from the current system other than those who rely on it for domestic

use? 1.5 Are the equipments and structures (if present) fixed most of the time and maintained and repaired if

malfunction or interruption in the water occurs? 1.6 What is the frequency of the interruption or breakdowns of water and how much time it takes to

return water? 1.7 How do people get water when this happens?

2. Human waste disposal system/ sanitation 2.1 What is the sanitation system of your village? 2.2 Do any of you have improved latrines in your houses? Since when, and what did they family use before

having this improved system? 2.3 Did the family establish this latrine on its own initiative or was it part of a program? 2.4 If it was a family initiative, what motivated the family to do this? In case it was part of a program, how

were you chosen to participate in the program and under what conditions? 2.5 What systems do other families use? 2.6 How satisfied are you and your family with your current system of waste disposal? What are the good

things about the system and what are the disadvantages? 2.7 Do your children’s schools have improved latrines? Do your children regularly use these latrines at

school? 2.8 How do the families deal with children’s waste – whether they have a latrine or not?

3. Health and environmental awareness 3.1 Have any of you participated in awareness or training activities on topics related to water, sanitation,

or personal and environmental hygiene? 3.2 If yes, tell us about these activities, your opinion of them and their effect on your lives. Do you think

they could have been conducted in a better way? 3.3 Do you ever receive information through media outlets on any of these topics? What is your opinion

of these messages? Do you benefit from them and how? 3.4 Do you feel that there has been an increase in the awareness of the community on these topics which

led to a behavioural change in some households, schools, or the village in general? Please elaborate.

4. Participation of local community in the management of affairs related to water 4.1 Did anybody consult with you before the construction of improved facilities for water and sanitation

in the region (regarding, for example, the location of the site, type of equipment and systems to be established)?

4.2 If yes, who managed these consultations? Who participated in it? And did women have role in it?

145

4.3 What were the consultation mechanisms (visits, public meetings, discussion groups, any other forms…) and their results? Is it true that people’s point of views have an effect in the decision making?

4.4 Did they truly listen to people and pay attention to their opinions? 4.5 What were the issues raised during these consultations? 4.6 Did women play an active role during these consultations? 4.7 In your village is there a water & sanitation management committee? If yes, how was it established

and what is its role? Are there any women on this committee? 4.8 Do you consider the committee to be successful in performing its role? What would you suggest to

improve its performance? 4.9 Have any of you ever received training on participation in community management of water and

sanitation facilities? 4.10 Do you feel that water and sanitation facilities belong to the community and local residents should be

responsible for them? 4.11 Are you willing to pay for the use of such facilities?

5. Effectiveness and impact of the programme 5.1 Do you believe that your family’s health has improved (especially that of your children) compared to

the past? 5.2 Have children’s deaths decreased in the community? 5.3 Has the spread of diseases decreased? 5.4 Does life in general become easier and safer? 5.5 What are the reasons for this change, in your opinion? (whether a positive or negative change) 5.6 Does it have the same effect on men, women, children, elder people, poor people and non-poor?

6. Final question: Do you have any other inquiries, comments or additions?

In-depth individual Interviews guide

Leading figures in the village

Primary schools directors, mayors and village elders.

1 Questionnaire number

Organization

2 Name of responsible

3 Position of responsible

6 Interview location

146

Date

Date and duration of the interview Start Time: ___________

Finish Time: ___________

TOTAL Time (min) ____________

Level of cooperation

Enumerator Name:

Signature:

reviewer Name :

Signature:

This guide refers to program of water, sanitation and hygiene program WASH which is applied through the

projects and units of WES and replace the evaluation process with the word “program” to avoid the

repetition and prolongation, we hope that the interviewer clarify all these after the introduction and the

define of the subject.

1- General evaluation of the programme 1.1 What do you know about Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme which is applied by Wes units? 1.2 In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the program and the performance of

your Wes unit? 1.3 In your opinion, what can be changed or can be better to improve the performance of the program?

2- Social participation and owner ship 2.1 Did the residents of local community participate in the constructions planning done by the program

in your village? For example did the people have the opportunity to choose the design of their home latrines or the places of water and sanitation facilities in the village and the followed systems?

2.2 If people participate in that, was the participation only for men or women had a role? 2.3 Is there a kind of community management for construction? (Such as local committee) what is it?

And what is its role? 2.4 If there is a community participation management, do females participate in it? And how? 2.5 Is there water pricing in your village? If yes, describe the pricing system and people opinion about it. 2.6 Do residents feel that water and sanitation facilities in the village are theirs and they are responsible

for them? 2.7 Do you think that the program could be better if people participate more in planning and

implementing it?

147

2.8 Did the application of the programs of building the local community was able to participate in planning, implementing and managing water and sanitation facilities?

3- Effectiveness and Impact 3.1 To what extent do you think that the improved systems of water supply and sanitation facilities have

covered the needs of residents in the village? 3.2 How does it affect their life, health, comfort and safety? 3.3 Does its impact is the same for men, women, young, old, poor and non poor? 3.4 Do the primary schools and the health centres in the region have improved systems of water supply

and sanitation? If yes, since when? And how were the previous systems? What are the changes resulted from their existence?

3.5 Do you think that water supply and sanitation improved systems have led to a general improvement of the surrounding environment? And how?

3.6 Do you think that the public awareness of the personal and environmental hygiene issues has been increased with the presence of the program? And how?

3.7 How do you evaluate the level of awareness of personal and environmental hygiene inside the primary schools? And how does it affect the daily conduct of pupils and teachers?

3.8 What is the level of maintenance and validity of the program facilities in the village and especially in schools?

4- Final question 4.1 Do you have any comments, information or inquiries that you like to add before the end of the

interview?

In-depth individual Interviews guide with principal figures

Responsible for programme and partner Organizations at the central and by state level

1 Questionnaire number

Organization

2 Name of responsible

3 Position of responsible

6 Interview location

Date

Date and duration of the interview Start Time: ___________

Finish Time: ___________

148

TOTAL Time (min) ____________

Level of cooperation

Enumerator Name:

Signature:

reviewer Name :

Signature:

This guide refers to program of water, sanitation and hygiene program WASH which is applied through the

projects and units of WES and replace the evaluation process with the word “program” to avoid the

repetition and prolongation, we hope that the interviewer clarify all these after the introduction to define

the subject

We will start with general questions about the programme

1. General evaluation of the programme 1.1 In your opinion what are most important strengths of the programme? 1.2 What are the most important internal weaknesses and surroundings challenges that are facing the

programme? 1.3 To what extent it can be said that the WASH program succeeded in bringing all various individuals

participants together? 1.4 Do you think that the program is transparent? 1.5 To what extent do you think that the programme consistent with the political purposes of WES?

And to what extent this coordination helps to improve the efficiency of implementation of the program?

1.6 What are the differences between the executive partners that can weaken the efficiency of the implementation of the program?

1.7 Do you think that the program faces a difficulty in identifying its owners and it’s responsible? 1.8 What are the coordination mechanisms followed by the program with the concerned parties? How

do you evaluate the level of the coordination? 1.9 How do you generally evaluate the programme efficiency in terms of time and economic? 1.10 Is it possible to use alternatives methods to implement the programme with more efficiency? 1.11 Is the programme fulfilment in what is agreed with the government? 1.12 Do you think that the programme meet the needs of the ultimate beneficiary? And how do you

think about its effect in improving health status and decreasing number of deaths especially between children?

We will now move to more specific topics and questions:

2. Funding (only for the programme workers) Funding for water, sanitation and hygiene is consider one of the programme outputs)

149

2-1 How is the programme being financed?

2-2 What are the trends of development funding in terms of quantity, source and use?

2-3 Do you think that funding can’t be applied?

2-4 What are the most important problems and obstacles related to the funding?

2-5 what are your recommendations regarding to this?

3. Strategies, policies and plans 3-1 How do you use the strategies, policies, plans of water, sanitation and personal and environmental

hygiene? And to what extent they were available to who is concerned?

3-2 How about the use and the impact of the operational plans, guidelines, brochures and scientific

evidences? And did these evidences have a significant effect on the performance of your organization?

3-3 Do you think that the community participation has been taken into account in the development of

strategies, policies, plans of water, sanitation and hygiene? And what are the followed level and form of

participation that help them to be developed?

3-4 (If the interviewer didn’t mention automatically the points that he was asked about) for example do

you think that the opinions of the local communities have taken into account before the construction of

the required infrastructure? Is the opinion of the people in the latrines that they want in their houses taken

into account?

3-5 To what extent it has been taken into account the standard of justice in the development of strategies,

policies and plans of water and sanitation program, for example the choice of the states to work in, the

workload in each of them and the target groups?, Do you participate in one of the selected operations?

And what do you think about this experience?

3-6 Has the social type been taken into account in the strategies and policies either the participation in

writing it or the summary of its texts?, How? And how do you evaluate its inspection?

4. Structural construction of Wes and decentralization: 4-1 What is your opinion about the current structure of WES? What are the main strengths and

weaknesses? And what are your recommendations for improvement?

4-2 What do you think about the framework for the decentralization in the management of work?, what is

your opinion about the frame itself? And how do you evaluate its success in the implementation?

4-3 what is your opinion about paying the cost of water, its pricing test?

4-4 To what extent do you think that the local communities have been rehabilitated or may be

rehabilitated to be an active element in the decentralization of planning and implementing?

150

4-5 What do you think about the ability of the programme to deal with groups and individuals in terms of

gender, age and economic position? And did those whom are responsible for the programme have any

training on community management?

4-6 To what extent the conditions of the decentralization lead to support the sustainability of the

programme, and what is the effect of the community conditions on it?

4-7 What are the most important executive problems of the local partners that weaken the sustainability

of the programme effects?

4-8 Do you think that there are aspects that need to be changed to make the decentralization more

effective?

5. Monitoring system (only for programme workers) 5-1 Do you think that there is an effective mechanism to monitor and follow up on the programme and its

performance and how do you evaluate it?

5-2 What do you think about the programme of monitoring groundwater, its role, its success and its

problem especially with regard to the high risk areas?

5-3 How do you evaluate the programmes and equipments of monitoring and observe the quality of water,

how about the regularity of its reports? And to what extent there was appropriate response?

5-4 what are your recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the monitoring

programmes in general?

6. Information system (only for the programme workers) The information system is one of the products of the water, sanitation programme which connects both

central and state levels

6-1 Please mention how does this system work from the perspective of the participation of your

organization in providing information and use them to achieve this connection, and what is your evaluation

of its performance?

6-2 What do you think about the contribution of the system in achieving a coordinating role? And how to

improve this role?

6-3 To what extent the information system contains categorized data by gender (male and female), what

are the most important fields that its data classified by gender? Do you think that this is important?

6-4 How do you evaluate the role and the performance of the website of the programme as it is an active

element in the information system?

6-5 To what extent do you feel that the website deal with the equality between genders issues effectively?

151

7. Training 7-1 What is your opinion about the effectiveness and its effect on the performance development of

training programmes which is organized by the programme to the employees in the WES and partners

organizations?

7-2 (only for programme workers) How do you evaluate the performance of the training program with

regard to economic in terms of profits and costs?

7-3 Is the social type taken into account in the designing of the training programme and the choice of the

trainers and trainees?

7-4 What are the most important fields of the programme? And what do you think about its importance?

7-5 Do you think that there are important fields that don’t exist in the programme?

8. Emergency 8-1 How do you evaluate the preparation for emergency in Khartoum and the rest of the states with regard

to the possibility and speed of water supply and the provision of sanitary systems to dispose human

wastes?

8-2 What is the average of time between the emergency and the respond by providing water and sanitary

systems to dispose human wastes compared to the assumed duration?

8-3 If there are repetitive delays, what are the reasons?

8-4 How do you evaluate the efficiency of the administrative system, coordination mechanism and

decentralization level in the emergency regions?

9. Closing question 9-1 Do you have any comments, information or inquiries that you like to add before the end of the

interview?

In-depth individual Interviews guide with principal figures

Local responsible for programme

1 Questionnaire number

Organization

2 Name of responsible

152

3 Position of responsible

6 Interview location

Date

Date and duration of the interview Start Time: ___________

Finish Time: ___________

TOTAL Time (min) ____________

Level of cooperation

Enumerator Name:

Signature:

reviewer Name :

Signature:

We will start with general questions about the programme

1. General evaluation of the programme 1-1 In your opinion what are the most important strengths of the programme?

1-2 What are the most important internal weaknesses and surroundings challenges that are facing the

programme?

1-3 Do you think that the program is facing any difficulties in identifying it’s owner and the parties

responsible for it?

1-4 Is it possible to use alternative methods to implement the program with more efficiency?

1-5 Do you think that the program meet the needs of the ultimate beneficiaries? And how do you evaluate

its effect on improving health status and decreasing number of deaths especially among children?

1-6 What do you think about the level of maintenance and validity of the facilities of the program?

1-7 what is the average of the consumption of water per capita in your region?

1-8 Do you have latrines or other similar facilities only for women in the regions related to your unit?

153

We will now move to more specific topics and questions:

2. Strategies, Policies and Plans 2-1 How are the developed strategies, policies, and plans are utilized? And to what extent they were

available to who are concerned?

2-2 How about the use and the impact of the operational plans, guidelines, brochures and scientific

evidences? And did these evidences have a significant effect on the performance?

2-3 Do you think that the community participation has been taken into account while developing

strategies, policies and plans of water, sanitation and hygiene? And what are the level and the form of

participation that have been taken into account in its development?

2-4 If the interviewee didn’t mention spontaneity the points that he was asked about) for example do you

think that the opinions of the local communities have been taken into account before the construction of

the required infrastructure? Have the opinion of the people about the needed latrines, the places or the

way of water supply been taken into account,?

2-5 To what extent it has been taken into account the standard of justice in the development of strategies,

policies and plans of water and sanitation program, for example the choice of the states to work in, the

workload in each of them and the target groups?, Do you participate in one of the selected operations?

And what do you think about this experience?

2-6 Has the gender type been taken into account in the strategies and policies either the participation in

writing it or the summary of its texts?, How? And how do you evaluate its inspection?

3. Structural constructions and decentralization: 3-1 What is your opinion about the current structure of WES? What are the main strengths and

weaknesses? And what are your recommendations for improvement?

3-2 What do you think about the decentralization framework in the management of work?, what do you

think about the frame itself? And do you think that it could be implemented successfully?

3-3 what is your opinion about paying the cost of water and its pricing test? What is the percentage of the

villages in your unit that apply the water pricing system?

3-4 To what extent do you think that the local communities have been rehabilitated or may be

rehabilitated to be an active element in the decentralization of planning and implementing?

3-5 what is the percentage of the villages in your unit that have a local committee from the residents to

administrate the program?

3-6 To what extent do women participate in these committees and in the health local committees?

3-7What do you think about the ability of the programme to deal with groups and individuals in terms of

gender, age and economic position, and did those whom are responsible for the programme have any

training on community management?

154

3-8 What are the most important executive problems of the local partners that weaken the sustainability

of the programme impacts?

3-9 Do you think that the local communities feel that they are responsible for the water and sanitation

facilities?

3-10 Do you think that there are aspects that need to be changed to make the decentralization more

effective?

4. Monitoring system 4-1 What do you think about the monitoring and follow-up system of the program? How does your unit

use it?

4-2 What do you think about the programme of monitoring groundwater, its role, its success and its

problem especially with regard to the high risk areas?

4-3 Do you use the program of monitoring the quality of water, how do you use it? What do you think

about the program?

4-4 what are your recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the monitoring

programmes in general?

5. Information system 5-1 Do your unit use the information system in the centre or in the state? If yes please tell us how does this

system work on the provision and use of information and the link between units and different managerial

levels? And what do you think about its performance?

5-2 To what extent the information system contains categorized data by gender (male and female), what

are the most important fields that its data classified by gender? Do you think that this is important?

5-3 Do you deal with the web site of the program? What kind of dealing? How do you use it to improve

your performance?

5-4 To what extent do you feel that the website deal with the equality between genders issues effectively?

5-5 Do you have any suggestions helping to improve it?

6. Training 6-1 What do you think about the training programs provided by WES and partner organizations in terms of

effectiveness and its impact on improving the performance?

6-2 Did you get any training courses? What are the main issues covered by the training? How do you think

about its importance? And what do you think about it?

155

6-3 Has the social type been taken into account while designing the training programme and choosing the

trainers and trainees?

6-4 Do you think that there are important fields that don’t exist in the programme?

7. Emergency 7-1 How do you evaluate the preparation for emergency in Khartoum and the rest of the states with regard

to the possibility and speed of water supply and the provision of sanitary systems to dispose human

wastes?

7-2 What is the average time between the emergency and the respond by providing water and sanitary

systems to dispose human wastes compared to the assumed duration?

7-3 If the delays repeat, what are the reasons?

7-4 How do you evaluate the efficiency of the administrative system and coordination mechanism and

decentralization level in the emergency regions?

8. Final question 8-1 Do you have any comments, information or inquiries that you like to add before the end of the

interview?