Water for Life: Promoting Accountability

Monitoring WASH Services & the Enabling Environment Long After Implementation

Susan Davis, Improve International

IRC Symposium on Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery

April 2013

We will discuss…

• Why we need to promote accountability• Outcomes of pilot ratings in Honduras • How the evaluation has helped the

organizations• What we learned about the process and the

criteria • Barriers to implementation • Plans to scale up and sustain initiative

WHY DO WE NEED A WATER & SANITATIONSUSTAINABILITY RATING?

780 million+++

783 million people without access to improved source of water (JMP)3 billion without access to safe water (UNC) 4 billion without access to safe, permanent, in home water (AquaFed)

2.5 billion+++ 2.5 billion people without adequate sanitation (JMP)4.1 billion lack access to improved sanitation (UNC)

35-50% water and sanitation systems that fail within a few years of construction

Less than 5% water systems that are visited at least once post-construction

Less than 1% water systems that receive ongoing long-term post construction monitoring

Our strategy of trust isn’t working.

1981

USAID, 1981. The Role of Women as Participants & Beneficiaries in Water Supply & Sanitation Programs

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0%

Angola

Benin

Burkina

Faso

DRC

Camer

oon

Ethi

opia

Cote

d'Ivoire

Guine

a

Libe

ria

Malaw

i

Mad

agas

car

Mali

Moz

ambi

que

Niger

Keny

a

Sier

ra Leo

ne

Niger

ia

Ugand

a

Zambi

a

Zimba

bwe

Non-functioning water points in AfricaSOURCE: UNICEF, May 2007

2007

Water Points Now

Failed Impaired Failed + Impaired0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sierra LeoneSwazilandGhanaTanzaniaLiberia

A need for different language: “Services Monitoring & Services Evaluation”

• M&E usually means just during the project timeframe

• Few incentives or resources to pay attention over time

• We propose “services monitoring” – several governments are launching now

• And “services evaluation” which is where this initiative falls – regular evaluation at points several years post-implementation

• The only way to prove sustainability

Who will a WASH Sustainability Rating help?People lacking access to water & sanitation

Will have services that last. Increased accountability and better targeted investments will ultimately result in more effective and sustainable programming for poor communities.

Governments, Banks & Donors

Will be able to use project sustainability ratings to target their funds towards high performing organizations

Implementing organizations

Can learn from each other and be rewarded for facilitating sustainable WASH services

HOW DOES THE RATING SYSTEM WORK?

The WASH Rating System: Trust but Verify

Self-Assessme

nt

Forum Member

DeskReview

Field Visit

Rating/Certificati

on

Peer R

eview

The WASH Rating

• Currently voluntary• Higher standards than nonprofits would

normally pursue• Gives organizations an incentive to maintain

high standards• Based on similar self-regulatory systems

implemented in other sectors (e.g., Fair Trade)

What is the rating based on?Key Domain Variable Score

A. Organizational

structure

Collaboration or coordination with other water and sanitation organizations

blue

Organization is concerned with improving water and sanitation program quality

blue

Organization is sustainable and maintains solid business practices greenB. Water Services

Water system after construction blueWater fee payment greenWater board policy green

C. Sanitation Most people in the community have access to a sanitary toilet greenToilets are well-used in a sanitary manner and users are satisfied

with the toiletsgreen

Users have replacement strategy for toilets not connected to sewage system

blue

D. Hygiene Education

All households in community have convenient access to a safe water supply

green

Household water use is sufficient to meet all needs for consumption/hygiene

blue

Households demonstrate increased health and hygiene awareness over time

green

E. Project design & construction

The community has legal authority for the water source and water system

blue

Water quality is tested and treated appropriately greenWater system is appropriately designed and well-constructed blueToilets/sanitation system is appropriately designed and well-

constructedblue

F. Water system Long-term O&M

System is well-used and users are satisfied with the system greenRepairs are addressed quickly and system undergoes routine

maintenanceyellow

User fees are paid by beneficiaries & system is financially self-supporting

blue

G. Water source protection

An active water source protection or environmental education component exists in the community green

H. Community commitment & management

Community makes a financial contribution to the capital cost of the project

blue

A competent local water board is created and functions effectively 

blue

THE PILOT RATING OF HONDURAN NGO

COCEPRADIL, an NGO in Lempira, Honduras

Independent experts and peer evaluators inspect a spring.

Video: https://improveinternational.wordpress.com/programs/accountabilityforum/

Community of San Francisco, Honduras

•20 year old system•Regular tariff payment by users•Positive and increasing bank account balance

Extreme Problem

s Identifie

d

Some Expectations Met

All Expectations

Met

High Expectations

Met

WASH Sustainability Rating Given to COCEPRADIL:

FUTURE PLANS

Overcome Barriers to Implementation

• Building knowledge and confidence of this tool with governments & donors

• Concerns from organizations

• Acceptance of standards• Obtaining required

information• Start up funds

DSK – Bangladesh April 2013Participating peers: Water.org, WaterAid, Water For People, CRS (invited)

Conduct More Ratings

Create incentives: online resource for governments, banks & donors

washratings.org

WASH Ratings

South America

West Africa East Africa

Southern Africa

Southeast Asia

providing independent ratings of international WASH projects

Central America

Create incentives: develop special fund to invest in programs with green or blue rating

washratings.org/honduras

WASH Ratings: Honduras

13

2

45

1. COCEPRADIL

2. Agua Org A

3. Agua Org B

4. Agua Org C

5. Agua Org D

Establish Governing Board

Reviews performance

standards

Permanent and

rotating members Guides WASH

Rating/Forum Operations

Governing

Board

Ensure adequate financialresources

Secures WASH sector

endorsements

Potential Board

Composition

4 rotating WASH funding organizations

5 rotating certified implementing organizations

2 government (water ministry) and WASH research institution representatives

1 independent evaluator representative

Governing Board Members

Discussion Questions• Is the life span limited to the duration of a project? No. In fact only considering 5 plus years after implementation• Are they integrated in country-led monitoring systems?Possibly can be, but this is evaluation vs. monitoring • Who is the long term owner of the frameworks and the

information gathered with them? We hope that ultimately this will be country-led initiative (either by Government or National Water Network)• What are the incentives beyond the project to use the

frameworks? More funds to high performing organizations; more confidence could lead to greater investment in the sector

For more information

Susan – sdavis@improveinternational.orgMarla – marlasmith@water1st.org

www.improveinternational.org/programs