Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

SustainabilityPlanning andMonitoringin Community Water Supply and SanitationA Guide on the Methodology for Participatory Assessment (MPA)for Community-Driven Development ProgramsInternational Water and Sanitation CentreEdited by:Nilanjana MukherjeeChristine van Wijk

This document is an update, supplemented with learning gained from MPAapplications worldwide during 1999-2002, of the original MPA Metguide publishedin March 2000.The Metguide (Methodology for Participatory Assessment with Communities,Institutions and Policy Makers) was developed by WSP and IRC in 1998 primarilyfor the purpose of conducting a global study in 15 countries, which investigatedthe links between the sustainability of community-marged water supply servicesand gender- and poverty-sensitivity of demand-responsive approaches used toestablish the services.Since the completion of the global study in 1999, MPA has developed further as atool for mainstreaming gender and social equity in large scale projects. Itsapplications have expanded from evaluation and monitoring to designing andplanning new project interventions, and from dedicated water supply andsanitation projects into the realm of multi-sector project designs.This document presents the MPA as it is currently being used in Asia, Africa andLatin America. It consolidates the lessons learned in the process of its continuingdevelopment.Section 1 of this book represents an extensively re-written and supplemented versionof the original Metguide, by the editors Nilanjana Mukherjee and Christine vanWijk. Section 2 contains case studies contributed by Bruce Gross, Suzanne Reiff,Soutsakhone Chanthaphone, Santanu Lahiri, Christine van Wijk, NilanjanaMukherjee, Nina Shatifan and Richard Hopkins. Photographs on the cover andinside were contributed by MPA practitioners in different parts of the world.

SustainabilityPlanning andMonitoringin Community Water Supply and SanitationA Guide on the Methodology for Participatory Assessment (MPA)for Community-Driven Development ProgramsEdited by:Nilanjana MukherjeeChristine van Wijki

ForewordAccess to safe water and sanitation lies atthe very core of poverty reduction.Improved access gives the poor, especiallywomen, control over basic aspects of their life anda sense of empowerment.Within the context of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals for water and sanitation, interventions mustbe designed to strike more effectively at the rootsof global poverty and involve more than the mereconstruction of facilities. The keys to success willbe establishing pro-poor policies and institutionalpractices; promoting sustainable financingmechanisms; and sharing knowledge with andbuilding capacities in institutions for scaling upsustainable and equitable water and sanitationservices. Meeting these targets at the ground levelwill require infrastructure improvement projects thatuse appropriate targeting strategies, involvecommunities in decision making, and measureachievements in social equity and justice.The Methodology for Participatory Assessment(MPA) offers the mechanism needed to track genderand social equity in large-scale infrastructureprojects and measure progress of the goal toprovide sustainable services for all. Increasedinvestment flows can reach the poor. Communitydrivenprojects–those that represent the needs andchoices of each member of the community–provide the channel.The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) andthe IRC International Water and Sanitation Centredeveloped the MPA through a global pilotingand validation exercise in 18 large-scale projectsin 15 countries. The study, Linking Sustainabilitywith Demand, Gender and Poverty, foundempirical evidence that community-managedwater supply services, which employed demandresponsiveapproaches sensitive to gender andpoverty issues, were more sustainable and moreeffectively used.Since its inception in 1998, the MPA has gainedwide appreciation and popularity with sectorstakeholders in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.Country governments, donor agencies, andNGOs active in water supply and sanitation haveinvested in building institutional capacities for itsuse and in tailoring MPA applications to their workat the policy, institution, and community levels. Inthe process new applications have been developedand fielded, strengths and weaknesses of the MPArecognized and addressed, quality controlmeasures identified, and knowledge generatedfrom the field widely shared. In this book, WSPand IRC bring together the fruits of learning gainedby and with partners worldwide during the period1999 - 2002.The MPA can empower poor communities to plan,manage, and sustain their water and sanitationservices, and gain control over their life, health,and environment. This volume and its companionmaterials can ensure that the poor exercise theirrightful voice and choice in community-drivendevelopment processes.Jamal SaghirDirectorEnergy and WaterChairWater Supply and SanitationSector BoardThe World BankWalter StottmannProgram ManagerWater and Sanitation Programiii

PrefaceThe mission of the Water and Sanitation Program(WSP) is to alleviate poverty by helping poorpeople gain sustained access to improved waterand sanitation services. WSP works with partners in thefield to seek innovative solutions to the obstacles facedby the poor communities, and strives to be a valuedsource of knowledge with which to assist widespreadadoption of these solutions. Over its 25 year existencethe WSP has evolved into a major field-based learningand policy facilitation network, supported through apartnership of the world’s leading developmentagencies. The WSP has a track record in advancing theunderstanding of gender, participation, institutional andpolicy aspects of poverty reduction.In 1997 the WSP and IRC jointly launched theParticipatory Learning and Action (PLA) Initiative, aglobal partnership of agencies to improve theunderstanding of the links between gender,participation, demand and sustainability of communitymanagedwater supply and sanitation services. During1998 and 1999 these links were investigated throughaction research in 15 countries using a commonmethodology developed for the purpose, theMethodology for Participatory Assessment (MPA). Theresults provided empirical evidence that better sustainedand used services were significantly and positivelyassociated with the use of gender- and poverty-sensitivedemand-responsive approaches, in projectimplementation, institutional practices and policies(Linking Sustainability with Demand, Gender andPoverty, WSP-IRC, 2001*).Then began a capacity building phase to use the learninggained and the tools developed, to influence the waywater - sanitation programs are designed, implementedand monitored, by stakeholders at all levels. Work hasbeen underway since 2000, in a set of mutuallyreinforcing streams:Developing and institutionalizing national andlocal capacities in the use of MPA so that fundingagencies, project and task managers may accesssuch expertise without having to invest extensivelyin training every time such skills are needed. TheMPA’s analytical framework is focused onsustainability and integrates gender and povertyconcerns at every stage of project planning,implementation and monitoring. This makes MPAeasy to assimilate in project design andmanagement processes. Institutionalizationhowever needs to proceed with the understandingthat the full potential of MPA can only be realizedwith proper training, even of those with longexperience in participatory methods, and withquality control measures in scaling up.* Also available on www.wsp.orgiv

Application of MPA to large-scale programs, with atailoring of applications to project settings andneeds, and building in safeguards for MPA’sinteractive learning and empowering characteristics.The very first applications fielded were for projectevaluations. Now applications have also developedand are being used for project preparation, planningand monitoring. Additionally, applications havebeen developed for the facilitation of policyformulation/improvement and institutional changeprocesses.Expanding the application of the MPA analyticalframework to other sectors that work withcommunity-managed services, by developing sectorspecificindicators for sustainability and effectiveuse. Potential areas that have been identified orpartially explored to date include rural energy,watershed development and management, multisectorCDD type projects.Establishing quality assurance mechanisms for aglobal community of practice that is evolving. MPApractitioners need periodic opportunities to meet,take stock of their learning, subject newdevelopments to independent audits for validity,reliability and quality, and agree on some “coreuncompromisable quality and ethical principles”to guide their work. This is a vital requirement foran open-ended methodology that has highpotential for growth and institutionalization suchas the MPA. Unfortunately, funding for suchactivities is more difficult to access than for projectapplications.This resource guide consolidates the current knowledgeabout MPA in the form that it has now evolved,incorporating learning from all the above areas, sinceyear 1999.Section 1(Methodology for Participatory Assessments)consists of 6 chapters. The first chapter (The Challengeof Sustained Water Supply and Sanitation for All)establishes the rationale for new ways of measuringdevelopment effectiveness, since the global goals arenow defined with respect to sustainability, povertyalleviation, gender equity and empowerment.Chapter 2 (A New Tool for Planners and Managers ofLarge Community-Driven Development Programs)identifies who can use the MPA to accomplish what, andexplains what new advantages it adds for projectplanners and managers.Chapter 3 (The MPA Framework and Process) explainsthe analytical framework of the MPA, the variables andindicators to measure at each stakeholder’s level, andthe relationships among them.Chapter 4 (The MPA in Action) is a process guide forimplementing assessments with stakeholders at variouslevels.Chapter 5 (Organizing and Interpreting the Data)describes, with practical examples, a range of ways inwhich results of MPA assessments can be organized,presented and analyzed by participating communities,implementing agencies and policymakers.Chapter 6 (Participatory Tools Used in the MPA) containsbrief, illustrated descriptions of the participatory toolsused in MPA assessments at each level. This chapterhowever, is intended as explanatory and referencematerial, rather than a step-by-step guide. The lattercan be found in the MPA fieldbook, provided duringtraining.Section 2 (MPA Application Case Studies) is acompilation of seven case studies of MPA applicationsfor the purposes of: project planning, evaluation,monitoring and design; action research exploring linksbetween policies, project rules and community levelproject outcomes; and an illustration of the MPA’spotential as a catalyser of social change withincommunities.The Appendices include a sample of a policy assessmentexercise using MPA tools and contact information aboutinstitutions where MPA-trained facilitators and trainerscan be found in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America.v

AcknowledgementsThe Participatory Learning and ActionInitiative (PLAI: 1998-2000) broughttogether a global core group* ofindividuals and agencies into a partnership, whichcontinues to work together for mainstreaminggender, and poverty concerns in water supply andsanitation.This resource guide on the Methodology forParticipatory Assessment (MPA) is a product of thatpartnership between the Water and SanitationProgram and the IRC International Water andSanitation Centre. The Initiative, funded by thegovernments of Canada, The Netherlands,Norway, Sweden and the Africa region of theUNDP, concluded in early 2000 with thedevelopment of the gender-poverty-mainstreamingmethodology, its validation through a global studyin 15 countries, and the production of trainingmaterials and country reports.Thereafter MPA has steadily gained popularity withsector stakeholders as country governments,external support agencies, national NGOs andtraining institutions in Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica have discovered its potential and investedin building capacities for its use. They have fundedthe development of MPA applications tailored totheir country contexts, languages and learningneeds, allowing the global WSP-IRC core team tofurther refine the methodology and integrate itwith institutional and policy reform efforts in agrowing number of countries. This resource guidedraws upon the learning gained in the post-PLAIperiod, by and with government and NGO partneragencies in Indonesia, Lao PDR, Cambodia,Vietnam, The Philippines, Peru, Bolivia, India,Nepal, Benin, Tanzania and Uganda. Externalfunding for these MPA applications came fromthe governments of Australia, Canada, Denmark,Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden, The Netherlandsand the United Kingdom.This book draws substantially upon its predecessor,the MPA Metguide published in 2000 and coauthoredby the present editors with Rekha Dayal.However, it is not merely a new edition of theMetguide. It is a synthesis of learning gainedthrough field applications by MPA practitionersacross the world, all of whom have contributed toits evolution to the current state as described inSection 1 of this book. Several of them have also* Global steering group of PLAI: Bruce Gross, Christine van Wijk, Rekha Dayal, Nilanjana Mukherjee, RoseLidonde, Noma Musabayane, Suzanne Reiff, Jennifer Francis, Shalini Sinha. A.J. James joined the group in 1999.vi

penned case studies of MPA applications forSection 2, namely, Bruce Gross, Suzanne Reiff,Nina Shatifan, Soutsakhone Chanthaphone,Santanu Lahiri and Richard Hopkins.We deeply appreciate the support of themanagements of the Water and SanitationProgram (WSP) and IRC. Specifically, we wouldlike to express our thanks to Jamal Saghir, Director,Energy and Water Department, the World Bank;Walter Stottmann, Manager, WSP andParameswaran Iyer, Senior WSS Specialist, WSP,for having faith that this product will be of valueto sector professionals and therefore providingfunds for its preparation. Our grateful thanks aredue to Caroline van den Berg and Richard Pollard,the past and present Regional Team Leaders ofWSP-East Asia (where most of the drafting andediting was done), for their keen interest, valuableadvice and demand for rigor. Funds received fromthe World Bank for printing the book are gratefullyacknowledged.Within IRC, Jennifer Francis and Maria Lucia Borbawere co-developers from the first hour onwards,later joined by Leonie Postma, Francois Brikke,Corine Otte and Michelle Moffat in NEWAH. JanTeun Visscher, Director IRC and Eveline Bolt, Headof Research, ensured that the work was includedin IRC’s long-term program. Special thanks alsogo to Mariela Garcia Vargas in CINARA, whosecritical review was the basis for continued operationand documentation.The MPA flag-bearers who have led countryspecificoperationalization from within WSP areRose Lidonde and Suzanne Reiff in WSP - Africaand Indrawati Josodipoero, SisavanhPhanouvong and Hoa Hoang Thi in WSP - EastAsia and the Pacific. Bruce Gross, former PLAInitiative team leader, has contributed greatlythrough deepening his hands-on involvementwith MPA in East Asia following his retirementfrom the World Bank. Peter Feldman (Partnersfor Development) and Bouy Kim Sreang haveopened up MPA chapters with sector partners inCambodia.We owe much to our peer reviewers MichaelBamberger (retired Senior Sociologist, Genderand Development Group, World Bank), JosetteMurphy Malley (ex- Senior Evaluation Specialist,ARD, World Bank) and Wendy Wakeman(Senior Community Development Specialist,PRMGE, World Bank). Their incisive comments,valuable criticism, detailed scrutiny andthought-provoking questions helped usimmensely in bringing greater clarity andbalance to our work.All the photographs used in the book excepttwo were contributed by MPA practitioners andenthusiasts including Bruce Gross, LeoniePostma, Ratna Indrawati Josodipoero, DeviAriandy Setiawan, Kumala Sari, ThomasMeadley, Nina Shatifan, Suzanne Reiff, AndrewWhillas, SAWAC (NGO in Cambodia), CINARA(Columbia), NEWAH (Nepal) and the editors ofthis book.Finally, and most importantly, we acknowledgewith the deepest gratitude the time, energy,enthusiasm and resources contributed bythousands of women and men in poor rural andurban communities participating in MPAassessments worldwide, who are sharing their life’sexperiences and views with MPA practitioners, thusproviding a wealth of learning for implementingagencies, policy and decision makers and fundingagencies. We sincerely hope that they themselvesare deriving adequately worthwhile returns fromthe process, both in the short and the long run.Nilanjana MukherjeeChristine van Wijkvii

viii

ContentsForeword ................................................................................................................................... iiiPreface ........................................................................................................................................ ivAcknowledgements...................................................................................................................... viSection 1: METHODOLOGY FOR PARTICIPATORY ASSESSMENT1. The Challenge of Sustained Water Supply and Sanitation for All .. 11.1 Defining sustainability and equity .................................................................................. 2Five dimensions of sustainability .................................................................................... 21.2 Route to sustainability and equity ................................................................................... 4How do we know we are getting there? .......................................................................... 4What methods work best? ............................................................................................. 4Why participatory methods and tools are useful for working with the community’swomen and men ........................................................................................................... 6Why managers of large programs are wary of using participatory methods ..................... 61.3 There is a middle path: MPA offers the best of both worlds ............................................. 72. A New Tool for Planners and Managers of LargeCommunity-Driven Development (CDD) Programs ........................... 92.1 Who can use the MPA, for what? ................................................................................... 92.2 Uses of the MPA to date ................................................................................................ 92.3 What is new about the MPA? ....................................................................................... 112.3.1 Quantification of qualitative data ...................................................................... 112.3.2 Combining sustainability assessment with gender and social equity analysis ...... 132.3.3 Addressing gender and social equity in a sector-specific way.............................. 152.3.4 Empowerment through self-assessment and action............................................. 162.4 What do MPA assessments cost? .................................................................................. 173. The MPA Framework and Process .................................................. 183.1 MPA framework for analysis: linking outcomes with processes ....................................... 183.2 Types of systems to assess ............................................................................................ 203.3 Sustainability indicators ............................................................................................... 213.4 Other factors to explain differences .............................................................................. 233.5 Demand, demand-responsive approach and participation ........................................... 233.6 Three-step participatory assessments ............................................................................ 264. The MPA in Action ........................................................................... 284.1 Establishment of purpose and partnerships .................................................................. 284.2 Selecting the assessment teams .................................................................................... 304.3 Training preparation ................................................................................................... 324.4 Training implementation .............................................................................................. 324.5 Selecting the communities ............................................................................................ 344.6 Sampling procedures................................................................................................... 354.7 Preparation for fieldwork ............................................................................................. 364.8 Implementation: procedures, fieldbook and data templates .......................................... 37Community level assessments ...................................................................................... 37Getting representative focus groups ............................................................................. 40Institutional assessments: stakeholders and policy meetings .......................................... 41

4.9 Visualization and self-scoring ...................................................................................... 41Scoring principles in the MPA ...................................................................................... 43The MPA fieldbook and data template ......................................................................... 444.10 Quality control ............................................................................................................45Experiences with the use of the MPA in general give rise to a number of cautionsand insights: ............................................................................................................... 47How managers can prevent problems and protect quality ............................................. 475. Organizing and Interpreting the Data .......................................... 495.1 Analysis of outcomes per tool ...................................................................................... 495.2 Analysis of relative performance ................................................................................... 50By factor ..................................................................................................................... 50Benchmarking for sustainability ................................................................................... 50By aggregation ........................................................................................................... 505.3 Strengths and weaknesses analysis .............................................................................. 535.4 Comparison with other communities ............................................................................ 545.5 Analyzing community level results with agencies ........................................................... 555.6 Analyzing agency factors influencing results on the ground: stakeholders’ meetings ...... 575.7 Policy analysis ............................................................................................................. 585.8 Statistical analysis ........................................................................................................ 596. Participatory Tools Used in the MPA .............................................. 626.1 Ensuring quality and validity ........................................................................................ 626.2 Welfare classification ................................................................................................... 646.3 Community map ......................................................................................................... 666.4 Transect walk with rating scales.................................................................................... 706.5 Pocket voting ............................................................................................................... 726.6 Ladders (1) ..................................................................................................................756.7 Card sorting ............................................................................................................... 776.8 Ladders (2) ..................................................................................................................796.9 Matrix voting ............................................................................................................... 816.10 Hundred seeds ............................................................................................................ 846.11 Stakeholders’ meeting ................................................................................................. 866.12 Policy level assessment ................................................................................................. 90Section 2: MPA APPLICATION CASE STUDIESDo Project Rules Promote Bruce Gross 95Sustainability and Equity?An ex post facto assessment in 40 communitiesserved by five past projects in Indonesia.From Theory to Practice Suzanne Reiff 104A study of rural water supply and sanitationstrategy implementation: PADEAR in Benin.Evaluating the effectiveness of gender- andpoverty-targeting in project strategies to improvefinal impact of ongoing and forthcoming projects.Adding Accountability for Nilanjana Mukherjee 111Gender and Social Inclusionand Nina ShatifanLearning from the process of institutionalizinggender- and poverty-sensitivity in large scaleCommunity-Driven Development (CDD) projectsin Indonesia.

Looking Back to See Forward Soutsakhone Chanthaphone 127Learning from communities about the use and and Santanu Lahirisustainability of RWSS services in Lao PDR.Sector experience assessment for scaling upthe application of national RWSS sector strategy.Effects of the MPA on Gender Christine van Wijk 138Relations in the CommunityCase study from Java, Indonesia, of an MPAexperience changing community views on genderroles and gender relations towards greater equity.Achieving Sustained Sanitation WSP-EAP 141for the PoorParticipatory policy research applications fromIndonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam - lessons from aset of three country reports and a regional synthesis.How Well Did Those Development Richard Hopkins 143Projects in Flores Work?Evaluating development effectivenes of past aidprojects and drawing policy lessons, Flores,Indonesia.Appendix AInstitutions that currently have MPA-trained facilitators .............................................................. 149Appendix BProcess designed for PLA policy assessment workshop (Indonesia, September 1999) .................. 151References ...................................................................................................................... 155List of FiguresFigure 1 Key aspects of sustainability of WSS Services .............................................................. 3Figure 2 The process of an increasingly specific focus ............................................................ 16Figure 3 Analytical framework of the MPA ............................................................................. 19Figure 4 Experiential learning cycle ....................................................................................... 26Figure 5 Flow diagram of MPA assessment at community level ............................................... 38Figure 6Example of maximum and actual aggregated community score foreffective financing in one community........................................................................ 53Figure 7 Strengths and weaknesses in sustaining domestic water supply in community “X” ...... 54Figure 8 Comparison of scores for four sustainability components across 40 communities ...... 55Figure 9 Results of policy assessment: example from country “X” ............................................ 59Figure 10 How effectively are water supply services sustained by the communities? ................... 97Figure 11 How effectively are water services managed? ............................................................ 97Figure 12 How effectively are water services financed? .............................................................. 98Figure 13 Who was involved in making decisions about the project? ....................................... 99Figure 14 Who has access to improved sanitation? ............................................................... 100Figure 15 Importance of benefits to poor and rich women and men ...................................... 103Figure 16 Who had voice and choice in WSS project implementation, as perceived bywomen and men in the community........................................................................ 106Figure 17 Gender equity in cost-sharing for water services ..................................................... 108

Figure 18 KDP 2 activity cycle with proposed inserts for gender-poverty mainstreaming ........... 116Figure 19 Location Map of LAO PDR ..................................................................................... 127Figure 20 Annual RWSS cycle ................................................................................................ 128Figure 21 How effectively are water services sustained? .......................................................... 131Figure 22 Overall sustainability of water supply in thirty-eight villages .................................... 131Figure 23 Benefits of household latrines - as perceived by users’ groups in 37 communities ... 132Figure 24 System quality ....................................................................................................... 133Figure 25 Effective financing .................................................................................................. 133Figure 26 Effective management ............................................................................................ 133Figure 27 Correlations between project approaches and sustainability and use of serviceson the ground ...................................................................................................... 147List of BoxesBox 1 Cost comparisons for methods .................................................................................. 7Box 2 What comprises the MPA? ......................................................................................... 8Box 3 Uses of the MPA...................................................................................................... 10Box 4 Participatory, rapid... what’s the difference? ............................................................. 10Box 5 The MPA built on two existing methodologies........................................................... 12Box 6 Main findings from the use of the MPA in a global evaluation in 1998/99 ............... 12Box 7 Social equity analysis in the MPA ............................................................................. 13Box 8 Gender analysis in the MPA .................................................................................... 14Box 9 Some key questions answered by the MPA ............................................................... 21Box 10 MPA indicators for community water supplies ........................................................... 22Box 11 MPA Indicators for community-managed sanitation .................................................. 24Box 12 The assessment team .............................................................................................. 31Box 13Not everyone has the personal attitudes to work with participatory methodsand practice equity .................................................................................................. 30Box 14 The MPA is a process-oriented methodology ............................................................ 32Box 15 Key elements of MPA training .................................................................................. 33Box 16 Possible factors for consideration in decisions on type of sampling ........................... 35Box 17 Indicative sequence of work with a community ......................................................... 39Box 18 The advantages of self-scoring ................................................................................ 42Box 19Scoring scale or “ladder” for community level assessment of genderequity in service management ................................................................................. 42Box 20 Quality enhances validity......................................................................................... 46Box 21 Analysis leading to correction .................................................................................. 50Box 22 Gender and poverty analysis of activities profile ....................................................... 51Box 23 Two examples of MPA scales benchmarked for sustainability ..................................... 52Box 24 Policy analysis builds consensus for needed change ................................................. 92Box 25 What is associated with low or high sustainability? ................................................ 136Box 26 Project “rule” discouraging hygiene? ...................................................................... 145List of TablesTable 1 Social inclusion and empowerment tools introduced in KDP 2 ................................ 115Table 2 WSLIC 2: Poverty and gender mainstreaming in the community planningprocess through MPA and PHAST .......................................................................... 121Table 3 Performance monitoring and evaluation indicators for project developmentobjectives .............................................................................................................. 124

Section 1The Methodology forParticipatory Assessment

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALL1The Challenge of Sustained WaterSupply and Sanitationfor All●●●Do they work?Are they sustained?Do they benefit everyone, including the poorin the community?These are the questions by which theeffectiveness of infrastructure servicesfunded by development assistance is nowbeing judged. As we enter the new millennium,persistently high levels of poverty exacerbated byconflict, environmental and economic crises areushering in a climate that demands greateraccountability for results from developmentinvestments. It is no longer sufficient to defineresults in terms of creation of a targeted numberof infrastructure facilities. Outcomes now must alsoprove to be sustainable as well as equitable, i.e.,serving all sections of society fairly, including thepoor and the less powerful.Global sector experience and research has nowestablished that services are better sustained whenservice delivery is done using approaches that seekto understand and respond to the demands ofpotential users of the service. 1 While this statementis broadly true, it represents an oversimplified viewof reality. To understand what really decidesultimate sustainability begs a deeper examinationof the question “whose demand?”1 Katz, Travis and Sara, Jennifer. Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Recommendations from a globalstudy. UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 1997.1

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALLIn many community water and sanitationprograms, it is common to find a substantialnumber of facilities out of order or functioningbelow expectations at any given time. It alsohappens frequently that a considerable numberof people do not use the facilities either always orduring part of the year. Often, they are reluctantto support the new provisions that do notsufficiently meet their demands.There are also communities in which thehouseholds that benefit from the better facilitiesuse and sustain them well. However, these facilitiesserve only a portion of all households. Often, thehouseholds that are excluded from basic servicesbelong to the poorest groups with the worst livingconditions. Public health benefits will not berealized in such cases, since achieving them wouldrequire a critical mass of use by all or almost allhouseholds (Esrey, 1994).Well-sustained and used water supplies andsanitation facilities mean that, for a period thatcovers the design life of the technologies used toprovide services, each member of all householdsin the project area has a regular and dependabledelivery of water - acceptable in terms of qualityand quantity, and practices safe disposal of waste365 days per year. Better sustained services (interms of those standards) were found to besignificantly positively associated with gender andsocial equity in expressing demand for andmanaging services, in a recent study of 88community-managed water supply systems in 15countries. 2As a development goal and issue, therefore,sustainability is closely linked to social equity.1.1 Defining sustainabilityand equityTo be meaningful, sustainability and equity needto be operationally defined for each developmentsector. Water and sanitation sector professionalshave reached some consensus by the late 1990sthat the following definitions offer a meaningfulstarting point for progress towards achieving thetwin goals 3 (see Figure 1).Five dimensions of sustainabilitySustainability of water supplies and sanitationhas many dimensions. The following discussionlooks at five different but interrelated dimensionsof sustainability, all with specific equityperspectives.●Technical sustainability. This refers to the reliableand correct functioning of the technology and,for water supplies, the delivery of enough waterof an acceptable quality. Equity aspects relateto the technology meeting the demands of alluser groups. Requirements for technicalsustainability include: a technically good design,which is adhered to in construction andoperation, and first-rate workmanship andmaterials.2 Greater equity between women and men and between households that are economically better and poor, insharing planning decisions, management and upkeep of community water systems, was positively andsignificantly correlated with better sustained services. (Gross, B., van Wijk, C. and Mukherjee, N., 2001).3 Improving Sustainability in RWSS Projects. Report of the South and East Asia regional water sanitationconference, Chiang Mai. 1998. Water and Sanitation Program – South Asia.Towards Sustainability with Equity. Report of the East Asia regional water and sanitation conference. ChiangMai, March 2001. Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific.2

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALL●Financial sustainability. Systems can only●Social sustainability. Users will only sustainfunction if financial resources meet at least theservices that satisfy their expectations. Thiscosts of operation, maintenance, and commonmeans services which they can easily access,repairs. Equity elements relate to who pays forthat are in accordance with their socio-culturalall this and how fairly payments are sharedpreferences and practices, and services thatbetween and within households.they consider worth the cost they incur to obtainthem. Equity aspects include looking at howInstitutional sustainability. To keep systemsoperational, accessible and widely used,fairly the burdens and benefits from the servicesare shared across different socio-economic,communities need institutions. Institutions havegender, and ethnic or caste groups.cultural characteristics, agreed and valuedprocedures and rules for operation, and varying●Environmental sustainability. Water resourcescapacities for management and accountability.face multiple threats. Overextraction andEquity considerations require looking at thecontamination of water sources from irrigation,extent of voice of all the user groups, especiallyindustrialization and waste disposal threatenthe poor and the women, in organizationsreliable and safe drinking water supplies.that manage and control the services.Water supplies and sanitation facilitiesFigure 1 Key aspects of sustainability of WSS servicesSocialTechnicalFinancialEnvironmentalInstitutionalSUSTAINABILITY = Continuous, satisfactory functioning and effective use of WSS services.(Effective use = use by the majority in a health-promoting and environmentally soundmanner).EQUITY = Everyone (e.g., women and men, rich and poor, social minorities, and majority groups)has equal voice and choice in decision making, equal access to information/externalinputs/benefits from projects, and shares burdens and resposibilities fairly.3

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALLthemselves threaten the environment throughthe unsafe disposal of wastewater and humanand solid waste. In dry areas, lack of drainageof wastewater has created new risks of insectbreeding that have brought outbreaks ofmalaria, dengue, and filariasis.Equity aspects include fair sharing ofresponsibility among users for the protectionof their environment and water resources.1.2 Route to sustainabilityand equityHow do we know we are gettingthere?There is not much point in finding out only at theend of a project whether or not it achievedsustainable and equitable outcomes. Effectivewater and sanitation interventions must have aplan for sustainability and equity built into theirdesigns, and begin using some means of verifyingthe progress being achieved once implementationgets under way.Measuring sustainability before it has actuallyresulted can only be hypothetical. However, giventhe evidence from global research about thepositive links between sustainability, demand andequity, process indicators for equity within demandresponsiveapproaches can serve as the indicatorsof progress towards sustainability.Planning for sustainability in projects can thentake the following forms:a. designing gender- and poverty-sensitivedemand-responsive processes for workingtowards the five dimensions of sustainability(Figure 1); andb. putting in place indicators and tools to trackthe quality of those processes.The institutionalization and scaling up of demandresponsiveapproaches for sustainability wouldlikewise call for:a. explicitly recognizing sustainability and equityas the twin goals of sector policies.b. recognizing gender- and poverty-sensitivedemand-responsive operations as essentialbest practices in institutions providingcommunity water supply and sanitationservices.c. establishing institutional accountability forgender- and poverty-sensitive demandresponsiveoperations.What methods work best?In the 1980s, it became clear that central projectagencies are not equipped to manage largenumbers of decentralized water supply andsanitation systems. Many experiences showed thatwith appropriate service delivery approaches, 4local community organizations can more effectivelyand efficiently manage local water supply andsanitation.This insight has had far-reaching implications forthe planning and establishment of improved waterand sanitation technologies. It has also greatlyaffected the development and use of localoperation, maintenance, management and4 The above refers to a departure from the top-down, externally funded and planned, target-driven, supplyorientedapproaches of the past, toward approaches that begin by offering service options to communities anddeliver services based on what the users want and are willing to pay for, i.e., demand-responsive or communitydemand-driven approaches.4

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALLfinancing systems. If local women and men andtheir organizations are themselves sustaining andmanaging improved water supply and sanitationprojects, they can no longer be treated as mererecipients of government designed and builttechnologies based on the decisions of outsiders.of participatory methods and tools. Only then is itpossible for all parties involved to share theirknowledge and experiences, learn from each otherand make the best use of the pooled knowledgein planning new water supply and sanitationsystems or improve existing ones.Instead, the community’s women and men becomethe local planners and managers and the externalproject agencies become their facilitators. In thisnew set-up, the future users have the freedom andthe responsibility to make their own well-reasoneddecisions and management arrangements. Theyalso have the right to receive the information andsupport that they need from the projectimplementing agencies to plan, implement andrun their services in an effective and efficientmanner.This does not mean that the implementing agencieshave a less important role. On the contrary, theirrole is now even more crucial. Agency managersand staff must develop processes of consultationand support. They must also help local womenand men develop the additional capacities neededto plan, implement, and manage their communitywater supplies and their sanitation projects.In their turn, the agency staff learn from thecommunity members what may be the best fittingsolutions in the given socio-cultural, economic,institutional, environmental, and technicalcircumstances. They also get useful insights fromlocal users and managers as to whether and whycertain approaches and choices have, or have not,worked.In decentralized systems, because local womenand men would operate, manage, and sustainthe improved services, planning requires the useThe principles of participatory learning and actionapply to all stages of a project cycle:●●●When planning new services, they facilitatebetter decision making, based on experienceswith existing water supply and sanitationconditions.During operations, they help monitor, andwhere necessary improve, the installed waterand sanitation systems and projectmanagement approaches.While evaluating completed projects orprograms, they make it possible to assessimpacts of investments and make moreeffective decisions about new investments andstrategies.A range of methods and tools is available forparticipatory learning and action. PROWWESS, theproject for the Promotion of the Role of Women inWater and Environmental Sanitation Servicessupported by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) and the World Bank, hasdeveloped tools for participatory planning,monitoring and evaluation of community waterand sanitation facilities (Srinivasan, 1990).More recently, they were supplemented byParticipatory Hygiene and SanitationTransformation (PHAST), a toolkit specially gearedto community planning and monitoring ofPlanning and monitoring for sustainability calls for indicators and tools to track gender andsocial equity in the way projects assess and elicit users’ demands and respond to them.5

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALLImproving community-managed services requires participatory methods because such methods buildlocal capacities of both user communities and project agencies, and facilitate partnerships betweenthem for enhancing the sustainability of services.improved hygiene and sanitation behavior (WHO,1998). There is also a large family of more generalPLA (Participatory Learning and Action) tools (Prettyet al, 1995).Many of these general tools may be used in theassessment of community water supply, sanitation,and hygiene projects. The MPA builds further onthese foundations.Why participatory methods andtools are useful for working with thecommunity’s women and men●●●●●●They enable quick visual representation oflocal conditions and practices, minimizingbiases in expressed information resulting fromspoken language .Any person can participate, irrespective of theirlevels of literacy and education.Participants are free to present their ownknowledge, views and interests on each subject.Larger sections of the population are able toexpress their views. Rich, insightful informationis obtained.For the subordinated, self-expression with toolsis easier than speaking in public. 5The process is not limited or influenced byquestions from outsiders, minimizinginterviewer biases encountered in conventionalsurveys.The public process makes it hard to present●●●and retain faulty information.Systematic overviews act as eye-openers for allregarding previously unnoticed problems.Outcomes are immediately shared, open toanalysis and conclusions by all.People remain owners of the knowledge andcan immediately act upon it.Why managers of large programsare wary of using participatorymethodsDespite the above advantages of participatorymethods, managers of large scale projects oftenprefer social and technical surveys to meet theirinformation needs because:● Information collected with participatory toolsis predominantly qualitative; the type of dataproduced is not suitable for aggregation,statistical analysis and for building up aprogram database over time.● Comparability between and acrosscommunities on results and common factorsis limited as indicators and/or ways ofinvestigation often differ.● Participatory methods typically use smallsamples. Data from a small number ofcommunities does not satisfy all projectmonitoring needs.● Participatory methods have a reputation ofbeing slower and more costly than socialsurveys, 6 although this has never been5 Proper facilitation is nevertheless essential to avoid domination by the more powerful participants.The importance of the quality of the facilitation process is discussed in Chapter 4.6 There is a very wide spectrum of participatory methods ranging from a one-day community visit to ananthropologist living for years in a village - which may have given rise to such perceptions. MPA exercises formonitoring or evaluation generally take 2 – 4 days to complete in a community depending on the scope ofinvestigation (a full sustainability study may not always be required). The actual length of time needed isrelated to the principles of participatory appraisal whereby assessment sessions are only scheduled at theconvenience of community members who are usually available for only 2 – 3 hours a day, mostly in theafternoons or evenings after work.6

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALLBox 1 Cost comparisons for methodsIn Thailand, Collinson (1981) conducted a week-long exploratoryinvestigation on small scale farming, but then felt obliged to follow it upwith a formal verification survey just to produce numbers. This surveyinvariably produced the same information, but took longer, was costlier,and delayed action.A comparative study of participatory and survey methods recently conducted in a UNICEF-supportedsanitation project found that both approaches can yield comparable results but the survey costs 25percent more in terms of money and 500 percent more in terms of person-weeks to carry out.(Walujan, Hopkins and Istandar, 2002).●properly researched. There are someindications that the opposite may be true (seeBox 1).Prevailing perceptions among somemanagers that there may not be anythingworth learning from the views of poor people.1.3 There is a middle path:MPA offers the best ofboth worldsParticipatory and survey methods both haveadvantages and disadvantages from the pointsof views of managers and community members.Social scientists have for many years beensearching for ways to combine the advantagesand limit the disadvantages of the two approaches.The MPA, described in Box 2, has made someadvances in this direction and broken newground. Its main characteristic is that it quantifiesqualitative data through participatory processeswith communities and implementing agencies.The result is that managers and researchersacquire a quantitative database which they cananalyze statistically at the project/program level,while community members and agency staffremain in possession of their own data and acton the basis of their learning, at community andagency levels.7

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALLBox 2 What comprises the MPA?●It is a framework for combining social equity analysis with theanalysis of sustainability of locally managed water supply andsanitation interventions.●It is a set of sector-specific indicators for measuring andmonitoring sustainability and equity in community watersupply and sanitation services and user practices.●It is a sequence of participatory tools to assess the indicators with user communities, projectagencies/institutions and policymakers.●It is a scoring system to quantify data from participatory assessments into tested and validatedordinal and ratio scales, for building a database, doing statistical analysis, making graphicpresentations and benchmarking for sustainability.Communities use the scores and qualitative findings to identify, analyze, and interrelate problems,plan improvements, and initiate new projects.Project staff use the scores to compare between communities and across communities on commonfactors in order to evaluate and improve inputs, methods, and approaches.At the program and international level, the MPA makes it possible to quantify and interrelatequalitative information generated through participatory methods across projects and programsboth within and between countries.8

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALL2A New Tool for Planners andManagers of Large Community-Driven Development (CDD)Programs2.1 Who can use the MPA, forwhat?The MPA is an innovative methodology forplanning, monitoring and evaluationdesigned to enhance, and account for, thesustainability and effectiveness of water supply andsanitation project interventions by integratingparticipatory field studies with quantitative programanalysis.The methodology allows all stakeholders - fromilliterate women and men in communities toprogram managers and investors to:● use one instrument to assess strengths andweaknesses in water supply and sanitationprojects,● assess the social equity situation along withfactors for sustainability and effective use,● plan and monitor for more sustainable andequitable outcomes in development projects.2.2 Uses of the MPA to dateThe MPA, or selected parts of it, have so far beenused for the following purposes.● As a tool to plan new projects based on theparticipatory and comparative evaluation ofexisting facilities and approaches (Indonesia,Cambodia).● Comparative evaluation of community level●●●MPA allows participatory assessment datato be quantified by stakeholders at all levelsimpact of one or more projects and theirapproaches in the same country for nationalpolicy improvement (Indonesia, Lao PDR,Nepal, Benin, Cambodia).As part of monitoring and impact assessmentin two rural water supply projects and aproject to develop sustainable watershedmanagement practices (India).To link water and sanitation services withhygiene promotion (Lao PDR).Participatory assessment of sanitation9

A NEW TOOL FOR A PLANNERS NEW TOOL AND FOR MANAGERS PLANNERS OF AND LARGE MANAGERS CDD PROGRAMS OF LARGE CDD PROGRAMSBox 3 Uses of the MPAWho can use the MPA?What MPA enables them to doCommunity members ● Assess and monitor the sustainability of their services.(users of services) ● Assess and monitor how equitably the benefits and burdens from services are sharedwithin the community.Community organizations ● Identify feasible community level actions to make their services more sustainable andmanaging community services equitable at planning and monitoring stages.●●●Assist communities to plan for sustainable and equitable project outcomes.Monitor sustainability and equity of project interventions and factors influencing themin project communities.Compare sustainability and equity situations in communities across districts, provinces,projects, and time, i.e., through project phases (see Benin case study, Section 2).Project implementing agencies ● Identify cases for in-depth study (see Java case study, Section 2).●●Identify patterns and trends in progress towards sustainability and equity in projects,and institutional factors associated with high or low sustainability/equity situations(see Box 6).Take institutional level actions to promote sustainability and equity in project outcomes.Task/project managersPolicymakers(see Section 2, Indonesia case study of application to two large scale project designs).All of the above, plus:●●Periodically obtain and statistically analyze data on sustainability and equity (povertytargeting,gender equality) of project interventions, community demand and projectresponsiveness to demand, quality and quantity of community participation andempowerment.Institutionalize the monitoring of all the above aspects in project agencies at sub-nationaland national levels.Analysis of all of the above aspects across communities, geographic areas, projects, and overtime - to draw lessons for scaling up and for policy actions needed to promote sustainabilityand equity goals (see Lao PDR case study, Section 2).Box 4 Participatory, rapid... what’s the difference?Other participatory methods MPA●●●●●●●●Often case-specificData are not comparableAggregation in the mindDuration variesMostly qualitative informationNo statistical analysisScaling up is difficultSampling procedures not essential●●●●●●●●Same analysis with allData are comparableAggregation in practiceDuration fixedQualitative quantifiedStatistical analysis possibleDesigned for large programsRequires sampling criteria and procedures toensure representativeness10

A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGERS OF LARGE CDD PROGRAMS●●●●promotion policies and strategies (Indonesia,Cambodia, Vietnam).Stakeholder assessment of poverty-sensitivityand gender dimensions of national sectorpolicy and strategies (Peru, Bolivia, Indonesia,Cambodia).Participatory stakeholder assessments ofbenefits reaching the urban poor through pastwater supply and sanitation interventions andservices currently being provided by urbanutilities (ongoing in Vietnam).Sustainability assessment of urban sanitationservices and water supply models for smalltowns, to draw lessons for sector policyimprovement (The Philippines).To improve policymaking and programplanning by adding to the knowledge onlinkages between demand-responsive andgender- and-poverty-sensitive approaches andsustainability (15 country study).The use of the MPA has led to the improvement oftraining on budgeting and financial management(DANIDA-supported project in Ghana), greatergender balance in community management inKerala, India, Cameroon and Indonesia, andmore equitable water distribution in an integratedwater management project (also in Kerala, India).2.3 What is new about theMPA ?The MPA is not just a new acronym for yet anotherset of participatory tools. It is a methodologyconsisting of systematically sequenced investigationfocusing on specific community groups and isdesigned to obtain and analyze quantitative andqualitative information on community-managedservices. Box 4 gives the differences between theMPA and other participatory learning methodssuch as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) andParticipatory Learning and Action (PLA).2.3.1 Quantification of qualitativedataBecause no methodology existed that usedparticipatory tools and also provided largeprograms with easily comparable data, the Waterand Sanitation Program (WSP) and the IRCInternational Water and Sanitation Centredeveloped the MPA. In this endeavor, the teambuilt on two existing methodologies: the MinimumEvaluation Procedures (MEP) developed by theLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine(WHO, 1983) and the participatory evaluation toolsand indicators which Deepa Narayan developedfor the Water and Sanitation Program in 1993building further on Lyra Srinivasan’s work on theSARAR 7 methodology (PROWWESS/UNDP, 1990).Their characteristics are compared in Box 5.The MPA combines the advantages of these twoprevious methodologies and adds quantification.It was developed in 1997-98 by a team from theWSP and the IRC.The MPA quantifies participatory assessment dataand allows statistical analysis at the program level.The MPA was validated in a global study in 1998and 1999 that covered 88 community-managedwater supplies from 18 projects in 15 countries.The study was implemented by local teams fromuniversities, the private sector, national and localNGOs, and the project agencies. WSP’s regionaloffices in South-Asia, East Asia and Pacific, andEast and Southern Africa, and IRC with its partnersPAID and CINARA in West Africa and LatinAmerica, provided training and support.7 SARAR stands for Self-esteem, Associative strengths, Resourcefulness, Action planning, Responsibility.Tools for Community Participation. Srinivasan, Lyra. (1990) PROWWESS/UNDP.11

A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGERS OF LARGE CDD PROGRAMSBox 5 The MPA built on two existing methodologiesMethodology Advantages LimitationsMinimumEvaluationProcedures(WHO, 1983)●●Uses the same standard procedurefor every location and technology.Covers technical and behavioralfactors.● Has few indicators (17).●Has been widely used.●●●●●Implementers are outsiders only.No participatory methods and tools.No process indicators included.No gender perspective included.No poverty perspective included,except for latrine ownership.SARAR andParticipatoryEvaluation:Tools forManagingChange inWater andSanitation(Narayan, 1993)●●●Implementers are a multi-disciplinaryteam of outsiders and local womenand men for inner/outer perspectives.Uses participatory methods andtools.Includes process and institutionalfactors at community and agencylevel.●●●Tailor-made designs withcommunities; no generalprocedure for comparability.Many indicators (over 130) if allaspects are assessed.No systematic gender and povertyperspectives.** Later applications of Narayan’s participatory evaluation tools have had a stronger gender focus in the “Voices ofthe Poor“ studies (World Bank, 2001).Box 6 Main findings from the use of the MPA in a global evaluation in 1998/99● Communities with projects that were more demand-responsive had also better sustained watersupplies.● Communities with more empowering kinds of participation in service establishment (i.e., withsome rights, control of decisions, and capacity building for local management) had bettersustained services.● Household contributions to construction were significantly associated with better sustained watersupply services only when such contributions were combined with empowering kinds of participation.● Having a local water management organization with both women and men members correlatedwith greater access for all, especially when there were more poor people among committeemembers.● Poor women felt that they had more influence on the water service when the representation ofwomen and poor people in water management committees was higher.● The more democratic and gender sensitive the planning of the technology/service levels andmaintenance system (i.e., with women and men representatives from poor and wealthierhouseholds), the higher was the recovery of service operation costs, through user fees.● Cost recovery was better with more community control and accountability.● Projects with more demand-responsive policies were more demand-responsive in practice.Gross, van Wijk and Mukherjee, 200112

A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGERS OF LARGE CDD PROGRAMS2.3.2 Combining sustainabilityassessment with gender andsocial equity analysisthus of great relevance for projects, communities,families and individual women and men, girlsand boys.Studies have shown that gender and social equityapproaches optimize results and impacts of watersupply and sanitation improvements. Suchapproaches may also improve the relativepositions of women and poor people (Fong etal., 1996, van Wijk, 1998, Woroniuk, 1994). Theoutcomes of the global study summarized abovesupport these conclusions with quantitativeevidence. A gender and social equity analysis isHowever, gender and social equity are two of themany issues that managers of water and sanitationprograms have to address. Particularly in largeinfrastructure projects, managers must realize awide span and variety of objectives within limitedtime frames, with fixed resources and regularfunding flows. The objectives may range fromachieving efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability,people’s participation, decentralization andBox 7 Social equity analysis in the MPALevel Issue Indicators Tools/Techniques(see Chapter 6)Community (Micro) levelAgency (Meso)levelPolicy (Macro)levelAccess for The number and distribution of facilities over Social map, transact walk,disadvantaged the settlement by social class; characteristics of focus group discussion, opencommunity groups unserved areas; characteristics of non-users; interview, welfarereasons for non-use.classification.Equity and Contributions to investments in kind and/or cash Card sorting, interviews withdemand from better- and less well-off; type of tariffs; members of water commitpaymentadjustments for the poor; payment tees, review of paymenthistory.records, welfare classification.Meeting demands Satisfaction of demands in relation to perceived Focus group meeting, cardcosts of contributions according to the poor and sorting and ranking, welfarethe non-poor.classification and ladders.Decision making Representation of the poor in management Social map, interviews withand control organizations; participation of the poor in water committees, matrixplanning decisions; representation of the poor voting with focus groups,in training and paid jobs, as compared to the welfare classification.non-poor.Institutional policy, Presence of objectives of access and affordability Open discussion, card sortingstrategies, and staff for all in agency water policies; agency strategy and various voting techniquescharacteristics regarding participation of the poor; staff and tools during stakeholdersexpertise and training includes poverty aspects meetings.which are practiced in the field; management isaware of and supports poverty sensitiveapproaches.Sector policy Presence of objectives of access and affordability Analysis of policy documents,for all in water sector policy; differential pricing semi-structured interviews withpolicy which protects the poor; gender policy card selection and scalealso aims at closing gap between rich and poor scoring or participatory policy(women and men).analysis workshop.13

A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGERS OF LARGE CDD PROGRAMSBox 8 Gender analysis in the MPALevel Issue Indicators Tools/techniquesDivision of work Work of women and men in constructing, operating, Card sorting, matrixbetween women maintaining and managing water supply/sanitation voting and scoring,and men facilities and program. Gender-specific knowledge ladders.resulting from gender division of tasks.Community (Micro) levelDomestic and Adequacy of water service for domestic and Rating scales, groupproductive uses of productive uses of water by women and men; discussions, ranking,household water relation with conflicts and gender participation in transact walk.planning and management.Access to and Access to information, training, water, sanitation and Social map, pocketcontrol over high/low status and paid/unpaid jobs for women voting, matrix voting,resources and and men; control over water/water delivery/user group scoring.benefitscontributions/quality of construction. Association withsustainability/use.Community level Decision making by women and men on project Pocket voting, matrixmanagement and initiation and in planning and management. voting, open interviewsdecision making Decision making functions held by women and men; with committeeinfluence of women in management. Associations members.with sustainability/use.Experienced Benefits from the facilities and the project processes Card sorting andbenefits versus by themselves and in relation to costs in time, labor ranking, ladders.experienced costs and cash by women and men; experienced negativeeffects.Agency (Meso)levelPolicy (Macro)levelGender policies Presence of gender in the agency’s implementation Open discussions,and strategies in policy; Nature of gender strategies in implementing mixture of ranking, andimplementation agencies. Associations with results on the ground. scoring techniques.Institutional Gender-desegregated data in planning, monitoring Various voting techniquesarrangements for and reporting; type of staff and awareness of women/ and tools duringimplementation gender issues; cooperation of technical and social stakeholders’ meetings.staff; gender issues and strategies included intraining; management attitudes and support forwomen/gender issues. Associations with results onthe ground.Gender and Presence of women/gender issues in sector policy Analysis of policygender approach and nature of policy (welfare/effectiveness/gender documents,in sector policy equity/gender as part of social equity). Reflection of semi-structuredpolicy in project approaches by implementing interviews or policyagencies as found by agencies and in communities. analisys workshop withcard selections and scales.A combined tool makes it easier for communities, staff, and managers to address equity asintegral to assessing sustainability.14

A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGERS OF LARGE CDD PROGRAMSdevolution of central government authority, to thereduction of gender and poverty inequalities, theprotection of the environment, and the integratedmanagement of water used for different and oftencompeting purposes. In consequence, separategender and social equity investigations are rarelycarried out.The two previous methodologies for analyzing andimproving community water supplies andsanitation (the Minimum Evaluation Proceduresand the Participatory Evaluation Tools) did notsystematically include the analysis of gender andsocial equity aspects. Projects that wished toanalyze such aspects had to therefore use aseparate study by a social researcher withspecialization in gender studies. In practice, thiscame to mean that equity assessments often didnot happen.Equity assessment is more likely to happen whenit can be investigated along with other issues ofmajor interest to the program. Having a combinedset of tools to analyze sustainability and genderand social equity aspects makes it easier forcommunity women and men, project staff andmanagers to analyze and improve these aspectsconcurrently.2.3.3 Addressinggender andsocial equityin a sectorspecificwayThe gender analysis in the MPA builds uponframeworks that were developed by Overholt andothers in 1984 and Moser in 1993. Theseframeworks were a breakthrough in the analysisof gender in development, but they also havesome limitations:● They are not sector specific;● Analysis is usually through case studies byexternal specialists; and● The focus is on gender inequalities withoutaddressing social equity issues.The gender and social analysis frameworksincluded in the MPA are specific for the drinkingwater and sanitation sector, as shown in Boxes 7and 8. They use participatory methods andaddress differences in gender and social welfaredivisions and benefits.The main equity issues that community groupsand program staff and managers may jointlydiscover and use to act upon relate to:MPA training sessions on gender and social equity(see Chapter 4) help future facilitators to identifyand practice measures that make implementationmore equitable for women and the poor. Bringingout gender and poverty aspects in contents andanalysis and bringing together negatively affectedgroups, are first steps in a process of change.Assessing these aspects further serves as a baselinefor action planning and monitoring and providesbenchmarks for measuring progress in programs,as illustrated in the case studies in the secondsection of this book.●whether women and poor people have thesame access to water and participation as menand the wealthier households;15

A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGERS OF LARGE CDD PROGRAMSFigure 2 The process of an increasingly specific focusIn an openmeeting, womenand men identify,with the help ofdrawings of poorand wealthierhouseholds, thecharacteristics oflow, medium andupper classhouseholds in theircommunity.In an openThe facilitators usemeeting, thethe map to plan agroup draws atransect walk to asocial map of thesample of watercommunity. Theyuse their readingsof the three classespoints and meet> > >with groups ofwomen and mento mark the socioeconomiclevel ofthe system toat various points inthe households. In assess the qualitythe map, theyof the service.delineate theThey also meethouseholds withwith women andand withoutmen in theaccess, or withunserved area.poor access to theservice.The facilitators usethe map toorganize separatemeetings withwomen and menfrom poor andwealthier/middleclass households.In these meetings,the groups assesstheir participation,sharing of benefitsand contributions,use of services,and impacts ontheir lives.Practicing gender and poverty sensitiveness is part of training and field procedures.●●●to what extent the demands of each groupare met;how access to water and the benefits andburdens from, and control over, localparticipation and management are dividedbetween the socio-economic groups andbetween women and men;the relationship of these divisions with thesustainability and use of the water supply andimproved sanitation.Other differences on which hierarchies anddiscrimination are based, such as caste, ethnicity,religion, and nationality, may be taken intoaccount locally. Being situation-specific, they havenot been highlighted here.2.3.4 Empowerment through selfassessmentand actionThe MPA differs from many other gender andsocial analysis frameworks in that local womenand men participate in the analysis of equityand sustainability in a gender- and povertysensitive,empowering mode. A systematicprocedure enhances the participation of allstakeholder groups in the process, as illustratedin Figure 2.All of these potential benefits can be realized only if the MPA application is tailored to the projectand the purpose for which it is used, with attention and resources being devoted to qualityassurance mechanisms, as explained in Chapter 4.16

A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGERS OF LARGE CDD PROGRAMS2.4 What do MPAassessments cost?Typically, using the MPA for sustainabilityassessment requires two facilitators that spend aminimum of four to five days in a village, and atleast one day in a stakeholder meeting at districtor province level. This does not include time forplanning, data analysis, and reporting, whichwould vary with the size of the project, objectivesof assessment and therefore, the required sample.Generally, MPA assessments for project design mayrequire a sample of only a few communities whichtogether represent the major design-influencingvariables for a new project, e.g., geo-hydrologicalconditions or relative poverty and diarrhealmorbility rates. Using the MPA for micro-planningcommunity interventions implies assessments inevery project community, and their costs shouldbe built into routine project implementationprocedures. Monitoring and evaluationapplications are likely to use stratified or purposivesampling of 5-10 percent of all projectcommunities at similar points in the project cycle.Following the global assessments, the MPA is nowbeing applied on a larger scale. Budgets preparedfor its application for planning and monitoring ina large scale project in Indonesia suggest thatcosts of the MPA can be comparable to those ofother community-based approaches, when theMPA is integrated in project implementation. TheMPA seems to best fit projects aiming atcommunity-driven development, which typicallyallocate 20-30 percent of total project costs tosoftware investments.More cost-related information can be found inSection 2, in the case studies from Lao PDR andIndonesia - the Flores project evaluation.17

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSThe MPA Framework and Process33.1 MPA framework foranalysis: linkingoutcomes with processesThe MPA tangibly links processes and results.Processes refer to the ways in whichcommunities and project agencies haveestablished the facilities. Results relate to how wellcommunities sustain and use them.A community water service is sustainedwhen its users keep the service going at alevel satisfactory to most users. The serviceis “effectively used” when accessed andused by a substantial majority (a criticalmass of at least 80 percent) in a healthpromotingand environmentally soundmanner, without explicit exclusion ofparticular user groups.Sustaining a sanitation program meanskeeping individual sanitation facilitiesmaintained and effectively used andcontinuing the installation of new ones topreserve coverage.An MPA assessment in Latin AmericanAll assessments - whether to monitor or evaluateexisting water supply and sanitation projects orplan new ones - are based on the analyticalframework that is depicted in Figure 3. Theframework summarizes relationships between the18

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSkey variables. The degree to which a communitysustains community water supply and sanitationfacilities depends upon:●●The degree to which its population - womenand men in better and poor households, and,for sanitation, also the different age groups- have access to and use the facilities.The degree to which the water supply orsanitation facilities meet the demands of the●●●major population categories - women andmen in better and poor households.The ways in which burdens and benefits areshared among these categories.The degree of gender- and poverty-sensitiveuser participation in the establishment andmanagement of the service.The nature of the “enabling institutionalenvironment,” or the agency policies andFigure 3 Analytical framework of the MPAExogenous factorsCommunity and institutional processes attime of establishment of servicesSituation at time ofassessment19

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESS●institutional arrangements and culture withinwhich the water supply and improvedsanitation services have been established.The “enabling policies,” or the nature of thesector policies under which the project orprojects have been carried out.The analytical framework provides an overview ofthe situation and processes at the time ofestablishment of the systems and at the time oftheir assessment.Clusters A and B are assessed with thecommunity’s women and men and their waterand sanitation management organization. Theyrepresent the analysis of the current situation.Clusters C, D, and E are also assessed with thesegroups, but their variables, and their indicatorsand sub-indicators span both current and pastsituations. This is indicated by the dotted line inthe figure.Apart from the analyzed factors, there may alsobe “exogenous factors” that influence therelationships between the clusters. They includethe type and complexity of the technology, age ofthe system, ecological differences (e.g., droughtconditions and availability of alternative sources),local mobility and access to spare parts and otherresources, communications, leadership situationsand gender and poverty conditions specific to thearea. They are captured in the initial CommunityData Sheet and through qualitative data recordedby the assessment team as part of the participatoryanalysis of the different factors. They may becontrolled through sampling if their presence isknown in advance. If not, data may need to begrouped by the factors to analyze their influenceon the results.3.2 Types of systems to assessThe MPA looks at generic qualities. Projects cantherefore use the methodology to assess andcompare between various types of water supplyor sanitation systems irrespective of thetechnologies used or service levels.Subjects of investigation are systems that havebeen in existence for some time. To state with someconfidence that they are sustained and used, theymust have functioned for at least 1-2 years,preferably longer. It is not necessary to have aparticipatory assessment and analysis with allcommunities which have installed new systems. Itis sufficient to carry out the study in a sufficientlylarge randomly selected sample. This is discussedin greater detail in Chapter 4.For representativeness, the sample will preferablyalso include non-functioning systems. Theanalysis of non-functioning systems is animportant source of information about whysystems fail and how to avoid those mistakes.However, conducting MPA assessments incommunities with non-functioning systemsassumes that some means for assistance areavailable for correcting the situation. It would beunethical to ask the community’s women andmen to spend several days of their time inassessing the situation when the underlyingproblems turn out to be beyond their influenceor control and no support can be given.Sometimes such communities may not beinterested in participating in assessments. In suchcases full MPA assessments cannot be conducted,but data should be gathered to avoid gaps inthe database through several other methods lessdependent on group participation involvingThe MPA can help analyze any type of community-managed water and sanitation systemat community, institution, and policy levels.20

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSseveral days of time, e.g., key informantinterviews with project functionaries and willingindividual villagers and technical observationchecklists for water systems. The problem of nonfunctioningsystems cannot be overcome byexcluding them from the sample because doingso would yield assessment results that are positivelybiased and do not represent reality.3.3 Sustainability indicatorsThe variables in clusters A-G, and the indicatorsthrough which they are measured, are presentedin Box 10. In total, a full MPA assesses 15 mainvariables, each with several sub-variables andindicators. Sanitation can be included whenprojects are integrated, or assessed separately.Cluster A:Sustainability is measured by indicators for effectivedesign and construction, system functioning -environmentally, technically and to the satisfactionof users - effective financing and management.Cluster B:Effective use is assessed in terms of access toservices and hygienic and environmentally safeuse by all.Cluster C:Demand-responsiveness relates to three aspects:user demand, responding to demand, andsatisfaction of demand.●●●User demand is measured by the contributionsof the different user groups in cash and/orkind to initiate and sustain operation.Responsiveness to demand is measured by thedegree to which the different communities anduser groups had opportunities to makeinformed choices about the technologies andservice levels that they desire and can sustain,and about financing and managementarrangements for them.Satisfaction of demands relates to the extentto which demands of women and men inwealthier and poor households are met bythe system, and the satisfaction of these groupswith the system and system management inrelation to their contributions.Cluster D:Sharing of burdens and benefits is measured fortwo points of time: during the construction of thefacilities, and during operation and maintenance.It refers to the sharing at household andcommunity levels:Box 9 Some key questions answered by the MPA● How effectively are the facilities sustained and used?● How equitable is the access gained by all groups?● How equitable are the voice, choice and control exercised by all groups in the establishmentand operation of services?● How equitably are the burdens and benefits divided among the groups?● To what extent do agencies practice gender- and poverty-sensitive approaches?● To what extent do sector/project policies support gender- and poverty-sensitive participation anddemand-responsive approaches?● Do policies make a difference on the ground?21

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSBox 10 MPA indicators for community water suppliesClustersVariables and IndicatorsDependent VariablesA. Effectively sustained A1 System qualityservice ■ Construction matches design, quality of materials and work good, source management.A2 Effective functioning■ Operation in terms of water quantity, quality, reliability and predictability.A3 Effective financing■ Coverage of investment and/or recurrent costs.■ Universality and timeliness of payments by users.A4 Effective management■ Level and timeliness of repairs for M/W*, R/P**.■ Quality of budgeting and accounts keeping.B. Effectively used B Hygienic and environmentally sound use by majorityservice ■ Proportion and nature of population using the service by M/W, R/P.■ Degree of improvement in water use habits***.■ Presence and state of waste water disposal provisions for R/P.C. Demand-responsive C1 Initial user demandservice ■ Type and proportion of contribution by M/W, R/P at start.C2 Project responsiveness to demand■ User voice and choice in planning by M/W, R/P.C3 Satisfaction of demand■ Satisfaction of user demand of M/W, R/P and range of benefits users pay for, by M/W, R/P.■ User-perceived value for cost for M/W, R/P.Influencing/Independent VariablesD. Sharing of burdens D1 Gender and poverty focus (social equity) at startand benefits ■ Equity in community payments in the establishment of services by M/W, R/P.■ Percentage of women and poor in local management organization at start.D2 Gender and poverty focus (social equity) during system operations■ Division of skilled/unskilled and paid/unpaid labor between M/W, R/P.■ Percentage of women and poor on local management organizations.■ Division of functions and decision making between M/W, R/P.E. User participation in E1 Equity in community management (community responsibilities)service establishment ■ Responsibilities for maintenance and management.and operationE2 Participation with empowerment (rights, control, capacity built)■ Presence, status and composition of managing committees.■ Control over construction schedule and quality of work for M/W.■ Control over household contributions for M/W.■ Types of skills created and practiced among M/W, R/P.■ Rules on water/sanitation/management for M/W, R/P.■ Transparency in accounts and accountability to M/W, R/P.F. Institutional support F1 Enabling organizational system■ Explicitness of sustainability, equity (gender and poverty inclusion), and DRA**** in project objectives,implementation strategies and performance criteria.■ Gender- and class-desegregated planning and monitoring systems in use.■ Mix of staff expertise.■ Extent of team approach.F2 Enabling organizational climate■ Capacity building, managerial support, and staff performance incentives.G. Policy support G1 Supportive sector policy and strategy■ Presence and nature of national sector policy for water and sanitation.■ Presence of sector strategies to set in motion community participation, demand-responsivenessand gender and social equity.* M/W – men and women** R/P – rich and poor*** At minimum, using protected water sources for water for drinking and food preparation, throughout the year.**** DRA – Demand-Responsive Approach.22

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESS●●of work, and, where applicable, of cashcontributions between the genders withinhouseholds;of decision making, paid and unpaid workfor local construction, maintenance andmanagement, between genders and socialclasses.Cluster E:The cluster on participation looks at two types ofparticipation:●●the responsibilities, or the work done bycommunity members done by in maintenanceand management;the rights, capabilities, and controls(empowerment) for these tasks.Here again, the assessment distinguishes betweenresponsibilities and power of the genders anddifferent socio-economic classes.Cluster F:Institutional analysis has two entry points:●●the enabling organizational system forapproaches that are participatory, demandresponsiveand gender- and poverty-sensitive,and,the enabling organizational climate in whichimplementing agency staff operate.Cluster G:Policy analysis looks at two areas:●●How explicitly sector policies definesustainability and equity as their goals.To what extent strategies are defined andavailable, in support of those goals.The community level indicators for sanitation, inBox 11, are somewhat different than those forwater supply. Only clusters E, F, and G are thesame as for water services. The indicators applyonly to community-managed sanitationprograms. 83.4 Other factors to explaindifferencesApart from the above, users of the MPA look atother local and common factors that may explainthe differences found.● In the communities: percent poor, ethnic/religious homogeneity, availability of alternativewater sources, strength and unity of male andfemale leadership, and level of development/communications.● In the project: complexity of technology;availability spares and technical support, typeof funders, type of project (water or water andsanitation), unit cost, age, number of timesupgraded.● In the state or country: the GNP and humandevelopment indicators.3.5 Demand, demandresponsiveapproach andparticipationPast research has revealed the pitfalls of usingpurely economic definitions of demand 9 anddemand-responsiveness. 108 For programs that work directly with individual households, somewhat different indicators and scales will berequired. It should be noted that a sanitation component was included in only a small number of waterprojects/programs in the first assessments. As such, no statistical relationships were tested for the sanitationcomponent determined in the global study. Only frequencies were recorded and analyzed. Application in alarger sample for sanitation may show that some of these indicators and clusters are not statistically significant.9 Katz and Sara (1997) define demand as “the quantity and quality of water community members will choose toconsume at a given price”.10 Responding to demand means giving users choices as to how much water they want to consume at a givenprice. This implies that a project “allows communities to make informed choices about the level of service theywant, with an understanding of the implications of their decisions” (Katz and Sara, 1997).23

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSBox 11 MPA indicators for community-managed sanitationClusters Sanitation Variables and Indicators Measurement Tools(see chapter 6)AEFFECTIVELYSUSTAINEDSERVICEBEFFECTIVELYUSED SERVICEQuality of design, installation, maintenance(functioning) of latrines according to men/women.Quality of design, installation, maintenance(functioning) of drainage at water points accordingto men/women.Continued installation of facilities over time.Access to safe excreta disposal facility, by social class.Percentage in use for intended purpose; percent usedfor other purposes; observed hygiene condition.Consistency of latrine use; behavioral change bygender and age.Hand-washing knowledge and practices.Knowledge/practices about diarrhea transmissionand prevention, by gender and social class.Rope rating scale, latrine selfscoring(by a representative samplenumber of user households).Social map, matrix table ofhouseholds covered under project(s)and through self-financing, welfareclassification.Welfare classification, social map.Transect walk with observationchecklist, self-scoring.Pocket voting.Latrine self-scoring, F-diagram,role-play, pocket voting.Contamination routes and blocks(PHAST).CDEMANDRESPONSIVESERVICEDSHARING OFBURDENSANDBENEFITSInitial demand for latrines (degree and nature ofuser contributions for construction) by R/P, W/M.Project responsiveness to demand (users’ voice andchoice in design/materials/location for sanitationfacilities, and for modes of payment).Benefits of latrines, reasons for demand, by R/P,W/M.Value for cost perceptions by R/P, W/M.Ownership of latrines, by type of system and socialclass.Degree and nature of user contributions for operationand maintenance (public/shared facilities) by R/P,W/M.Division of paid and unpaid work in O&Mbetween women and men.Access to and nature of training (technical, healthand hygiene) for W/M, R/P.Card sorting in focus groups(better and poor).Matrix voting.Ladders 1.Ladders 1.Welfare classification, social map.Card sorting in focus groups (richand poor), ladders 2.Matrix voting, ladders 2.Matrix voting, welfare classification.R/P = Rich and Poor; W/M = Women and Men.24

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSThe MPA uses a basic definition of “demand” asthe “willingness to pay, based on informedchoice.”Inherent in this definition are equity concernsrelated to the questions “whose demand?” and“whose willingness to pay?” In the MPA, demandis understood as the aggregate demand of allsections of communities, i.e., both women andmen, both the poor and the wealthier, bothminority and majority groups. “Payment” includesall forms in which the users may contribute, i.e.,in cash, in kind, and with time and energy forobtaining, operating, maintaining, and managingservices.Also inherent in this definition is the understandingthat “choice” means a lot more than technologyor cost options. The MPA uses the term to meanwho participates in which choices, i.e., whichgroups within the communities and householdsmake which of the several key decisions, such as:●●●●●initiation of the projects;the type of technologies and service levels;the location of the facilities;the local management, maintenance, andfinancing systems; andthe candidates for training.The “capacity to pay“ gets verified through theprocess of facilitating informed choice - anessential requirement of the demand-responsiveapproach. It is not possible to assess “willingnessto pay” with any accuracy in the absence ofchoices and full information about choices beingoffered and discussed with potential consumers.Both willingness and capacity to pay can besurprisingly elastic, depending on what optionsare being offered, at what immediate and longertermcosts, and how clearly this information iscommunicated to and discussed with women andmen from wealthier, intermediate, and poorgroups, who are all potential consumers ofservices. Gender-sensitive methods play animportant role in assessing the overall demandfor services (see example in Java case study,Section 2 of this report).While assessing demand, it is also important toinvestigate and control for incentives in thepotential users’ environment which may distort theirwillingness or capacity to pay. For example, ifpeople believe that services might be provided freeof charge, they may have an incentive to say thatthey are too poor to pay. In such cases it may notbe possible to get an accurate assessment ofdemand until the initial stages of projectimplementation are under way. At this timepotential consumers can begin to see the real termsunder which the services are finally being provided.Demands and meeting demands are not staticissues. Continued maintenance and use ofservices and user payments depend on how wellthe improved facilities continue to match theexpectations and resources of the different groups.Users also continually compare how benefits relateto the costs of obtaining them.To understand “demand” in relation to sustainedservices, the MPA measures the satisfaction ofwomen and men (in wealthier and poorerhouseholds) with the improved facilities, theoperation and management of the facilities, andthe effects of the same on their lives (extent ofdemand met). It relates these levels of satisfactionto what each group has contributed toconstruction and now contributes in the postconstructionphase, not only in cash but also intime, labor, and any other form (perceived valuefor cost). The analysis of these processes is doneacross time and at community as well as agencylevels. This reveals how processes at different levelsand phases in the project cycle determine the finalresults of water supply and sanitation projects.25

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSFigure 4Experiential learning cycle(Kolb, 1984 and Pfohl, 1986)3.6 Three-step participatoryassessmentsThe MPA uses a three-level systemapproach in its quest forsustainability and equity, linking thelevels in mutually reinforcing ways (seeframework diagram, section 3.1). The designof the MPA links community level outcomes toinstitutional practice and institutional practicesin turn to national sector policies. Asssessmentof how water and sanitation projects areimplemented, is the first level. Assessment ofinstitutional factors and approaches that shapeimplementation strategies constitutes the secondlevel. Assessment of the policy environment inthe water and sanitation sector that regulatesinstitutional practice, is the third level in theMPA’s bottom-up learning approach.When well applied, participatory tools not onlyprovide reliable data for outsiders but they initiateexperiential and mutual learning spirals for allparties at all levels. MPA uses this characteristicof participatory tools to connect stakeholders atall three levels, including policymakers, staff fromlocal governments, service delivery agencies, anduser communities. The resulting common insightsare a first condition for action where action isneeded. Scoring results together providesopportunities for crosschecking correctness,completeness, and predictive value through atransparent process.In introductory dialogues with communities, theelite, the extrovert and the male usually dominate.Therefore, as with all other participatoryapproaches, care must be taken initially that thegroups are sufficiently homogeneous toencourage free expression of ideas and opinions,and that the activities are facilitated skillfully toensure that all have equal voice. The MPA doesthis through a sequence of participatory toolsused with at least four types of gender and class-26

THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSsegregated groups, namely, poor women, poormen, wealthier women and wealthier men.Results are then shared and discussed in mixedgender and class groups in large communitygatherings, where the differences among thegroups can be understood and appreciated byall. The MPA makes transparent the voices andchoices of all groups so that they can all beaccommodated in the community’s plan forimproving services.For community groups, the use of the MPAcommunity analysis tools is a first step to analyzesituations, identify areas for change, and takecollective action. For implementation, the groupsuse further participatory processes and the MPAmonitoring tools. They may then repeat theanalysis to evaluate their progress, generate newknowledge to plan further, improveimplementation or take up new activities as afollow-up, as illustrated in Figure 4. Communityanalysis is also a learning opportunity for programstaff. Dialogue and negotiations help pinpointthe changes that local groups will make, and thoserequired from agency staff.Agency staff members then use participatoryinstitutional analysis tools from the MPA to ratethe enabling environment in their agencies.Representatives from user communities participatein the institutional assessments to assess the stylesof working the staff has with women and men incommunities. (See Stakeholders’ meeting inChapter 6.)An inventory and analysis of the overall policyaspects takes place with the sector policymakersor program managers, using the MPA tools forparticipatory policy assessment. Doing this at theend of the sequence, after the results of the otherlevels are known, makes it possible to see if andhow results on the ground and in the institutionsare influenced by the prevailing policies, andwhere action must start to bring about changesin institutions and at ground level.Participatory methods and tools have been in useat micro level since the 1980s. In the last few years,they have also been used to gain insight intoorganizations and the qualitative aspects behindeconomic figures at the macro level. The WorldBank has, for example, recently used them in a22-country study to learn more about poverty frompoor women and men worldwide. 11The MPA now provides a way to apply participatorytools in programs and projects at the meso(intermediate, between macro and micro levels)level. How to implement these assessments inprograms is described in the next chapter.MPA fills a gap at the meso level.11 Voices Of The Poor Crying Out for Change. Narayan, Chambers, Shah and Petesch. World Bank. 2000.27

THE MPA IN ACTION4The MPA in ActionSteps to conduct the assessments includeestablishing the partnerships for theassessments, the selection and training offacilitators, the sampling procedure fordetermining which communities will be contactedfor participation, and the preparations for andimplementation of the fieldwork. Three importantelements of the fieldwork are the data gatheringand analysis, the self-scoring, and the actionplanning based on assessment results.4.1 Establishment of purposeand partnershipsAlthough MPA by its very nature is participatory, itcan be carried out with varying degrees ofemphasis, some more internal and some less soin projects. An external emphasis may be strongerwhen government planners or external supportagencies use MPA to gather policy lessons (seeSection 2, East Asia sanitation policy studiesAchieving Sustained Sanitation for the Poor). Theinternal emphasis is stronger when projects useMPA to build capacities of women and men incommunities or of project staff (see Section 2,experience of institutional capacity building forgender and social inclusion in large scale projectsin Indonesia). Partnerships established for specificAssessment with separate groups of poor andwealthier men in NepalMPA applications thus vary with the purpose. Whileuser communities and agencies delivering servicesto them are always involved as partners, specificMPA applications can require partnerships toextend to provincial or central governmentagencies, donor agencies, NGOs active in thesector, private sector agencies, academic andresearch organizations and mass organizations.Examples of purposes and relevant partners are:Comparative participatory evaluations ofdifferent projects in a country, a region, orglobally.They give planners, program managers, andfinancers insight into the most and least successfulapproaches, the factors which contribute most tothe results, and the strengths, weaknesses, and28

THE MPA IN ACTIONaction points in individual communities andprojects.Participatory baseline studies of approachesand results in areas where new interventionsare planned.Baseline studies give insights to project designersand implementers into what the new program canbuild on or has to improve. They also make itpossible for project managers to classifycommunities into those which already have goodcapabilities to manage improved water supply andsanitation, those with great situational andinstitutional problems, and those which are inbetween.The first group may mainly need fundsto improve or expand their infrastructure andTerms of Reference to account for outputs andfinancial management. The second groupobviously needs the longest and mostcomprehensive technical support and a moreflexible time frame than the other groups.Participatory baseline studies make it possible forusers and implementing and funding agencies toevaluate the results and impacts of newinterventions.Participatory monitoring, , mid-term, andend-evaluations.Mid-term evaluations are undertaken halfwaythrough a program or project. They show whathas been achieved with the given inputs andresources and where improvements are required.Doing them in a participatory manner gives staffand community groups the opportunity to sharetheir experiences of program realities in astructured manner. One or two external evaluatorsmay be added for combining internal and externalperspectives.In periodic monitoring the methodology providesmanagers and staff with quantitative data for everycommunity that has carried out an MPAassessment. These data are entered into a simpledatabase using standard software of Excel, Access,and/or SPSS. These packages make it possiblefor any manager or agency staff with a basicknowledge of statistics to combine and analyzeinformation according to his/her needs. They canalso present this information in graphic forms thata wide range of stakeholders can understand -from community groups to program financers,local government personnel, and policymakers(see examples in Chapter 5).End-evaluations take place at the end of aprogram or project. Using the MPA for endevaluationsis the least satisfactory because itleaves communities to address improvements ontheir own. It is still useful though, since it helpscommunities identify changes in their ownmanagement of their services, which arenecessary to ensure sustainability. Fundingagencies and borrowing governments (in caseof loan-funded projects) may be learningpartners in such evaluations in view offorthcoming projects.One-time participatory studies byexternal facilitatorsWhile MPA can be used for this purpose, suchstudies have several limitations:●●●●●They do not build or strengthen capacities ofcommunity groups and staff.Most staff and community groups do notcontinue applying participatory analysis andaction planning after a study has beencompleted.Horizontal spread to other communities andgroups in the program does not take place.There are no opportunities to link participatoryanalysis with participatory planning andimplementation.After having identified the areas for action,other participatory methods and tools are29

THE MPA IN ACTION●needed to continue the work. Undertakingstudies as single and separate interventionsreduces the possibilities for continuing theprocess.No program database is built up.4.2 Selecting the assessmentteamsThe assessment team usually comprises femaleand male members from the community, field stafffrom the agencies involved in the program, asociologist, anthropologist, or participatorydevelopment specialist with skills on genderanalysis and training, and a water or sanitaryengineer. The latter two need to be skilled trainersin the use of the MPA and have experience with,and commitment to participatory approaches withgender and social equity perspectives .In cases where a statistical analysis is intended,a development economist, sociologist or statisticianfamiliar with non-parametric statistics andparticipatory methods is needed on the team.Box 12 The assessment teamAn MPA assessment team consists of:● Male and female members of thecommunity and the local WSS managementorganization, which, ideally, shouldrepresent different socio-economic groupsin the community.● Field staff who have been with the programlong enough to have experience withapproaches at the time of planning andestablishing the community systems.● A sociologist/ participatory developmentspecialist with skills in gender analysis andtraining.● A sanitary or water supply engineer withexperience in and commitment toparticipatory approaches with gender andsocial equity perspectives.● At the program level, a data analyst withexperience in using non-parametricstatistics.For the preparation or adaptation of theparticipatory tools, a local illustrator is helpful.However, groups can also use their own materialsand inventiveness, and rely on real life symbols,own sketches and drawings, and locally drawnor written cards. Using their own or local materialsencourages ownership and creativity. It also makesit easier for community groups to continue usingthe participatory tools and techniques introduced.Personal values and attitudes areas important as skillsTraining teams of MPA facilitators constitutes aconsiderable investment for the organizations thatundertake or finance MPA assessments. Suchorganizations may be local NGOs, consultancyfirms, program support centers, and traininginstitutes. They may also be water supply andsanitation implementation agencies that havedecided to train their own staff members.Within these organizations, not everyone has theright values, attitudes, and skills for facilitating theuse of participatory tools. Many facilitators withskills in the use of participatory tools are notautomatically conscious of gender and socialinequalities. It takes the accompanying values,attitudes, and skills to deal with these inequities.The composition and hiring of facilitation teamstherefore requires a great deal of care.Organizations have improved the selection andcapacity development of facilitators in severalways:30

THE MPA IN ACTION●●●●●●●Program agencies, and agencies that financeassessments, work with teams that continuepracticing over time. They do not accept teamsthat have been formed “just for the occasion”by inexperienced employees;Selection is by a committee which includespersons with considerable field experience withparticipatory tools and gender and socialequity;During interviews, candidates are asked toprovide examples of their experience ofparticipatory work, including work with womenand poor people;Selection committees ask the candidates toprovide some kind of skills demonstration,e.g., in a role play or a problem solvingexercise;Candidates are asked to give examples of theircreative use of participatory methods, e.g.,variations in materials and methods ordevelopment of own tools, as evidence thatthey are not applying participatory tools andtechniques mechanically as a “ritual”;Community groups - especially women, poorpeople and other marginal groups -recommend particular staff members fortraining;The training doubles as a selection process;only the best candidates will qualify, orqualification is graded;●●Peer review and community reviews onattitudes and skills are part of the trainingand fieldwork;Structured observations on facilitation andcommunication attitudes and skills are part ofthe training and fieldwork.The women and men from the communityparticipating in assessments should represent thevarious socio-economic groups and not just theelite. The trainers/facilitators help the othermembers of the assessment team focus oncontextual issues, ensure objectivity and monitorthe quality of the work. A mix of respected femaleand male community members and project orgovernment representatives at the start helps pavethe way for the assessment in the communities.In case of a series of assessments at country orinter-country level, the establishment of a GenderAssessment Committee (GAC) comprisingrepresentatives from sector line ministries andpartner agencies, and including persons withfield experience in participatory water andsanitation programs may be useful. The role ofsuch a committee will include defining the scopeof the assessment, quality assurance, peerreviewing and selecting of the assessment team.The GAC does not conduct the assessment butmaintains a supervisory role.Box 13Not everyone has the personal attitudes to work with participatory methods andpractice equityExperience during the global PLA study showed that technical people sometimes feel uncomfortableusing participatory tools. “Let me come for training when you finish the visual exercise.”Training program needed to focus first on attitude development for community-driven approachesbefore embarking on MPA tools.East and Southern Africa regional synthesis report on the PLA Initiative.WSP - East and Southern Africa, 2000.31

THE MPA IN ACTION4.3 Training preparation4.4 Training implementationIn the preparation phase, a team of regionaltrainers, well-vesed in the methodology, helps theparticipating project(s) to plan the assessments andprepare for the training of the staff members onassessment teams. During this phase, the teamof trainers and project managers defines what thetraining will entail. It has to be jointly determined,for example, how much training may be neededon participatory methods and gender and genderanalysis and whether the assessments will includea statistical analysis.In some Water and Sanitation Program field officesand in IRC, trainers are available who have handsonexperience with the methodology and havetaken part in the development of a Training OfTrainers course.Box 14 The MPA is a process-orientedmethodologyWhen working with the community, facilitatorsmust recognize that the community has its ownknowledge and creativity, and that genderrelations affect participation, control andbenefits. Hence those selected need to haveextensive experiencein the use of theparticipatory toolsand activities andknow how to do agender analysis.If the team has had no prior experience inparticipatory approaches and gender issues,it is important that the training is extended,to develop skills and attitudes for dealing withthese aspects of the methodology.The duration of the training depends on the levelof skills and experience of the staff, but generally,it lasts some two weeks. Training events arestructured to cover the three levels of theassessment: community, program agency, andpolicy level. The development of attitudes and skillsfor dealing with gender and social equity issuesat every level is an important element.During the first few days of training the participantsbecome familiar with the concepts and tools ofthe methodology and gain experience in itsapplication, using problem identification andanalysis from role plays. Structured peer andtrainers’ observations are used for generation ofawareness and improving skills. An important partof training is the experiencing of each tool throughhands-on applications and role-playing. Thisallows the participants to internalize the tools andidentify and address bottlenecks and limitations.They are also encouraged to be creative and varyapplication, tools, and techniques to adjust todifferences in the field.The second week is spent on completing onesequence in the field to gain hands-on experience,and to allow observation and evaluation of contentand process, attitudes and skills. Fieldworkincludes practicing how to analyze outcomes ofindividual sessions, and how to summarize andanalyze the outcomes of a community assessmentas a whole. It also covers the use of the fieldbook,data entry, and scoring.The final two days of training focus on ways ofcompiling data across communities, criticallyreviewing aggregated findings, practicing how topresent the information to management, anddiscussing follow-up recommendations.32

THE MPA IN ACTIONBox 15 Key elements of MPA trainingThe training helps the team assimilate the application of the methodology. Thedata collection and analysis is a learner-centered participatory process. Theaim is not to extract information, but to generate discussions to facilitatecommunity analysis and action planning. Elements in the trainingare:● Sharing experiences on sustainability, use, and participation. Understanding and appreciatingdifferent perspectives and opportunities of community groups.● Relating the understanding to the roles of the MPA to assess and enhance these aspects.● Conceptual understanding of the methodology and its core features.● Objectives, implementation, and uses of the assessments.● Expectations of the participants from the methodology, the training, and other issues.● Definition of terms and concepts to ensure consensus on issues of interpretation and perceptions.● Facilitation process and skills, including awareness of gender and social equity issues. Practiceto deal with these issues in processes and contents of assessments.● Emphasis that the team will be expected to help bring out insights and disaggregated informationon gender and social equity in processes (participation, demand responsive approach) and results(sustaining and use of services), and analyze with community groups and program staff howthese issues are related and may be enhanced.● Development and adaptation of tools to local contexts.● Hands-on experience with participatory tools and scoring matrices. Clear understanding of thepurpose and application of each tool, the means for application and adjustment (e.g., inmapping and pocket voting), the types of information expected from the tools, subject areas forgroup analysis, and planning of follow-up action.● Documentation of fieldwork and reporting of results.● Locating communities for hands-on practice, preparation and planning logistic arrangements.● Open-ended and structured observations. Feedback sessions at various points.● Defining scope of study and sampling criteria. Reviewing preparations.● Team building for working in a mutually complementary learning mode with team membershaving diverse skill-profiles and experiences.Key outputs of the training:● Conceptual understanding of the assessment framework and issues.● Consensus on objectives of the assessment, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects,and gender and poverty aspects.● Skills to apply the methodology, including participatory analysis at the three levels and qualitativeand quantitative analysis afterwards.● Sampling criteria defined.● A skilled assessment team, sensitized to the need to work in an interdisciplinary team mode forbest results.● Assessment tools and fieldbook adjusted for local context.● Defined roles and responsibilities, including data entry and report writing responsibilities.● Action plan for fieldwork, including logistics.33

THE MPA IN ACTION4.5 Selecting the communitiesWhen used for monitoring or self-evaluation, theMPA helps its practitioners assess services alreadyoperating. When used for planning of newprojects, the assessments will establish how existingsystems have been established and are managed.MPA is most appropriate to use in the followingsituations:●●●●The water and sanitation systems that will beassessed should have been functioning forsome time, at least 2-3 years or longer.If they are still functioning, various aspects oftheir functioning will be assessed. If notfunctioning, reasons leading to the system’sfailure will be investigated and documented.The service should have some form ofdecentralized management, i.e., it should notbe exclusively managed by an external agency.If the services are entirely externally managed,tools in addition to MPA will need to be used.The project organization and communityshould further be willing to participate in theassessments. 12In large programs, the assessments will usuallybe carried out with a random sample ofcommunities. A random sample gives everycommunity in a project or program the samechance to be included in the assessment. In arandom sample, each community has the sameprobability of being approached to participatein an assessment. Each potential community isalso selected independently from others. Thoseeligible would be all communities in a particularprogram area when the program makes nodistinction for size and type of communities thatmay participate. Usually, however, programs havespecific selection criteria for communities. The“sampling pool” (known in statistics as theuniverse) will then consist of all communities thatmeet the selection criteria and have water supplyand/or improved sanitation facilities installedunder the ongoing or completed program.Alternatively, when MPA is used as a projectplanning or baseline building method, theselected communities may have older serviceprovisions, either made by themselves or underearlier programs or both. The incoming programwill be aimed at enabling these communities toupdate, expand, improve, or replace the systems.In a non-random sample, the findings andconclusions from selected communities only holdfor the specifically selected cases, and are notapplicable for all communities in the program(s)from which they were selected.Special caution is required if organizations orcommunities take part in comparative studiesbased on an open invitation from the organizers.Chances are that in such cases of self-selection,the sample will have a bias towards moreparticipatory, socially inclusive, and gender-awarecommunities. In such situations, the variation inapproaches and results between individualcommunities may still be large enough to bringout differences that are significant, that is, to bedue to more than pure chance. However, in askewed sample, e.g., when selection procedureshave led to an overrepresentation of more12 In keeping with participatory research principles, evaluation exercises may not be imposed on unwilling ordisinterested communities. However, working only with eager and willing communities can seriously bias thesample and results of assessments. It is therefore important to develop a rigorous sampling plan including analternative reserve list with additional communities, numbering at 20 percent of the required sample. Samplecommunities from the primary list are first contacted as planned. In case resistance or lack of interest inparticipating is encountered in a community, a genuine attempt should first be made to ascertain reasons bycontacting secondary sources of information and key individuals. If by doing so trust can be established, MPAassessments can be carried out as planned. If not, the case should be documented and another comparablecommunity selected from the reserve list. Such documentation usually provides valuable learning about pastproject approaches and their consequences.34

THE MPA IN ACTIONsuccessful or unsuccessful projects, regressionequations can not be applied to help predict whichinputs lead to better sustainability and use ofservices.4.6 Sampling proceduresThe sample size and rigor of sampling procedureswill vary with the purpose for which the MPA isbeing used, e.g., as a part of training formanaging water-sanitation projects, for casestudies, program planning, monitoring orevaluation, or research purposes, and dependingon whether a statistical analysis is required.For most evaluation research and monitoringpurposes, the number of communities in thesample would vary with the size of the project andthe types of interventions it makes. The aim is toinvolve enough communities to provide a goodcross-section of the typical technical, social,economic, cultural, political, administrative, andenvironmental conditions in the project area,without confounding biases in selection.If overall conditions are homogenous, a simplerandom sample can be drawn. To do so, eachcommunity in the program(s) being sampled getsits own number, beginning with number one. Eachnumber is written on a separate slip of paperwhich is tightly folded. The slips are placed in abox or bag. They are stirred well until all havemixed. The required number of communities forthe sample (see below under sample size) is thendrawn from the container.The alternative is to use a table with randomnumbers. Assuming that a sample of 40communities needs to be drawn for a programwith 600 communities, a numbered list ofnames is prepared from 1 to 600. To drawthe sample, one can start reading numbersin the table that consist of any three figures.The starting point may be anywhere in thetable. The first 40 numbers thus generatedbetween 1 and 600 are the numbers of thecommunities that will be contacted.Continuing until one has 50 communities thusidentified will provide a reserve in case of laterrefusals to participate.When conditions are heterogeneous, communitiesare grouped (stratified) according to their maincharacteristics. They are then selected at randomin numbers proportional to their presence in theprogram. Box 16 lists some factors that may be ofBox 16 Possible factors for consideration in decisions on type of sampling● Environmental and technical conditions: type of water sources (ground and surface water),availability and quality of fresh water, water resources, developments in water and land use,technologies used for water supply and sanitation.● Demographic conditions and developments: population size, density, growth, and migration.● Economic conditions: economic base (e.g. subsistence, cash crop, or industrial or services economy),communications (near major cities, well-connected or isolated), character of the settlement (ruralvillage, small market town, or low-income urban), economic growth.● Socio-cultural conditions: religious, caste and ethnic composition, male and female literacy levels,heterogeneous or homogeneous society, seclusion of women, etc.● Political and administrative conditions: decentralization and devolution, types and legal status ofwater and sanitation management organizations.(See example of sample selection criteria in the Lao PDR case study, Section 2 of this report.)35

THE MPA IN ACTIONrelevance in the classification of the differentgroups.The way in which the sampling has been donemust always be reported. Data that illustrate therepresentativeness of the participating communitiesmust also be collected and reported as part of theassessments. Only then can it be assumed thatthe information is representative of the samplinguniverse.To ensure representativeness of samples drawn,it is necessary to define the sampling universecarefully. For instance, if the sample is torepresent all communities covered in past watersupply projects, all communities that have everreceived interventions from any water supplyproject must be included in the samplinguniverse. If instead the sample is intended torepresent only those communities that receivedinterventions from project X, the sampling universewill have to exclude communities that receivedinterventions from any other project. Suchconsiderations need to be combined with ethicaland practical ones. For example, this implies thatthe final sample may include communities whereservices were finally never built, partly built, orhave broken down. Reasons have to bedocumented in each case. Secondly, whileworking with communities whose systems areincomplete or seriously out of order and wherethe communities want to revive them, the MPApractitioners should be prepared help resolvethe situation in some way, or at least link suchcommunities with resources that can help themrevive their services. The MPA was not designedto be a tool for purely academic research. Itssole use for such purposes would defeat itsfundamental objective, which is equitableempowerment of all levels of stakeholders toenhance the sustainability of their services.Larger samples improve the chance of detectingsignificant differences (that is, the likelihood thatthey are due to real, rather than accidental,differences), because there is more consistency inthe possible outcomes. It is thus always advisableto take as large a sample as possible. For largerprograms, going below a sample size of 35 to 40communities is not recommended, particularly ifstatistical analysis is desired. 134.7 Preparation for fieldworkAfter having drawn the community sample, theassessment facilitation team approaches theselected communities to gauge their interest andwillingness to participate in the assessments. Duringthese preliminary visits, the team explains thepurpose and general nature of the assessmentand its costs and possible benefits for thecommunity. Before the visits, as part of overallpreparation of the fieldwork, the team will alreadyhave determined if, and in what ways, the timeand effort of the community members whoparticipate in the assessments will be compensated.It is important to realize that, just like the time of13 As common in social research, MPA scores consist predominantly of ordinal data. Statistical analyses mostappropriate for such data are graphical presentations and non-parametric statistical tests. Non-parametricstatistics include a range of tools with varying powers of accepting or rejecting research hypotheses. Verysmall sample size limits the usefulness of some non-parametric tools. Greater applicability and choice of testsis possible when sample sizes are above 35, e.g., at a sample size greater than N=35 the normalapproximation of the binomial distribution can be used; the Spearman’s r test of association needs samplesizes of at least 35-40 to accept or reject rank-order correlations of at least 0.3 at 95 percent level ofconfidence; the Chi-square test of association requires expected frequencies to be 5 or more per cell for testresults to be interpretable, which means that any cross-tabulation of the sample beyond the basic 2X2 tableneeds sample sizes of at least 30.36

THE MPA IN ACTIONexternal facilitators, time of the community’swomen and men has value. Visiting teams shouldtherefore adjust visits to when people are available.In cases of longer visits and/or lenghtycooperation, some form of compensation for thework, such as snacks, a meal, or a small fee, willneed to be considered. The visits are continueduntil the required number of interested and willingcommunities has been found, with a date andtime for the first visit set that are convenient for thecommunity as well as the external assessmentteam.Depending on what is feasible, the team may makean advance inventory of the general communitysituation from secondary sources, then verify it withthe local authorities during this first visit. These datamake it possible to assess, during analysis of theoverall data, whether a particular external or systemrelatedfactor, rather than community factors,explains the linkages found. Examples of suchfactors are age of systems (“do newer systemsperform better than older ones, irrespective ofresponsiveness to demand, gender and class?’’),availability of support (“does distance from thenearest town where spare parts, tools and technicalsupport skills are available matter?”) and poverty(“are services better sustained in richer communitiesthan in poorer ones, irrespective of other factors?”).4.8 Implementation:procedures, fieldbookand data templatesCommunity level assessmentsparticipation of formal community leaders shouldbegin to decline. Activities are increasinglycarried out in informal gatherings with specificgroups such as poor women and men. Theschedule presented in Figure 5 and Box 17 isonly indicative. Actual schedules andarrangements are made with the women andmen in the communities. Tools and materialswill also vary according to local conditions andcreativity.Participatory assessment with the communityconsists of several types of activities:●●●Observations of physical conditions, togetherwith a representative group from thecommunity during the transect walk, linkedwith key questions to households living nearthe facilities that may have direct knowledgeof the service, e.g., maintenance, repair, anduse. Both female and male communityrepresentatives should take part in the reviewvisit and discussions on the technical serviceaspects.Participatory activities with focus groups in thecommunity (male and female, rich and poor,users and non-users), using a speciallydesigned sequence of participatory exercisesdiagramming local conditions, practices andpreferences.Open-ended interviews with key respondents(male and female members of relevantcommittees and the operator and/or otherpersons involved in operation andmaintenance).The actual participatory activities start with thesecond visit, arranged with the communityleaders. With the progress of MPA activities, the●Review of written records (e.g., logbooks,minutes of water committee meetings andgeneral assemblies).Sampling of communities and groups is used to make the participatory analysis more representative.37

THE MPA IN ACTIONThe following diagram illustrates the typical flow of activities during an assessment in a community over a period of four to five days.Figure 5 Flow diagram of MPA assessment at community level38

THE MPA IN ACTIONBox 17 Indicative sequence of work with a community*Preparation. Contact with male and female leadership. Explanation of assessment objectives and request/invitationto participate. When positive, dates are set and logistics arranged.Day 1, a.m. Arrival. Review of general approach and topics with male and female local leaders, WSC (seeabbrevation below), and spontaneous gathering. Filling in general data sheet. Organize for social mapping inafternoon/evening at convenient time/place with women and men from wealthier and poor groups. Lighting to bearranged as required.Day 1, p.m. Start records review and open discussion with WSC and craftsmen/women on project functioning,administration, finance, management.Start recording and scoring activities with community members. Cross-check validity of data from WSC in opendiscussion with community groups.Day 1, late afternoon/evening. Welfare classification, to define categories of wealthier, intermediate, and poor.General social mapping on location and distribution of water and sanitation facilities; location of rich/poor/intermediate households; areas with access to (and, where feasible, use of) water supply, sanitation, drainage andsolid waste disposal; contributions for service usage and for construction; households with WSC office bearers andservice workers (M/W, paid/unpaid). The map is later used to plan the transect walk routes and participants (M/W,R/P). The team assists community to transfer the map to paper if needed. Social mapping may be done beforeWelfare classification, as an icebreaker. Groups then return to the map to mark households as wealthier, poor andintermediate. Recording, scoring and open discussion for other factors with community members continue. Peerreview of process including handling of gender and social equity aspects.Day 2, a.m. Transect walk and contacts with households near water points on: functioning of system, serviceoperation, repairs, range of access. For sanitation: transect walk and joint scoring on sanitation checklist for qualityof installation, maintenance and use, in samples for old and new latrines, drains. Separate comments from femaleand poor transect participants, to ensure their views are included.Day 2, p.m. Team splits in two. Start open discussions with focus groups (RM, RW, PM, PW) on explanatory factorsfor findings on sustainability and use. Participatory assessment activities on service operations (cross-check), use/non-use, contributions; patterns of use (pocket voting); demand-responsiveness and cost/benefits perceptions (ladder);time budgets for M/W (listing and scoring); income/expenses for M/W (100 seeds); history of participation in termsof information received, decisions, contributions (matrix voting). Scoring with groups. Cross-check on validity,relevance, and other factors. Evening: recording and peer review.Day 3, a.m. Continue committee interviews, records review, skills demonstration (capacities built) with committee,operator, etc. Continue focus group sessions, scoring, reviewing with groups. Evening: recording and peer review.Day 4, a.m. and p.m. Complete committee interviews, records review, skills demonstration (capacities built) withcommittee, operator, etc., and focus group sessions. Team records process and outcomes of Day 4. Team analyzestotal scores of Days 1-4 and discusses key issues. Prepare for community review assembly with reporting by communitygroups.* Actual schedules will vary depending on the convenience and availability of community members to meet in groups. Busy periodssuch as agricultural planting or harvest seasons and festivals are best avoided. Even so, it may not always be possible to haveassessment activities for several days at a stretch. Field teams should be flexible and resourceful in making time use plans forfieldwork.WSC = Water-Sanitation CommitteeRM, RW, PM, PW = Rich Men, Rich Women, Poor Men, Poor WomenM/W = Men/Women3939

THE MPA IN ACTIONGetting representative focus groupsBecause the MPA is based on participatoryinventories and analysis with focus groups,adequate representation of the various sectionsof the community is critical. Ensuring this duringfieldwork requires sensitivity to local culture (asexplained in section 4.10) and careful sampling.To ensure a good representation, purposivesampling through social mapping is used. The waythis is done varies in small and large communitiesSmall communitiesIn communities of up to a few hundred households,during the first day, available members of thecommunity assisted by the facilitators’ team drawa social map of their settlement. This map is notto scale and consists of a bird’s eye view of thelocal roads, paths, compounds or houses andfacilities.Maps may be drawn in sand, on floors (using chalk)or on paper (using felt-tipped pens orfingerpainting or cut- and paste-techniques). Inthe map, the participants mark the compoundsor houses of lower, upper and middle classfamilies, using colored powder, crayon, paint,colored pins, or some other local material. Thedefinitions of the three categories are relative andbased on the people’s perceptions of rich andpoor status. (Details in Chapter 6, WelfareClassification.)If all three categories exist in approximately equalproportions, one wealthier and one poorneighborhood are subsequently chosen atrandom for a visit.If the intermediate and poor categories areapproximately the same size and there are only afew wealthier families (

THE MPA IN ACTIONvisits and conducts a participatory review with thisarea separately.Single parent householdsIn defining and classifying who are poor,intermediate, and rich, the position of singleheadedhouseholds needs special attention. Ahigh percentage of female-headed households inthe community has been known to have bothpositive and negative effects on gender burdensand benefits in water supply services.The positive effects could be that, in female-headedhouseholds, women’s access to decisions, andnew maintenance and management roles maybe easier. These women sometimes have a goodincome and control of that income from their ownenterprises. Negative effects have been that often,many female-headed households are poor andmay have less capacity than other poor familiesto contribute labor in addition to or instead ofcash payments.Institutional assessments:stakeholders’ and policy meetingsThe first level institutional assessment is usually ata project implementing unit level, which isgenerally the district, but in small provinces mayeven be at the province level. The stakeholders’meeting examines the agency approaches thatwere used to achieve the results in the field. Femaleand male field staff from different project agencies,and women and men from the communityrepresenting the users, get together for this onedaymeeting. They assess what, in the experienceof all stakeholder groups, are the strengths andweaknesses at the agency level and identify areasfor improvement.It is necessary to conduct these meetings in thelanguage that is understood and spoken regularlyby women and men representatives from thecommunity, and to ensure an environment inwhich they do not feel inhibited about expressingtheir views. During the meeting, the participantsagain use participatory tools and techniques andscore their group’s outcomes. Although literacy isgenerally required for the use of the institutionaltools of the MPA, in cases where communityrepresentatives are not sufficiently literate, the toolscan be made more participatory through the useof visuals and symbols devised on the spot toreplace written words.After the agency level meetings are over, a similarmeeting takes place with policymakers and projectmanagers to assess various policy aspects thatguide, or have guided, implementation (seeChapter 6 for details).4.9 Visualization andself-scoringAll assessments use open-ended and visualmethods to make local situations and practicesvisible. Most of these methods do not requireliteracy and so allow those with low or noliteracy - often women, and poorer and olderpeople to participate.Since the outcomes are visible to all, they generatetransparency, discussion, and the emergence ofone or two consensus viewpoints. However, thelatter usually does require separate meetings withdifferent class and gender groups. If not, theopinions of only the more powerful would likelyprevail.Even within separate groups certain individuals,with vested interests, may exert pressure overtly orcovertly for the group to choose a score even whenit does not reflect reality. MPA facilitators aresensitized to this possibility during training. In suchsituations, it is advisable to complete the visualanalysis but postpone scoring to a later session41

THE MPA IN ACTIONand develop strategies to neutralize the pressure.MPA facilitators need to be observant and sensitiveto unspoken aspects of group dynamics speciallyduring scoring. When consensus is difficult toreach, it is advisable to postpone scoring andprobe the issue later through interviews withwomen and men members of different socioeconomiccategories. Divergent views of differentgroups can be reported at the final communityreview assembly for a public discussion of thevariances and their causes, aimed at reaching an“average” score, if not a consensus, on thesituation.and displayed for discussion by all (seeexamples in Chapter 5).3. The groups analyze the data to identifypatterns, causal factors, and follow-up actionsneeded for improvement.The participating groups present the results in acommunity review assembly at the end of the MPAassessment. Here, the overall scores, issues, andfollow-up action are presented and discussed, anda process of decision making and action planningis started.Based on the visualized analysis and agreedviewpoints, the groups of women and men areasked to identify where their community belongson a scale or “ladder” of scores (see Box 19 foran example) for particular indicators beingmeasured through the relevant participatory tool.During institutional and policy assessments,agency personnel or policy formulators follow thesame process of joint scoring on MPA scales forinstitution and policy levels.Self-scoring by stakeholders at every level is asignificant departure from the conventionalmethods of assessment. It is carried out in threesteps:1. Women and men in project communities (oragency personnel in sector institutions, or policyformulators at national level) assess variousaspects of their services, institutions andpolicies respectively, using participatory toolsand producing a visualized summary of theirassessment.2. The groups use their outcomes to agree byconsensus on their score on the ordinal scaleassociated with the assessed aspect. Colorfulbar graphs are created on the spotsummarizing the scores on measured issuesDuring the participatory activities the facilitatorsmake copies of the maps, diagrams, and matricesthat the groups produce as part of their inventoriesand analysis, or document these in photographsand/or videotapes. The products remain with thecommunity, which may continue to use them as adatabase, planning or monitoring tools and asexamples for further work with participatorytechniques.Box 18 The advantages of self-scoring● Self-scoring minimizes biases of“desirable” answers byindividual respondents.● It eliminates biases dueto coding by differentresearchers.● The process of arriving at a consensus aboutthe score allows conflicting views to surfaceand be resolved, and for hithertounexpressed information to be revealed. Thefinal scores are only those that areconfirmed by the whole group sharing therelevant experience.● By its very nature, the process empowersgroups of stakeholders to analyze andimprove their situation.42

THE MPA IN ACTIONScoring principles in the MPA 14Ordinal scales are routinely used to convertqualitative data into numbers for comparisons ofperformance within and across samples and subsamplesin social research. The ordinal scoringtables developed for the MPA have the followingadded advantages.1. Increasing accuracy through the use of 0 – 100scales with “gaps.” The MPA uses 5 pointscales, which are convertible to 0-100 scales,with the 5 points at 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100.A description of the indicator being measuredaccompanies each scale point. In case theassessing group thinks its situation is notcorrectly reflected by any of the five points, butthat it falls somewhere in between twoconsecutive points, it can choose to score thesituation midway between the points concerned.Their reasons for doing so are alwaysrecorded. This provides valuable insights tothe project manager or monitoring unit aboutfield realities behind quantitative scores.2. Capturing hard-to-measure issues moremeaningfully through descriptive ordinalcategories. It is difficult to compare scores frompeople’s value judgments, as are common inordinal rating scales (e.g., Good = 100,Average = 50, Poor = 0). To overcome thisdifficulty, each MPA scale uses descriptivecategories arranged in a graduated order withreference to one particular indicator/dimensionbeing measured. For instance, the examplein Box 19 measures the quality and extent ofBox 19Scoring scale or “ladder” for community level assessment of gender equity inservice managementScore Score description Scoregivenconvertedby to 100communitypoint scale0 No woman in management functions at all, or only in name. 01 Women are members of lower-level management organization,but do not attend meetings regularly.2 Women members take part in meetings of lower-levelmanagement organizations, but not in decision making.3 Women members attend meetings of lower-level managementorganizations and make decisions together with men.4 Males and females both participate in meetings of lower andhigher-level management organizations and make decisions jointly.25507510014 This sub-section draws upon the paper “MPA: An improved methodology for participatory assessments” byA.J. James, presented at a workshop to produce a resource book Participatory Approaches to Project Design,Implementation and Evaluation, organized by the Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), the Philippines, andMysore Relief and Development Agency (MYRADA), Bangalore, July 2000. A.J. James was a member of theteam from WSP and IRC that developed the MPA and contributed substantially in the areas of quantificationof qualitative information and quantitative analysis.43

THE MPA IN ACTIONwomen’s participation in the community watermanagement organization more meaningfullythan a measure like “ the percentage of womenon management committees.” Using the samescales for different points of time (such as“before” and “after” project intervention) servesalso to measure the extent of change in thesituation as perceived by stakeholdersconcerned.3. Impact assessment without baselineinformation: Since the MPA measurescommunity perceptions, it can be used toassess project impact even when baselineinformation is not readily available. Forinstance, assuming 100 as the baseline (preproject)situation, user communities can definethe current (post-project) situation as a numberless than, more than, or equal to 100, andexplain reasons for their answers. A series offigures and reasons thus obtained from asample of project communities provide a clearpicture of whether the intervention had animpact, whether the impact was positive ornegative, and the extent of the impact.Although not sophisticated in terms ofevaluation literature, such methods haveproved to be time- and cost-effective, and theirmargin of error may compare with full-scaleevaluations using baseline data and casecontroldesigns.4. Benchmarking of scales for sustainabilitymonitoring: Since the fundamental objectiveof developing the MPA was to enhance thesustainability of development interventions, theMPA scales were designed with a central focuson what constitutes the minimum conditionnecessary for sustainability. 15 The mid-pointsof all MPA scales represent this minimumcondition, for the indicator being measured.This feature enables all stakeholders toevaluate where they stand with respect to theminimum conditions to be satisfied forachieving sustainability, in their communities,projects, institutions, districts, or countries.The MPA fieldbook and datatemplateThe MPA fieldbook is a repository of informationon the individual activities, processes, and tools,along with the scoring scales and sheets todocument the discussions of the outcomes ofeach activity. Copies are provided as part of theMPA training course and are used during thetraining. The MPA fieldbook has been translatedinto local languages wherever local MPAapplications have been developed and countryteams trained.The fieldbook contains introductions on themethodology, its gender and social equity focus,the scope and the need for ongoing development.It then presents, in a systematic way, the purpose,materials and process of the participatory activities.Each activity comes with its own record forms tonote date, duration, number and types ofparticipants, scores, qualitative information, andoutcomes from group discussions on the findingsfrom that particular activity.After the fieldwork, the outcomes from thedatasheets are entered into a database templatein MS ACCESS for analysis and presentations ofdata across communities and projects.15 Initially these represented a series of consensuses achieved among a global core group of sector professionalsand academicians, which were then validated through testing in 15 countries in a global study during 1998-99, documented in Gross et al (2001), Linking Sustainability with Demand, Gender and Poverty, and vanWijk-Sijbesma (2001), Best of Two Worlds?, WSP-IRC.44

THE MPA IN ACTION4.10 Quality controlParticipatory tools are visually interesting andexciting to work with. For new users of these toolsit is easy to get carried away by the novelty ofoutputs generated while losing sight of the processand the environment that generate them. The latter,however, are crucial to the authenticity of theresults. A few points that are critical for ensuringthe validity of results of participatory assessmentand analysis are mentioned here.The MPA tools function only in the handsof people that have experience in, andvalues and attitudes for, , using participatoryapproaches with gender and social equity.Participatory analysis requires more thanparticipatory tools. All members of teamsundertaking participatory learning assessmentswith community groups need to have experiencein the application of participatory tools andtechniques, such as PRA, SARAR, or PHAST. It isnot enough if only one or two members of theteam are so trained, because team members mustbe able to complement each other’s work duringfield application of the tools.Bias due to inappropriate facilitation styles is oneof the most important threats to quality and validityof resulting data. Facilitators with knowledge ofparticipatory techniques and some applicationexperience may still distort field level results withinappropriate facilitation styles and attitudes. Likeall participatory methods, MPA is vulnerable tofacilitators who are directive, judgmental,insensitive to gender and social status imbalanceswithin groups, being mechanical and hurried orrigid, and unable to adapt to local situations.While MPA training can emphasize building therequired attitudes and openness to learning, it isalways a good investment to have specializedfacilitation and quality monitoring observers forthe first 1-2 assessments after training. Theobservers can provide immediate feedback tofacilitator teams for course correction if necessary.The MPA has a sequence of activities thatis carried out with different groups in acommunity over a period of 4-5 days.When and where each activity takes placeis determined in consultation with thegroups which will participate.The first activities, in the first 1-2 days, are plannedwith the local leaders and members of thecommunity water and sanitation managementorganization. These activities give the facilitatorsthe time and information to plan further activitieswith other groups, such as poor women and menand non-users, at times and places of theirconvenience. Fixed workshop schedules are notappropriate. Sessions must be planned so as notto disrupt livelihood-related activities and domesticroutines. Also, it is necessary to avoid periodswhen communities experience seasonal stress orheavy workloads, such as agricultural plantingand harvests, or festivals.Factors that may inhibit participation haveto be anticipated and problem solvingstrategies planned and practiced by thefacilitators’ team.Very often, women hesitate to speak up in front ofmen and figures of authority in male-dominatedcultures. Gender-segregated settings are thenessential. Helping each group to present its resultsto other groups afterwards and then discussconclusions and action promotes two-wayunderstanding and collaboration.The presence of government officials, the villagechief, or the Water Committee chairman mayprevent the poor, women and/or non-users ofservices from freely expressing their views. In suchcases, sessions are planned without inhibitingpresences or a team member tactfully takes the45

THE MPA IN ACTIONinhibitor(s) away, e.g., to inspect some water orsanitation facility, review records, or start anindividual interview somewhere else. A dominantparticipant who keeps speaking on behalf ofeverybody else needs to be treated the same wayor given a different role, e.g., as a recorder, or aphotographer.Establishing trust is essential.The team has to approach the community in aculturally appropriate manner, e.g., byintroducing themselves to the village elders andseeking approval for the assessment. Participatingin community functions and group activities helpsbreak the ice. Intermediaries who are known andtrusted by the community can also introduce theteam. A particular challenge is to makemarginalized and subordinated groups, that mayhave rightfully become distrustful, feel respectedand safe so that they will open up and participateeffectively.Quality control in scaling-up.With some experience in scaling up MPAapplications to date (mainly in East Asia), thefollowing lessons have emerged aboutsafeguarding consistency of procedures forquality. Whenever multiple field teams are used,prior agreements need to be reached with alland documented for field use about: a) sampleselection procedures up to and withincommunities, and preferred alternative strategiesto use when the sampling plan cannot beadhered to; b) a “basic minimum” body ofquantitative and qualitative information to berecorded per community, which enables checkingthe adequacy and completeness of the MPAprocess followed; c) the forms in which raw data(including copies of visual analysis) are to bemade available for data entry and analysis atlevels higher than the community; and d) an“essential set” of tables, graphics, and visualoutputs to be produced from the sample.In addition, triangulation procedures need tobe used within each field team on a daily basis,to cross-check the validity of emerginginformation and conclusions. Some form ofreferral and feedback facility must beestablished between field teams and theircoordinator to ensure consistency in thefunctioning of all field teams. Spot checkingvisits by the coordinator to each field team atleast once during fieldwork is another goodpractice, resources permitting. When fieldteams are expected to use MPA applications inconsecutive phases of a project (e.g., the WSLIC2 project in Indonesia), review workshops offacilitators at the end of each phase can providea wealth of learning for project agencies andfield facilitators about how to maximize thebenefits from MPA for enhancing project quality.Box 20 Quality enhances validityAdhering to representativeness and triangulation resulted in learning that:● in one project, construction work was paid without completion;● in another project, program staff had asked for bribes;● in a third project, water committee members had installed illegal house connections; and● a group of poor households had been left out. After the assessment revealed this, they werefinally included.46

THE MPA IN ACTIONExperiences with the use of the MPAin general give rise to a number ofcautions and insights●●●●●●Agencies financing assessments havesometimes tried to cut the duration of trainingand/or fieldwork. They do not always acceptthat by doing so, the quality of the work maybecome so superficial that it is no longeruseful, and process and outcomes maybecome mere tokenism.Some managers have selectively picked upthe MPA sustainability indicators, but replacedthe use of participatory methods by aconventional survey, thus reducing themethodological merits and the validity of thederived scores. The users became passiverespondents in such cases and the power oflearning and control shifted to outsideresearchers and the all-male water committeeswith whom they discussed the results. Localwomen disappeared as actors from thelearning process in those cases.Changes in the scales and parameters havebeen made without testing whether these werevalid. Subsequently, the methodology wasused to make predictions for which no soundmethodological foundation existed.Especially when used for one-time studies,there is a tendency to focus on quantitativedata collection and analysis, to the detrimentof the equally important qualitative aspects.Not all facilitators have the required aptitudesand attitudes for participation or are sensitiveto gender and social equity issues.Application may become automatic and“ritualistic” because facilitators do not considerand adjust to local situations.● Participatory tools and techniques forinvestigations are not one-time “add-ons” tootherwise unchanged programs. They needto be linked to the use of participatoryapproaches and processes in all other stagesand activities.● Participatory approaches require changes inexisting structures, procedures, and climatein agencies that give technical and financialsupport, from engineering and socialdevelopment departments to contractors anddonor and lending agencies.● Empowering women and men incommunities to take charge of their owndevelopment means accepting differentways of working for all parties concerned,not just the communities. Empoweringwomen and men in communities to takecharge of their own development meansaccepting different ways of working for allparties concerned, not just the communities.External assistance agencies must delegatefunds and power; adopt flexible time schedulesthat accomodate communities; and letsanctions for not meeting contract termsapply to all parties concerned, includingthemselves.How managers can preventproblems and protect qualityIt is important to involve managers at the earliestpossible stages of projects in discussions aboutthe use of the MPA to add value. They will bemore likely to appreciate its potential benefits,accept its principles and support its properapplication when they have been a part of theprocess of deciding how to use it.The quality of MPA assessments is as good as the understanding and practice of, participatoryand qualitative approaches with gender and poverty perspectives by the people who use it.47

THE MPA IN ACTIONSince misconceptions or incomplete understandingof participatory methods are often at the root ofbad practice, managers can be encouraged tobetter understand the strengths and limitations ofthe use of participatory tools and techniques. Theycan further enhance the quality of applications bychecking whether:●●●●●●field teams have spent the full time period withthe sampled communities;there is evidence, such as copies orphotographs of the outputs from tools, thatthe scores are based on participatoryassessments;poor women and men, and groups normallyexcluded for other reasons, have taken partin the activities;the full range of data has been recorded;qualitative information has been recorded andanalyzed;facilitators have assisted community groups to●analyze the outcomes and identify actions; andfacilitators have developed variations inexisting tools and processes and developednew tools in response to field conditionsand as a sign of ongoing creativity andcommitment.At a more general level, WSP and IRC seek toprotect the quality of the work in several ways:●●●by working with a known group ofexperienced organizations that trainsfacilitators in the use of the MPA. The groupis large enough to meet requirements andavoid monopolies;by seeking the introduction of internal andexternal peer review for quality preservationand further development; andby organizing periodic experience audits withMPA practitioners from different parts of theworld.48

THE MPA IN ACTION5Organizing and Interpretingthe DataThe informationthat emergesfrom MPAassessments can beanalyzed at several levels.Different types of analysisare possible, qualitativeas well as quantitative.This chapter provides abrief overview of how toprocess the data andpresent the findings tothose who need to knowthem in order to makedecisions and takerequired action.Data summarization and presentation at community level by a villagerin Java, Indonesia5.1 Analysis of outcomes pertoolvoting cards of women and men, etc. – aredisplayed often on the ground, or on walls, sothat all can see them.The first outcomes of a sequence of participatoryactivities are the pictures, diagrams or maps thatthe participants produce. They present visuallyvarious aspects of the local water or sanitationsituation for all participants to discuss, analyze,draw conclusions, and plan actions.The most basic analysis is at the level of everytool. The outcomes – a social map, a series ofsmiling faces, a drawing, a diagram, pictures withTo help the group draw conclusions, thefacilitators may ask probing questions such as:●●●●●What does the picture say?Does it reflect the real situation?Are aspects or situations missing from thepicture?What can we learn from it?Does it say something about differencesbetween women and men, or between thosewho are well-off and poor?49

Box 21 Analysis leading to correctionIn Sewukan, in central Java, Indonesia, women and men each assessed the technical quality ofthe existing water supply prior to constructing another system. The headman thought women’sparticipation was useless, because “women do not know about technology.”Afterwards, however, the women had pinpointed most errors: inlets of reservoirs too low, pipelaying too shallow, wrong cement-sand ratio in concrete mixing, and so on. As a consequence,the women in each dusun (neighborhood) will, for the first time, form committees to monitor thecontractor’s work on a new project. The men will include a clause on quality norms in the contractand will take up any problems up with the private sector contractor.Sometimes, the facilitators can help the group tobetter focus on gender and class differences byhelping the group draw up and fill in simple twoby-twotables. An example from Cheriyananad,in Kerala, India is given in Box 22. This learningprocess may lead to collective, corrective action,as happened in Sewukan (Box 21).5.2 Analysis of relativeperformanceBy factorAnalysis of the scores on the scales helpscommunity groups compare their own situationwith other options. The facilitators use previouslyhand-written scoring options (score descriptionsor “scenario”) in the local language on separatecards. In the analysis of the situation, the assessinggroup chooses the scenario that reflects its situationmost closely, or an intermediate situation betweenconsecutive scenarios. At this point the participantsmay decide to immediately discuss their score andbegin to consider changes for better sustainability,effective use and equity. They may also analyzespecific factors during the assembly at the end,when all scores for that community are reviewedcomprehensively.For project managers simply comparing raw scoresfor individual factors across a number ofcommunities grouped by project, geographic areaor project rules can provide revealing trends andinsights, since all MPA scales are benchmarkedfor sustainability, as further explained below.Benchmarking for sustainabilityScore descriptions in MPA scales have beenbenchmarked so that the middle point of eachscale represents the minimum score expectedwhen services/systems are likely to be sustainable.This is illustrated in the examples of selectedscales about the adequacy of financing andmanagement, in Box 23. If scores fall below thismid-point, the services/systems are unlikely to besustained. This benchmarking allows a powerfulvisual illustration of where a community systemstands on the sustainability scale. Whencommunity groups can see where their systemsare doing well and where they are at risk, theyare able to focus on correcting the situation inorder to enhance sustainability.By aggregationMost of the scores from MPA assessments areordinal, with the exception of a few that are ratioscale measurements such as the performancerating by users. Ordinarily it is not valid toaggregate ordinal scores, since it may not beassumed that intervals between scores are equal.Two underlying design characteristics make itpossible to assign a degree of meaning torudimentary forms of aggregation using ordinalMPA scores, as explained below.a) Benchmarking for sustainability: as explainedearlier in this section, all scales have the samerange of scores and mid-points of all scalesare comparable, as the mid-points aredesigned to indicate the minimum condition50

Box 22 Gender and poverty analysis of activities profileThe activity is preferably done with several female and male focus groups in the poor and well-off parts of the community.Alternatively, it is done with the full local water and sanitation committee and other community leaders, both female and male, butthis limits the information and analysis to a smaller group.PurposeTo visualize the division of skilled and unskilled work between women and men, rich and poor, in constructing and maintaining thewater supply and/or sanitation facilities.ProcessThrough discussion, the group determines which jobs members of the community perform for the water supply or sanitationservices, such as hand pump caretaker, tap attendant, hygiene promoter, treasurer, secretary, chairperson or member of the watercommittee, water system administrator, operator, or latrine mason.The facilitator then asks participants to lay out a table (matrix) on the ground. It may be done with the help of cards (for labels),pictures (depicting women and men and skilled and unskilled work) or real life symbols (e.g., implements indicating the various typesof work). Lines are drawn or laid out with the help of thread or rope. One column is for men, the other for women. On the right handside the two rows are labeled, or marked with pictures illustrating “unskilled, low-status work” and “skilled, high-status work.”Through discussion, the participants divide the identified local jobs into work that is mainly physical and has a low status and workthat is skilled and has a high status. The participants agree on the jobs that belong in a certain category and enter the job namesor pictures or symbols in the unskilled/low status and skilled/high status categories.Using colored slips, beans and other materials, the participants then place the number of women and men who carry out therespective functions in the respective boxes (see drawing below).Men WomenSkilled,■ ■ ■high-status work ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■Unskilled, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■low-status work■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ Wealthier households■ Poor householdsAnalysisParticipants review who does skilled work and who does unskilled work and what the gender implications are. For example, aremost poor women doing unskilled work while skilled work is done by men? They reflect on the amount of time and labor involvedand on the value of the work for the community and the implications for the person(s) involved and their families. Discussion isfacilitated on underlying reasons and what can be done to make the situation more equitable.NB: For skilled work, such as operator, it is important to check who carries out this work, the operator him/herself or also some of his/her relatives,e.g., when operator is absent. The same exercise (separately or in a combined table) may be done for paid and unpaid labor and for jobs withoutand with training.51

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATArequired for sustainability. Since every scalefollows this principle, when several scalesmaking up a particular variable areaggregated, the mid-point of the aggregationstill represents the minimum aggregate scorefor sustainability (as done in case of 4components of sustainability, shown as stackedbar charts in Figure 8. Each stacked barrepresent a community water system and iscomposed of the aggregate scores the systemreceived on the four sustainability components:system quality, effective functioning, effectivefinancing, effective management.b) Score descriptions as points on a continuum:each score description in a scale differs fromthe previous or subsequent one on the samescale, on a single dimension. This provides anapproximation of equal distance between scorecategories, as illustrated in Boxes 19 and 23.In the MPA, all components of sustainability aredeemed to have equal weight as all componentsare interlinked and influence one another (seeFigure 1 in Chapter 1). It is rarely meaningfuland practically implausible to isolate the effect ofany single component on ultimate overallsustainability.The MPA indicators table in Chapter 2 showedhow sustained services, effective use and thevariables affecting them are measured through aspecific set of indicators. With this list, thefacilitators help community groups add up scoresfor indicators to arrive at an aggregate score foreach variable. The score for ‘effective financing’Box 23 Two examples of MPA scales benchmarked for sustainabilityScore Score description for FIN 2 Scoregiven by (Adequacy of user financing of converted tocommunity operation and maintenance) 0-100 scale0 No user payments 01 Payments made but do not cover annual O&M* costs 252 (mid-point) Payments just enough to cover annual O&M costs 503 Payments cover all annual O&M costs and repairs 754 Payments generate annual surpluses, over and above 100annual O&M and repair costs (for possible future expansion/replacement of system)Score Score description for CM2 Scoregiven by (Level of repairs carried out by converted tocommunity community water management organization) 0-100 scale0 No repairs done by the community or done only by external agency. 01 Some minor repairs organized by the community, not any 25major repairs.2 (mid-point) All minor repairs done/organized by the community, 50but not major repairs.3 All minor repairs done/organized by the community, 75also some major repairs.4 All minor and major repairs done/organized by the community. 100* O&M - Operation and maintenance52

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATAFigure 6Example of maximum and actualaggregated community score for effectivefinancing in one community200The facilitator then encourages the group toconsider why the achieved scores are high, low orin-between as compared to the maximumpossible. When a degree of consensus begins toemerge, the facilitator steers the discussion towardswhat can be done to improve the situation.1005.3 Strengths andweaknesses analysis0Max. scorepossibleCommunity “X”in community “X” shown in Figure 6 is, forexample, derived from adding the two scores forcoverage of operation and maintenance costs(lighter section of bars) and universality andtimeliness of payments (darker section of each bar).The facilitator helps community “X” to see thattheir aggregate score for effective financing barelymakes the mid-point (in this case at 100 out ofthe aggregate maximum score of 200), and thatunless the users of the water system improve theirfinancing performance, the system is likely tobecome unsustainable. The relative length of thesections of the stacked bar shows that what theyneed to most improve is the universality andtimeliness of user paymentsTo obtain an overall picture of strengths andweaknesses in a particular community system, theassessment team presents the overview of therespective community scales and scores (see Figure7) to a community review assembly at the end ofthe process. The facilitator helps identify wherestrengths and weaknesses are, by asking peopleto identify which scores are considerably higherand lower respectively than the benchmark at themid-point, which is the minimum score levelrequired to indicate a sustainable system.Facilitators crosscheck with the communitygathering whether the picture correctly summarizesthe situation. Discussion then proceeds to howthe weaknesses can be addressed, what localgroups can do to improve the situation, and whatresources and opportunities may be available totap, both locally and further afield.The facilitators help the groups to visualize theoutcomes of the aggregation and compare theresult with the maximum score. Visualization maytake the form of a simple bar diagram, a piechart, or any other visual that is easily understood.The diagram is drawn on paper or created on thefloor with different lengths of rope, pieces of paperor cloth, depending on what is locally availableand what the group can easily understand.Once the group grasps the idea, repetition of theprocess is easy. Groups have even come up withbetter alternatives to express the analysis visually.Community score for system quality converted tobar chart by villagers in Indonesia53

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATAFigure 7 Strengths and weaknesses in sustaining domestic water supply in community “X”10090807060Minimum scoreindicatingsustainability504030201001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Different aspects of sustainability and effective use in one community5.4 Comparison with othercommunitiesTo help a community compare its performancewith that of others in the project or region, thefacilitator aggregates the results for allsustainability indicators for that community anddepicts the results along with those of severalothers in the project area (see Figure 8).An additional task of the facilitators is to ensurethat someone from the community assumesresponsibility for the safekeeping of the producedmaps, diagrams, scoring sheets, etc. They shouldalso ensure that the plans and agreedresponsibilities are recorded so that the groupcan later monitor their progress. Facilitatorsshould take away only their own notes and copiesthey make of the outcomes. The originals remainin the community.The variations in scores across communitiesusually raise useful ideas about what hasworked, where, and why. In response, thefacilitators can provide information gained fromthe other communities to help specificparticipating groups identify how somethingcould be done better in their own community.Out of such analyses emerge specific ideasabout how a community may enhance thesustainability and effective use of its services. Atthis point, facilitators take a back seat and leavethe group to turn its ideas into plans for specificaction.If the results have not been analyzed with thecommunity at large, the facilitators and the othermembers of the team (local women and men,project staff, local authorities) should organizean assembly with all heads of households, femaleas well as male. This allows the participants topresent a summary of the results and explainproposed actions. The meeting also serves toinvite public discussion, provide clarifications anddevelop wider support for further action. It helpsensure that the results of the work are fullytransparent to all and that no potential conflictsand misunderstandings are left behind.54

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATASince not everyone can attend and speak outequally well at such meetings, special effort isusually needed to ensure effective communityreview assemblies. Some good practices to followare:●Information: using information channels thatwill reach both women and men from differentsocio-economic groups (women and men oftenhave different communication channels) withadvance notice of the time, place and purposeof the meeting.all, e.g., through breaks-out and small groupdiscussions, grouping people by gender,neighborhood, etc; inviting groups to appointboth women and men as spokespersons;holding separate meetings with isolatedgroups if needed.5.5 Analyzing communitylevel results withagencies●●Access: holding the meeting at a time andplace convenient for all, particularly for thepoorer households and for women; explainingthat the meeting is for both male and femaleheads of households; encouraging andfacilitating that women and the poor attend.Participation: ensuring that all can see andhear proceedings well (tools on ground orwalls, use of vernacular language, arrangingthe place so that women and poor people willnot be at the back); stimulating reactions fromSummarizing community level results in variousways at the project agency level can provide projectmanagers with valuable insights about projectimplementation approaches that influence differentcomponents of sustainability.The first type of analysis at the project agency levelcan be a comparison of scores across groups ofcommunities, sorting communities by highest tolowest scores on specific aspects, and looking forfactors on which scores are consistently low or highacross the sample, as in Figure 8.Figure 8 Comparison of scores for four sustainability components across 40 communitiesScoreHow effectively are water supply services sustained by the communities?400300Minimum scoreindicatingsustainability2001000Bantu Lanteh/MalaloCurahwediPajar BulanPenimbung/Tunjang PolakMuara TigaBetungPengaringanHajranLubuk NipisBanyusidiMalasan WetanSelengan/SalutSelampaungMangoloKarang Baru/Jurang KoakBayemharjoSukadana/SemokanBetara KananBatu KalangTeratak TempatihKampung BatuCandisariUlu WoloKrobunganCerocokSenaningKotobaruManggihanPagergedogKondowaPuloharjoCikembulanPanggangPucungrotoBambangPaningkabanSlamparejoPoogalampaKrinjingKalisemutPossible Maximum ScoreSystem Quality Effective Functioning Effective Financing Effective Management55

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATATypical questions in this kind of analysis are:●●●●Which are the high, medium and lowperforming communities on sustainability? Oneffective use? On gender and social equity?On demand-responsiveness of services?Do these results match our own monitoringinformation? If not, why?What factors come out as strengths andweaknesses in the communities assessed? Aresome common to all or most communities?What do they indicate about the agency’sproject implementation approaches?An example of how the information presented inFigure 8 can be analyzed and interpreted isprovided here.Assuming that the 40 communities in Figure 8constitute a representative sample of communitiesserved by project Z, the bar charts indicate thefollowing trends:●●components. This trend, supported by fieldlevel findings in MPA assessments to date,reflects the assumption made in MPA scoring(Section 5.2) that all four components ofsustainability are interrelated and one poorlyfunctioning component drags down scoreson the rest, endangering overallsustainability. 16The opposite also seems true. The bestperforming systems are the ones where allfour components of sustainability get highscores.While scores on system quality (blue section ofbars) and effective functioning (red section) arecomparable across all communities, greatvariations are visible in terms of effectivefinancing (green) and effective management(yellow). This suggests that the project has inplace the means to ensure certain qualitystandards for technical aspects of water supplysystems (which affect effective functioning), butprobably has no standard approaches toensure the quality of community managementand adequate financing of operation andmaintenance by users.●●About 20 percent of the water supply systemsprovided are unlikely to be sustained (i.e.,have aggregate scores below the sustainabilitybenchmark score) and another 7-8 percent areborderline cases.It is difficult for community water supplysystems to be sustainable unless they achievea certain minimum (about half of themaximum score) score on all fourcomponents, i.e., system quality, effectivefunctioning, effective financing, and effectivemanagement. Those that fall below thebenchmark usually score either zero or verylow on at least one out of the fourImplications for changes in project approaches toenhance sustainability or the need for deeperinvestigations of specific issues can be deducedfrom findings such as above.Regrouping communities by the best and worstperformers (e.g., communities with the top andbottom 10 percent of scores) on specific aspectsand looking for explanatory differences betweenthem is another possible analysis. This oftenidentifies questions for further explanatoryinvestigation.Another type of possible analysis is looking for16 This means that in practice the aggregate sustainability score of community-managed systems cannot anddoes not exceed the minimum benchmark whenever any one component performs extremely poorly. Recognizingthis interrelated web of influences among the components, the MPA treats all four components of sustainabilitywith equal weights. This relationship however may not hold true for systems not managed and financed by usercommunities.56

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATAtrends or comparisons over time, by repeatingassessments in the same set of communities atdifferent points in the project cycle.5.6 Analyzing agency factorsinfluencing results on theground: stakeholders’meetingThe second level of analysis takes place in thestakeholders’ meeting. This meeting captures theviews of different categories of stakeholders onthe institutional mechanisms that influencecommunity level results such as sustainability,effective use, participation, demandresponsiveness,gender and social inclusion. Thestakeholders participating in this analysis areagency personnel of different types, communityrepresentatives, and social intermediaries.The stakeholders’ meeting takes the form of aday-long workshop where a series of participatoryanalysis exercises are used to elicit assessmentsand views from different stakeholder groups, onagency objectives, strategies, practices,mechanisms, organizational climate, incentives,and management approaches. The assessmentis designed to explore how far each category ofstakeholders considers these agency factors to besupportive of gender- and poverty-sensitivedemand-responsive approaches. A typicalstakeholders’ meeting program is described inChapter 6. At the end of each exercise as describedin Chapter 6, the facilitators gather all participantsto examine the visual outcome of the excercise.Scores given by each category are averaged ormodal scores chosen as typical of each group.Co-facilitators quickly plot the resulting scoringpatterns in simple visual and graphic forms.The most revealing analysis and the most usefulfindings usually emerge from the differences inmale and female responses, and between technicaland non-technical staff responses, and betweenagency personnel and community members’responses. Hence, it is essential to invite responsesand display results from each category separately,without generating confrontations and threateningsituations. This means deciding on andconsistently using color-coded but anonymousvoting tokens and response cards of differentshapes and types throughout the workshop, forall the stakeholders.After visually displaying the results of assessment,the facilitators help the meeting participants tofirst identify similarities and differences inoutcomes. Facilitators ask questions to makeStakeholders’ meeting in FLOWS project district, Flores island, Indonesia57

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATAparticipants think about the outcomes and discusstheir implications for the project/program. Whatdo the emerging consensus/divergence of views/patterns mean? What do they say about thestrengths and weaknesses in the agencies? Isanything surprising? To whom? Why? What arethe implications for further exploration? For furtheraction for improvement? Who should do what?Facilitators use such questions to generate a groupdiscussion. When inter-category sensitivities areanticipated, the discussion is held in several small,homogenous groups where people feel morecomfortable in expressing their opinions. Cofacilitatorsthen bring the results from all thegroups to the plenary. Summarizing groupresponses on cards helps focus this presentationand makes it easier to record results later.At the plenary, if a consensus seems to emergefrom the above discussion about the overall scoreto be assigned, it is recorded on a largescoreboard. This is done in a graphic way showingeach achieved score against the maximum possiblescore, to enable visual monitoring of theassessment activity as it progresses from oneexercise to the next. If consensus is not achieved,the differing scores are recorded as such, markingthem with the names of categories whoseassessments they represent. The group then movesto the next exercise.At the end of all the assessments, the finalscoreboard is presented to the whole group. Theyuse it to identify and jointly rank areas ofinstitutional strengths and weaknesses, in termsof support for sustainability and equity in theoutcomes of water supply and sanitationinterventions made by the institution.Facilitators generate a plenary discussion on whatcan be done to build on the strengths and improveon the areas of weaknesses. The participantsdiscuss, agree on and record implications foraction needed at each of the three levels: thecommunity, sector agency/institution, andpolicymaking. Scores and actions agreed uponare recorded for future monitoring of progress bythe participating stakeholders and for presentationat the next assessment level, the policy analysisdialogue.5.7 Policy analysisThe analysis of sector or agency policies can bedone through a half-day workshop with high levelpolicy formulators and national directors ofprojects, using a process similar to stakeholders’meetings. An alternative is to interview key officialsat times convenient to them and then gather themfor a presentation and discussion of a summaryof interview results. If the interview option is chosen(see Chapter 6), the results are also discussedwith the interviewees as the interview progresses.This serves as a joint analysis of findings on thelinks between policies and results on the ground,although it is limited to the participants in eachseparate interview. If the more participatoryworkshop option is chosen, the final score boardarrived at will depict the seven aspects assessed(see example in Figure 9). The scores depicted inthe bars represent the participants’ assessment ofthe extent to which different aspects of current sectorpolicies are supportive of gender- and povertysensitivedemand-responsive approaches.Scores from more than one project may be usedtogether as all projects operating within the sametime frame in a country are implemented underthe same sector policies. Comparing severalprojects make the participatory policy analysis amore potent instrument of change. In the examplein Figure 9, both projects came across as weakon their vision with respect to gender. This wasrelated to the lack of clarity in policies at the timeabout why or how gender was important. In thenext step, the group of participating policymakers58

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATAFigure 9 Results of policy assessment: example from country “X”1007550250Definition ofSustainabilityDefinition ofEquityCost SharingandManagementExtent ofSubsidiesCommunityParticipation inDecisionsWater FinancingStrategy for PovertyTargetingSanitation FinancingStrategy for PovertyTargetingPresence andDefinition ofGender in policyProject “A”Project “B”identifies the needed policy-level actions basedon the results. The policy workshop design thatwas used in this case is included in Appendix Bas an example.It would be useful to extend the policy analysisat least as far as getting the group to prioritizeand logically sequence the changes needed.The specific country situation will determinehow much specificity and detail are relevantto determine at this workshop for future action.5.8 Statistical analysisStatistical analysis using the MPA data is possibleand appropriate at different levels. For the bulkof project planning and monitoring requirementsstatistical analysis in its simplest form, i.e., analysisof frequencies and graphical presentations of thesame are both useful and sufficient. They make itpossible to identify areas of good and bad projectperformance on the ground and to understandtrends. Such analysis can show how often certaincharacteristics are present in the database of theprogram with telling results. For example:● the percentage of communities where 80percent or more of the households have accessto improved water supply and sanitationindicates the extent to which conditions forbetter public health impact are being met inproject-assisted communities.●●the percentage of communities which coveredat least the day-to-day operation andmaintenance costs over the last three yearsindicates the extent of financial sustainabilitybeing achieved.the proportion of women and members ofhouseholds locally classified as poor in thelocal water management organizations revealsthe extent of gender equity and social inclusionin water service management.Central values, such as averages from ratio scaleratings, the most prevalent scores, and spread ofscores above and below the median benchmarkson scales can present further insights. With acomputerized MPA database, it is possible topresent results on any of the aspects, such astechnical and financial functioning, participation,59

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATAequity and use, in figures and graphical forms,as and when needed. It is also possible to showprogress over time as the number of individualcommunity projects increases. Updating onlyrequires new information on current conditions,not historical analysis.Using aggregated scores from sub-indicators onsustained or effectively used services (e.g. asstacked bar charts, as shown in Figure 8),managers can rank individual communities intotop and bottom performers. Ranking givesmanagers and staff insight into the characteristicsof both groups. It helps them to bring communitiestogether for horizontal learning and to decidewhere to focus limited resources.Comparing community performance on individualand aggregated scores also helps identifyinteresting findings for case studies, especiallywhen combined with qualitative information.In situations where MPA is used for more researchfocusedpurposes, such as investigatingrelationships between factors or for comparingclusters of communities on specific aspects,statistical tests appropriate for ordinalmeasurements can be applied, providedconditions for statistual testing are satisfied. Thismeans ensuring that appropriate sample selectionprocedures have been followed, the correctstatistical test is selected, and sufficiently smallmargins of error are chosen to conclude that thedifferences or associations found are significant(that is, not due to chance). 17 For hypothesestesting, a 95 percent level of confidence isconsidered sufficient for most social research andmonitoring purposes, although MPA data haveoften produced results significant at a higher (99percent) level of confidence, i.e., with only 1percent probability that the tested relationshipfound is not true.Statistical testing for associations helps managersto see whether certain clusters of factors, as wellas individual factors, tend to occur together. MPAdata have been used in this manner to answerquestions such as:●●Are better-sustained services also better usedby all? If not, are non-users a mix of differenttypes of households or are certain groups,such as poor households, systematicallyexcluded?Are higher user payments for operation andmaintenance associated with greater choiceavailable to users (for service levels or for modesof financing, or choice by more groups in thecommunity), more equitable tariff systems,provision of training on financialmanagement, and/or better accountability tousers?To test for significant correlations, non-parametrictests are used because most scales used in theMPA are ordinal in nature. The strength of theassociation is measured through the correlationcoefficient. As the name indicates, a correlationmerely says that the two related aspects “co-relate,”or “occur together.” It does not say whetherincrease in scores for one aspect leads to asimultaneous increase in scores for the relatedaspect. Clear causal relationships are hard toestablish using ordinal data, since suchrelationships may only be tested using parametrictests such as multiple regression analysis or factoranalysis - which are applicable at higher levels ofmeasurement and require much larger samplesizes than is usual with MPA applications.17 For a fuller explanation readers can refer to standard textbooks for behavioral and social research such asResearch Methods and Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches by H. Russel Bernard. 1995.Altamira Press.60

ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DATASupplementing non-parametric tests of associationwith qualitative explorations of communityperceptions of causality can provide projectmanagers with sufficient insights for action. Tocite an example from the global study, bettergender balance in the village water and sanitationcommittees was found to be significantly associatedwith higher overall sustainability scores. Qualitativedata from focus groups explained that whencommunity service management organizations aregender-balanced, more management training cango to women, enabling them to exert greaterinfluence on service management, thus makingthe water service more responsive to their demandsand therefore more satisfying to the principal users(who are usually women in the community).Satisfied users value the service and therefore tendto pay user fees regularly, thus improving theadequacy of financing, which makes the servicemore sustainable .It can also be investigated if such relationshipscontinue to hold when controlling for otherpossible influencing factors, e.g., the level ofdevelopment in the communities concerned orthe complexity and age of the installed systems.Through building a model, it is possible to seewhich factors are most crucial in obtaining thedesired results. However, such analyses can onlybe done when the sample and data meet certainrequirements (see any methodological orguidebook on statistical analysis in the socialsciences).Insight through statistical analysis is attractive forprogram managers, policymakers andresearchers. It requires the presence of asociologist, economist or statistician experiencedin the use of non-parametric statistics at theprogram level. Her or his main functions are tosupervise data entry, analyze frequencies andcross-tabulations, decide on the statistical test(s),test the strengths of the associations amongindividual influencing factors, and between thosefactors and the achieved results in terms of howservices are sustained and used.61

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6Participatory Tools Usedin the MPAThe MPA uses a sequence of nine predefinedparticipatory activities. 18 It allowsopportunities, however, to choose differenttools for the same purpose or developing andusing variations of the tools. The sequence itselfis also not rigid, as it is adjusted to the convenienceof the participating groups.6.1 Ensuring quality andvalidityPretty (1994) lists a set of criteria for decidingwhether information from participatoryassessments can be trusted. Use of the MPA willmeet most of them, provided applications arecarried out with quality control (see section 4.10),as explained here.●●Working five days with each participatingcommunity helps to meet the criterion of anintensive engagement.The process allows for the expression andanalysis of variation by making certain that a●●●wide range of different actors is involved andtheir perspectives and realities are accuratelyrepresented.All relevant stakeholder groups - in all cases,women and men, better- and poor, localmanagers, and user and non-user groups -must have participated.Cross-checks and parallel observations are builtin to test credibility, e.g., getting informationon the way the water supply or sanitationprogram is managed from local managers andusers, women and men.The data have been subjected to triangulation,that is, results are arrived at through up to threedifferent methods and are then compared forinternal consistency. In the MPA, this is done inthree ways:- using the same type of source repeatedly,e.g., interviewing several key informants.- using more sources for the sameinformation, e.g., sessions with womenand men.18 Specific tools which have been taken from existing participatory methodologies and adapted for use in theMPA are described accordingly in this section. The remaining tools were conceptualized and designed by theglobal core team from WSP and IRC that developed the MPA.62

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA●●●●- using several facilitators with diversedisciplinary, professional and personalbackgrounds in a team.Parallel investigations by sub-teams and teamcommunications are carried out to see iffindings tally and so demonstrate reliabilityof the research. Inconsistencies discoveredmust be followed up through further crosscheckingwith relevant groups the followingday.Reflective journals, or diaries, are kept on aday-to-day basis to provide a privatereference document, in which to record, andaccount for, methodological decisions andinterpretations. This includes records ofobservation by team members throughoutfieldwork and daily discussions within theteams of any differences between theirobservations.Analysis of findings includes negative caseanalysis, whereby hypotheses are worked overuntil one hypothesis accounts for all knowncases without exception.Facilitators check whether the participatinggroups recognize the results as a validrepresentation of their own reality, indiscussions after tools, during the community●●●●review assembly and, at agency level, thestakeholders’ meeting.Where relevant, the report contains thehypotheses, the descriptions of the context,and the visual tools used in data collection.Information is clearly laid down so that otherscan trace the findings and, if so desired,replicate the study.To account for quality of research, peers orcolleagues not directly involved in the researchreview methods and results.In an inquiry audit, a person or group ofpersons with no direct interest in the workexamines the process and/or product toconfirm that the findings are realistic and nota figment of the inquiry team’s imagination.A demonstration of impact on the capacity ofthe stakeholders to know and act shows thata sequence has not been carried out for thebenefit of the outsiders, but has resulted inenhanced capacity of the stakeholders andan increased understanding of possibleactions.The last five criteria were, for example, includedwhen the MPA was used in a global study (vanWijk-Sijbesma, 2001).Community review assemblies in villages in Laos and Indonesia. These meeting are held in each communityat the end of MPA assessments, to present and confirm findings with the whole community, to discuss how toenhance sustainability and equity problems found and to plan collective action.63

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.2 Welfare classification 19Defining rich, poor, in-between categories in CambodiaPurposeThe tool helps to classify the population in threesocio-economic strata (high/middle/low), basedon locally specific criteria and using culturallyappropriate terms. The facilitators use theinformation to identify groups with which to holdfocus group discussions.The community groups use the criteria for mappingthe access of the poor and the wealthier toimproved facilities, paid jobs and managementpower and for identifying the differential rates ofpayments and degrees of participation in communitydecision making, service management, etc.ProcessA discussion is started with a group about howthey differentiate between households in theircommunity. When socio-economic criteria arementioned (which happens very soon), thefacilitators provide some blank sheets of paperand ask the group to draw pictures of a typicalwell-off person in the community. When someonetakes the pen and starts drawing, the facilitatorasks others to draw a typical poor person and atypical middle income person. The terminology tobe used for rich, poor etc. is taken from thegroup’s own language, to be culturally acceptable.This activity challenges the group’s creativity. Thedrawings usually produce some laughs and serveas good icebreakers.Using the drawings as a starting point, the groupbegins to describe the characteristics of eachcategory, one by one. As the answers emerge,someone from the group lists them under thepicture in question. It is helpful to start with thewealthier, then move to the poor, and end withthe middle category.The activity continues until six to sevencharacteristics have been identified for eachcategory. Probing by the facilitators helps bringout different types of characteristics, not only assets19 Modified from Wealth Ranking, a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) method.64

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAand access to services, but also householdcomposition (such as single parents, bachelorsand old couples), health (such as chronic illness)and psychological characteristics (such as isolation,lack of respect for self and from others).Participants then distribute a number of seeds orsmall stones equal to the total number ofhouseholds in the community over the threepictures to visualize how the three groups arepresent in their community. Alternatively,facilitators provide a set of 100 pebbles/seeds andask the group to make a proportional distributionof the seeds among the three categories, assumingthat the total amount of seeds provided representsthe total polulation. This allows a roughpercentage distribution to emerge, which can beused to identify whether the middle group shouldbe included with the poor or the wealthier, forfocus groups. The group then records the resultingcharacteristics and figures on a large sheet. Theseare kept with the drawings for ready referenceduring later assessments requiring rich/poordifferentiation.ResultsThe activity results in agreed and locally validcriteria for classifying households into upper,intermediate and lower classes and theapproximate distribution of households in thesecategories.UsesThe tool is used in combination with the communitymap (see Section 6.3). Its information serves to:●identify the route of the transect walk and thefocus groups of wealthier and poor womenand men with whom discussions and●●●●assessment activities will later be held, asdescribed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.8, under“Getting representative focus groups”).help the groups that make the community mapto decide which households to mark aswealthier, poor and intermediate. They wouldthen count how many households fall outsidethe areas of access to the improved watersupply, which they mark on the map usingtwine or colored wool, and identify thosehouseholds by welfare category. The data arethen analyzed to see how equitably access isshared and what may be done aboutinequities found.put the numbers of households with andwithout latrines in a matrix across the threewelfare categories, to analyze access tosanitation, identify possible reasons foraccess differentials, and better targetphysical and financial support in case ofnew projects.list the number of women and men in eachcategory who hold paid and unpaid jobsrelated to the water and sanitation services,who received various kinds of training and/orhave positions of influence on servicemanagement committees. This make itpossible to assess gender and social equity inaccess, type of work done and control ofservices.visually depict whether tariffs, and contributionsin cash and kind reflect the socio-economicdifferences in the community and how benefitssuch as proximity to water sources and servicelevels are shared. This facilities planning forsocio-economically fairer divisions of burdensand benefits.65

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.3 Community map 20Social maps represent a popularplanning, evaluation and monitoringtool as they reveal a lot that is neverpossible to know from written records.Since they also take considerable timeto make, it is worthwhile to considerhow many different types of data toinclude, keeping keeping in mind thatthe more complex the map, the moretime the analysis will take and thatother tools, discussed later, can givethe same information more “at oneglance” than a social map.PreparationsCounting households with good or poor access to servicesfrom the social map in CambodiaPurposeCommunity social maps help to visually representand analyze the community situation regardingall water and sanitation facilities - traditional aswell as those provided by specific projects - andaccess of the poor, rich and middle-incomehouseholds to them.They also help to visualize in which households(rich/intermediate/poor) paid or unpaid males orfemales work in water, sanitation and hygienepromotion, who paid or currently pays how muchin relation to service access obtained, and whoreceived training.A day before this activity, thefacilitators will discuss it with villagerepresentatives (both women andmen) and agree on the area to bemapped.For large villages, it is often toocumbersome to map the whole village down to thehousehold level. In such cases, a general layout ofthe community is drawn with the traditional andnew water supply systems created through theproject, as well as the rich, poor and intermediateneighborhoods, according to the criteria agreed.For project planning purposes, the entirepopulation to be covered by a project interventionwould have to be included. For monitoring andevaluation purposes, however, areas for detailedmapping can be delineated and average/typicalhousehold clusters or neighborhoods selectedaccording to the purpose of the activity. Forinstance, large villages can be sectioned off20 Adapted from participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques66

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAaccording to administrative (sub-village) orgeographic boundaries when point sources ofwater such as dug wells or hand pumps wereprovided. When network systems such as pipedwater supply was provided, the command area ofeach system from source to points of use wouldconstitute the types of areas/units for mapping.The team uses the map to generate groupdiscussions and gather information, for furtherreference, particularly for planning the transectwalk and for sampling. It is usual for a map to beprogressively developed, detailed and refined overthe entire period an assessment team is in avillage.A random selection is then made from the relevantareas/clusters for household mapping, inconsultation with the community, so that themapped area provides sufficient information torepresent the majority’s water-sanitation situation.The venue chosen for mapping is a central placewhere a large group can gather for an extendedperiod of time, protected from the weather, well litand accessible to all classes and both genders.ProcessThe facilitator explains the purpose of the exercise,and helps start a discussion to develop a list offeatures that need to be indicated on the map.Women and men make the map, either togetheror in separate groups, as gender relations allow.Depending on literacy, local preferences andavailability of space and materials, they maychoose to draw it on a large sheet of paper (e.g.,2-4 wrapping paper sheets taped together), usingdrawing materials they are familiar with, or onthe floor, or on open ground.With the help of local materials, such as pebbles,seeds, flour, twigs in case of a map on the ground,or symbols in case of a map on paper, all selectedfeatures are marked. When maps are made onthe floor or open ground, the literate villagers andteam members transfer them to paper aftercompletion.ResultsMaps bring out key local information.●●●●●●●●●Number, type and location of all water sources,whether or not created through the projectbeing assessed.Degree to which the sources meet all waterneeds during the year, only partly meet waterneeds in some months, or at times fallcompletely dry.Degree to which distribution points meet allwater needs, of women and men separately,the year round, or do not have water for certainperiods, for uses of women, men or both.Predictability of water delivery, consquences incase of irregular service, especially for women.Cut-off zones for water source use, clarifyingaccess of households to sources, particularlypoint sources.Location of rich, poor and middle-incomehouseholds according to criteria agreed onearlier, and the relationship of the welfareclassification with accessibility and regularityof service delivery.Households that do not have easy access toany type of improved source.Number, type and location of sanitationfacilities, both public and household, accordingto their installation before, during or after theexternal intervention.Homes of community members with roles inproviding and maintaining water and67

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA●sanitation services, according to gender, period(past and present), socio-economic level andfunction or type of work, including whether itis paid or unpaid.Homes of community members who havereceived training for construction ormaintenance of services, according to gender,class, period (past and present) and subjectarea.UsesCommunity maps are used in the MPA to analyzeat least the following aspects of services.Access to services: The group examines thelocations of the facilities vis-à-vis the clusters ofhomes:●●●Which clusters of households are well served,through closeness to facilities or householdconnections?Which clusters are not?Reasons?Facilitation brings out the rationale for and storiesbehind the siting of facilities – both for water supplyand sanitation.During project evaluations, it is very useful tocompare the community map to the projectagency’s infrastructure map for the same villageand probe reasons in case discrepancies are foundbetween the two.Coverage over time: The facilitator helps reflecton what has happened over time:●Since the project constructed facilities, has thecommunity expanded or replicated them? Hasit installed more taps? Built more latrines? Withor without external assistance? Why or whynot?Proportion of people using the service. The groupselects the score that represents the communitysituation best. The same procedure is followedfor sanitation.Quality of service: The group also discusses thequality and reliability of service:●●●●Are there variations in water quantity, qualityand reliability?Which sources/points are functioning well andwhich ones not?What are the reasons?Who is affected?The answers are used for scoring quantity, qualityand reliability of water delivered by the differentwater points. The discussion often explainsaspects of management and financing. 21Equity in sharing cost vs. benefits: From theclassification of user households and analysis ofaccess and quality of services, the progression todiscussing contributions is quickly made.●●●What did and do poor and rich householdsnear and far from water points contribute forthe service?Do some households also use the water fromthe system for productive uses? What types ofhouseholds, and what types of uses?Do these uses involve a lot of water? Does itaffect water availability for all, or could it doso in future? Are these uses reflected in thetariffs?The results help the group score equity of tariffsand links information on water distribution and21 The same information is also obtained from service management committees and triangulated with informationfrom users from the map and transect walks.68

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAadequacy for gender- and class-specific water useto system designs, source capacity and watermanagement.Equity in community management andcapacity building: The group examines the mapto identify the homes of:●●women and men on the water andsanitation committee;women and men who received training●●in financial, technical, management,and hygiene education aspects;those who use this training in currentpositions; andwomen and men who hold paid jobs inwater supply, sanitation and hygiene.The information helps the group analyzeand score the equity in the communitycapacity created and used, by gender andclass.69

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.4 Transect walk 22 with rating scalesPurposeProcessThe transect walk is used to review the constructionquality and functionality of the water andsanitation services in both the wealthier andpoorer sections of the community, both from theusers’ and external technical specialists’perspectives. The walk also serves to cross-checksome of the information in the community map.During the transect walk, a group of women andmen from the water and sanitation committee andthe different user groups, together with thefacilitators (one of whom is an engineer) visit across-section of the water supply system(s) and thesanitation facilities. It is conducted with male andfemale community members so that it becomesan opportunity to pool outside knowledge withlocal knowledge of the technical aspects.When the community map has been preparedand discussed, it is used to identify a route for awater and sanitation-related transect walk. Theroute has to include the source(s) of the communitywater system(s), the main works and a sample ofdelivery points in different parts of the community,for systematic observations. It has to also includea proportional sample of latrine-owninghouseholds in the different welfare categories andany public sanitation facilities existing in the village.The team of facilitators and local women and menmoves along this route, observing and assessingthe quality of installations using the systemsobservation form and semi-structured interviewguide (available in the MPA fieldbook providedduring training). They employ rating scales using22 Adapted from participatory rural appraisal.70

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAstandard lengths of locally available ropes torecord the assessments of women and men usergroups at public water points about theperformance of the facility in terms of quantity,quality and reliability of water services.For sanitation, the group visits randomly selectedlatrines installed before, during, and after theintervention project. Using a latrine ratingschedule, latrine owners and the team may agreeon a maximum of 10 points for each latrine. Users’assessment of latrine designs, construction andfunctionality is assessed with the rope rating scalein a randomly selected number of householdsowning latrines, and the scores averaged.At the end, the members agree on the overall scoresfor the water supply and sanitation facilities, withthe facilitators ensuring that the views of allmembers count.ResultsThe activity gives insight into the physicalcondition and quality of construction of thewater systems and sanitation facilitiesobserved.Views of different socio-economic groups thatemerge concern use of and access to services,adequacy and regularity of functioning of thesystem, adequacy of operation and maintenance,fairness of fees, and contributions paid for theservice.UseThe transect walk gives information about qualityof works, which is a precondition for properfunctioning. This is then related with theparticipation, and influence, of women and menin design and construction. Through the mixedteam, insights from different groups are pooledand a more complete picture obtained.The interactions with women and men users atwater points during the transect walk yieldinformation about operation, financing andmanagement of the services from theirviewpoints. The same areas are later investigatedin the committee interviews and review ofrecords. Contradictions found should be furtherexplored with tact and sensitivity, as they couldbe indicators of forces hampering equity andtransparency.Visual rating scalesRating scales are administered in separate groups for women andmen. Using a 2-meter piece of rope, a scale is drawn on the ground.The ends are marked with two symbols indicating “fully satisfied” and “not satisfied at all” . The mid-point and quarter points arealso marked to indicate that it is a continuum. The group begins todiscuss the concept being assessed and one volunteer takes up a posititon on the scale to reflect group opinion.The volunteer usually moves back and forth on the line, until the group is satisfied that his or her positionaccurately reflects their collective assessment. The Transect Walk team measures the distance of this positionfrom the zero point (‘not satisfied’) of the scale and records it for each concept and group in accurateproportion in miniature (say 20 centimeters) on sheets of paper. These measurements are then converted toscores, on a 100-point scale, the 20-centimeter length being taken to represent 100 points.Other teams have used a series of drawings of faces in which the expressions range from the deepest sadnessto the highest pleasure for the same type of scoring.71

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.5 Pocket voting 23 Pocket voting exercises in Africa and East AsiaPurposeThis technique detects patterns and changes inbehavior and decision making by differentcategories of users and at different points of time,e.g., before/after interventions, during dry/rainyseasons etc. It is a particularly handy techniquefor sensitive subjects on which women, men or bothare inhibited about stating their views publicly. Thevoting is done in the four community focus groups,men/women, rich/poor. It is used during thecommunity assessment as well as the stakeholders’meeting.ProcessExample 1 - Use of water sourcesOn the back of a cloth stretched between two poles,trees or on a wall, the team member assisting thefocus group fixes small drawings in a matrix form.The drawings characterize the range of local watersources in the community and their possible uses.Drawings of water sources are placed in ahorizontal row, and water uses in a vertical column.Each cell in the matrix gets an open envelope.Each participant in the focus group gets a set ofvoting slips, women a different kind from men. Thenumber of slips is equal to the maximum numberof sources a participant could use. However,participants need not finish the slips: the actualbehavior may be less varied than is theoreticallypossible. The team member explains what thedrawings represent and how the activity will bedone. S/he then cross-checks that the activity isclear to all. Participants may vote for more thanone source if they use multiple sources for thesame purposes.For the initial voting, each participant goes behindthe voting screen and selects the sources which(s)he currently uses for a particular purpose afterthe new service came about. For non-sensitiveissues, voting can be done by all simultaneously,by keeping only one row of envelopes open for23 From SARAR and PHAST methodologies.72

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAvoting at a time. When all have voted, a volunteertakes out the slips from each envelope and thefacilitator registers the votes under the relevantpictures on the matrix or on a paper version ofthe matrix, using one symbol for the votes of menand one for the votes of women, so that thosewith no or low literacy can also analyze the results.If there are great differences in service levelsbetween the wet and the dry seasons, the wholeactivity has to be done twice. For before/afteranalysis, a second round is done in the sameway, for the water use pattern before projectintervention. To do this, voting slips are given adifferent shape or color than the first round andthe picture depicting a new project-provided sourceis removed from the matrix for the second roundof voting (i.e., for the pre-project situation).In the analysis the group compares the degree ofimprovements in water use practices (change tosafer sources), and assesses whether some areusing a combination of safe and unsafe sourcesfor drinking. 24 They discuss underlying reasonsand agree on the overall score in the scoringsystem. In case the group raises issues, extra timeis required discuss them. The team later combinesthe results of the various rounds of voting into atotal community result and score for presentationand discussion of the overall community findings.assessed for a sanitation project by doing thevoting twice, first for the current situation and thenfor the situation before the project intervention.The incidence and/or effectiveness of handwashing practices in the community is assessed byplacing different types of hand washing optionsalong the horizontal row and key hand washingopportunities along the vertical row (before eating,after defecation, after cleaning up infant’s feces,before handling food).Example 3 - History of participationA similar matrix is used to analyze the extent oflocal voice and choice (history of participation) indecision making. Locally appropriate pictures ofpersons/groups that are or were involved in makingdecisions and choices are placed in the horizontalrow, such as:●●●●●●●●●External agency workerLocal male leaderLocal female leaderLocal men’s group - richLocal men’s group - rich and poorLocal women’s group - richLocal women’s group - rich and poorLocal mixed group (male, female) - richLocal mixed group - rich and poor, womenand men.Example 2 - Sanitation and hygiene behaviorVoting procedures are as above. To find out wherepeople defecate, pictures of sites used for defecationare placed in the horizontal row, and pictures ofdifferent household members - women, men, girls,boys, toddlers, babies - along the vertical column.“Before” and “after” defecation practices areTypes of important opportunities for choices anddecisions are placed in the vertical column, forexample:●●●●●Initiation of projectTypes of technology and service levelsDesign, location of facility(ies)Agency or contractor for constructionPayment amount and system24 Reducing water-borne diseases requires a switch to year round use of only safe water sources for drinking andfood preparation, coupled with hygienic transport, storage and drawing. For the reduction of water-washeddiseases, any source of water is fine as long as plenty of water is used with soap or a soap substitute such as ash,or firm rubbing. Elimination of the guinea worm and schistosomiasis require the avoidance of bodily contact withinfested sources. Thus, a fairly detailed assessment is needed on the basis of local risks and practices.73

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA●●●Local managementLocal maintenance systemPersons to receive trainingThe participants in this activity vote twice, first onwho got access to information on which aspects,and second on who made decisions on whichaspects. Women and men use voting slips indifferent colors to make it possible to see if theirexperiences and practices differ.ResultsThe following kinds of information emerge fromthis tool.Water use:●●●●●Which water source is generally used by thecommunity, for what purpose, before and afterintroduction of the new project facility, and inwet and dry seasons, if significant seasonalvariation exists.Whether women and men, rich and poor usedifferent sources of water and water fordifferent purposes.Internal consistency of the scores (e.g., dowomen and men from the same neighborhoodreport different sources for drinking water?).Whether the new facility has caused anychanges in the community’s water usepattern.Underlying reasons for change or lack ofchange in water use practices.Participation history:●●●●Who had access to what information in theplanning phase.Who participated in making the importantdecisions leading to the creation of the watersupply and sanitation facilities. Who decidedon what local planning aspects.Who did not participate and why.What extent of information and choice wasavailable to those involved in making thedecisions.UsesAfter each voting, the group lays out votes andthe contents of the respective pockets on theground/cloth for the analysis of the findings. Thefacilitator draws the group’s attention to votingpatterns to analyze similarities, differences andchanges. A team member notes the rationale andstories behind the results, probing further whereversomething in the results seems unexpected or notlogical. The group then chooses the category onthe scale that best fits the results of their analysisregarding improvement in water use practices;effectiveness of handwashing, effective use ofsanitation facilities , access to information, andvoice and choice.Sanitation and hygiene behavior:●●●Pattern of hygiene behavior being studiedbefore/after project interventions.Differences between women and men, rich andpoor.Underlying reasons for change or lack ofchange in behavior before/after projectinterventions.Community group discussing results of pocketvoting for water use in Cambodia74

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.6 Ladders (1)Women’s group assessing benefits of household latrines versus costs in CambodiaPurposeThe ladder activity is first used to assess the extentto which a water supply/sanitation programmeets the users’ demand and whether theyconsider the benefits worth their costs. The activityis done separately with women and men inwealthier and poor sections of the community.ProcessA discussion is started about how the service hasaffected people’s lives. Are there any benefits (ornegative effects) that they are experiencing fromthe service itself or from their participation in theprocess of its establishment or operation? As theyemerge, the benefits are listed on a flip chart sheetor separate cards using words along with symbols,pictures drawn by the community members, orreal objects to illustrate the benefits. Using symbolsor drawings is important to ensure that theilliterates are not excluded from the discussion.Once people feel that they have listed all thebenefits, they are invited to select those cards thatrepresent a demand currently being met by theservice, and lay aside the rest.The women or men then rate the degree to whichthey, as a group, are getting this particular benefit.They do this by giving each pictured benefit ascore of between ten (highest) and one (lowest)using beans or seeds as markers.Once the activity is completed, the cards are putinto a rank order from high scores to low. Thefacilitator helps to add up the total obtained scoreas compared to the total theoretical maximum (thenumber of identified benefits times ten). Theultimate score is a ratio arrived at by taking theaverage times ten. Thus, if the users identify thatthe service meets seven types of user demands,the maximum possible score would be 70. Sincenot all benefits will be rated a maximum of 10,the actual score may, for example, be 55. Thepercentage of satisfied demand is then 55/70 X100, or 79 percent. 2525 Use of a percentage score ensures that the final score is independent of the number of benefits identified, andonly measures the users’ perception of the extent of benefit expectation (or demand) being met.75

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPATo assess the value for costs, the participants lookat their scores again, but now discuss which ofthese benefits are worth their past and currentcontributions, in terms of payments, time, conflictsand whatever else the service costs them. If thereare items for which they feel their costs are greaterthan the benefits they are getting, they can reducethe number of beans given as scores. If there arecertain benefits for which they would evencontribute more than they do now, they can addbeans. The value-for-cost score is then calculatedusing the same method as above.ResultThe scores indicate the groups’ perceptions ofdifferent types of benefits from the new service.They also reveal group perceptions of the extentto which each type of benefit is experienced.Ranking of benefits shows what they consideredworth paying for (in terms of money, time, effort,assets or any other way), according to gender andwelfare class. Cross-checking helps identify to whatextent these experiences relate to their willingnessto sustain the water service or sanitationimprovements and whether other factors also playa role. Women and men may also see differentbenefits for themselves and for the other gender.UseThe activity results in overviews of the types,division and scope of benefits accruing towomen, men or both and as perceived by thedifferent socio-economic groups. The resultshelp examine whose demands are being metand whose are not. Additionally, whosedemands are being met to a greater extent thanfor others and why? If major inequities arediscovered in the benefits experienced from theservices and in the value for cost perceived bydifferent groups, facilitators use discussions todraw out reasons underlying them. The wholecommunity needs to become aware of theinequities and identify the reasons for them, tospark collective decisions and actions.For example, if a certain group is derivingproportionately greater benefits from the servicesthan others but is paying the same user fees,this could lead to a change in the rates of userfees that better reflects the differentials inconsumption - thus improving financialsustainability.The activity also lends itself to a broaderdiscussion on benefits and gender: whichbenefits are for women and girls, which for menan boys, and which are the same for all. Tryingto distinguish between practical gender benefits(that is, facilitating life without changing existingroles of women and men) and strategic ones(that is, leading to an improved position ofwomen as compared to men) turned out to bedifficult in field situations and was abandonedas part of the assessments.76

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.7 Card sortingAssessing who contributed what for construction, by gender and class, in NepalPurposeCard sorting is used in MPA to assess whocontributed what to the establishment of the service,in relation to capacity to contribute.ProcessFor this activity, the starting points are the drawingsthat emerged from welfare classification asrepresenting the rich/wealthier and the poor. Witheach drawing, a picture of a man and a womanis added (if not already present) to represent themale and female head of the family. Alternatively,the two persons are depicted with a symbol, e.g.,typical male and female implements or pieces ofclothing. In addition, pictures or real life symbolsare needed to represent total and partial paymentsin cash (e.g., large and small bag of money orpile of coins); typical payments in kind (e.g.,chicken, grain, coconuts, etc. as is locallyappropriate), typical unskilled labor (e.g., digging,carrying construction materials, catering) andtypical local materials that the users may haveprovided in the installation process (e.g., sand,bricks, stones and the like).The facilitator explains that this activity aims tolearn who in the households has contributedwhat to establishing the service. The groups thendiscuss what the cards represent or identify andbring symbols for each kind of contribution bywomen and men. They lay these out in three rowsunder the pictures or symbols of a woman, aman, and a woman and a man together, placedas column headings.Each person in the group then gets as many seeds,pebbles or similar objects as there are types ofcontributions. They place them next to types ofcontribution(s) in any of the three rows: given bythe man or men in the household, the woman orwomen in the household, or the genders/coupletogether. The total number of beans is then copiedon a pictorial copy of the scoring sheet. To structurethe activity, it can be done row by row.77

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAWhere relevant, the activity is done twice, once forwater supply and once for sanitation.households contributed at the same rate ordifferent rates.ResultsThe outcome provides insight into the division ofcontributions within the community and on thegender division of labor contribution inhouseholds, and also for cash contributions inthose cultures where women and men have theirown sources and control of income. It shows thenature of user contributions to meet demand,other than time for meetings. Time also hasmonetary value, but is hard to recall several yearsafter implementation.UsesQuestions may be asked to bring out what wasthe basis of determining the type and amountof contributions. Were the poor required tocontribute less or the same as others? How didthey decide who was to pay more or less? Didthe majority of users have a voice in decidingthe extent of the contribution? Did the poorand the women have a say in deciding? Didwomen and men within each household andin both economic groups contribute differentamounts and in different ways? How do thedifferent categories feel about theircontributions? Do they feel it was fair? Whatare the reasons for their answers?This is another activity that helps to analyze(in)equity and draw conclusions about whetherResults are used to score the equity in divisionof contributions during construction.78

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.8 Ladders (2)Men’s group in Indonesia assessing gender division of workload for operation andmaintenance of water servicesPurposeThis activity is used to assess the impact of thewater service or the sanitation program onwomen’s time and workload in relation to that ofmen.Processtasks the members now carry out, using the cards.These cards are then ordered in the day’ssequence. A week’s or month’s sequence may beused in addition if there are tasks that are notcarried out daily. Using matchsticks or other easyto-countmaterials, members of each group thenestimate how much time they spent on eachactivity.A second ladder exercise similar to the first one isdone with the members of the water committeeand other voluntary workers, who contribute timeand work to keep the service going. It is also donewith focus groups of users for whom the projectintervention may also have affected time and laborpatterns.They discuss the changes that have occurredthrough the project. Has work increased,decreased, or stayed the same? Have cooperationpatterns in the household (work by women, men,boys and girls) changed?ResultsThe activity uses a series of small drawingsdepicting typical female work related to use andmaintenance of water and sanitation services.Another series depicts men’s work. Each groupbegins by discussing the typical female and maleInformation emerges on who (women andmen, rich and poor, girls and boys) does whatwork related to use and upkeep of watersupply and sanitation, and changes inworkload and work division within the79

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAhouseholds. This helps start discussions onredistribution and other ways of facilitationof equitable sharing of workloads.UsesDivision of workload. When the visual output iscomplete, the facilitator initiates a discussionon sharing burdens. How are the workloads/responsibilities for water supply and sanitationshared between women and men? How is thisfor boys and girls? Is the workload shared fairly?If yes, how did it happen? If not, who has agreater burden? Why? How does this affect theirlives? 26 Should this change? What can be doneto share the burden more equitably? Whataction can be taken, by whom? The groups usethe outcomes to choose the option (or inbetweenscore) that best represents theirsituation.Effect on time and work divisionAfter a ladder exercise, members of the water committee in a community in Ghana decided that,for a fairer division of work and better results , all members would help the treasurer with feecollection from user homes.26 Some significant effects can be changes in school attendance of girls and boys; changes in infant care andfeeding practices in the family; changes in women’s access to opportunities for developmental interventions orincome generating activities.80

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.9 Matrix votingAccess to training by gender and social class, in NepalPurposeused for doing the jobs may be used as symbols.Matrices are used to assess the division of skilledand unskilled, paid and unpaid work related tothe water service and/or sanitation, betweenwomen and men, rich and poor.The same activity can also be used to assess accessto and income from training or productive uses ofwater, for women and men, rich and poor.ProcessWithin the group (which may be the members ofthe water and sanitation committee or male/femalefocus groups in the poor and wealthier sections),the construction, maintenance and managementwork done for the water supply and/or sanitationis identified. Participants prepare a card label foreach job. In case of low literacy levels amongparticipants, drawings of the jobs or implementsThe group then discusses which jobs are skilled/only for the trained and have a high status andwhich jobs involve only unskilled physical laborand are low status. They sort the cards into thetwo categories.The facilitator then draws a matrix on the groundor on a large piece of paper with three rows andthree columns. The second and third columnsget labels or pictures of “women” and “men.” Inthe first cells of the second and third row, thefacilitator places or writes the identified skilledand unskilled jobs.Using colored slips, beans or other local material,the participants then put the numbers of womenand men who carry out the identified tasks in therespective cells of the matrix. Different colors orshapes may be used to denote women and men81

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAfrom wealthier households and women and menfrom poor families. The same exercise is done forpaid and unpaid jobs/tasks.●mean for their workload?Do men have responsibilities for householdand environmental cleanliness?The types of training given or planned to be givenby projects are assessed in the same manner, e.g.,training in leadership skills, technical constructionor maintenance skills, bookkeeping andaccounting skills, skills for monitoring systemfunctioning and use, and hygiene promotion.Who and how many have had access to trainingis identified by gender and class.ResultsEmerging data include new jobs and skills forwomen and men, including non-stereotyped skills;status and gender division of physical labor;division of paid and unpaid jobs between womenand men, rich and poor; access to training forwomen and men in wealthier and poor households;impacts of the project on women and men.UsesTo assess activities and impacts: The activityprovides insight into how unskilled and skilled jobs,low and high status jobs are or will be dividedbetween women and men, and how this impactstheir positions. Typical questions that may beanswered are:Sharing workloads and responsibility●●Do women/girls also do technical jobs? Whyor why not? Would there be benefits if morewomen/girls are (also) trained for technicaltasks? What types of women/girls could/should be trained?Do only women/poor people do the physicalwork involving cleaning, collecting tariffs, etc.?Is the work paid? What does the situationAccess to new resources - knowledge, skills●●●●Has the project brought new skills? To women,men or both? To girls and boys?Has the project brought any training? In whatsubjects? Who and how many benefited, inthe committee and in the community?Are only the wealthier getting trained for skilledand paid jobs? Why?Was training given along conventionalgender lines, or did both women and menlearn new aspects, e.g., men on health andhygiene, women on financing, maintenanceof facility?Access to new resources - jobs, production, andincome●●●Has the project brought new jobs? Paid orunpaid? Who does the paid jobs, and whothe unpaid? If men did unpaid jobs that arenow done by women, would they be paid?Who has benefited from paid jobs? The elite,or also common people?Any new/additional economic uses of water orwaste? What are the benefits? Payments? Towhom? Does the use affect current access tothe resource for others? May it do so in future?The results are used for the scales on labordivision, training and gender impacts. Scores andqualitative information are recorded in thefieldbook. The original matrix, like all perviousmaterials, is kept by the group for presentationin the community review assembly, wherediscussion is facilitated on any social and genderinequities found and ways of correcting thesituation. 2727 And for further use in community monitoring of progress.82

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA83

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.10 Hundred seedsWomen in Sulawesi assessing distribution of financial responsibility for water supply and sanitationwithin households, IndonesiaPurpose“A hundred seeds” is a tool to obtain anapproximate percentage distribution of anyconcept; in this case, sharing of earning andfinancial responsibility within households.ProcessThe hundred seeds activity gives insight into whocarries the burden of paying for (or otherwisecontributing to) improvements in water, sanitationand hygiene, men or women or both, and fromwhat resources. For this purpose, each focus group(male, female, rich, and poor) is given 100 seeds.The seeds are assumed to constitute the totalincome of women and men in the typicalhousehold in the area.Participants group the seeds or “money” into thepercentages each member of the household (father,mother, older son, older daughter etc.) earns incash or the value of in-kind earnings.The number of seeds in each pile constitutes thepercentage of the total household incomecontributed.The group then lists the type of financingresponsibilities each earner has in the householdand divides each pile into the proportion that eachperson uses for these purposes and for personalobjectives. Payments for water, sanitation, andhygiene are identified among those made for thefamily.Having divided the seeds per earner into piles andtransferred the numbers onto the slips representingthe extent of their financial responsibility, the groupthen judges whether women in the familycontribute relatively more or less to water,sanitation and hygiene than men, or whether thepayments and responsibilities are in proportionto the levels of earning of the family membersconcerned. Having come to a conclusion, thegroup scores the results in terms of the extent of84

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAequity. Further discussions probe possibilities ofaddressing any gross inequities revealed.In an adjusted version, the tool helps measuretime allocation, including for water collection andsanitation.ResultsThe tool provides information on:●●●Intra-household patterns of earning andcontributions by different members, asperceived by groups of rich men, poor men,rich women, poor women.Intra-household pattern of paying or spendingtime for household necessities, including watersupply and sanitation services and householdhygiene (who contributes what).Extent of division of work and financialresponsibility between women and men in thehousehold for household water supply,sanitation and hygiene.UsesThe outcomes facilitate a discussion on equityimplications, e.g., for family welfare and health,and reasons for the emerged patterns offinancial and labor responsibility. Do thepayments made look proportional to differentialsin earning by different household members? Arethe financial responsibilities or work fairly shared?If not, why? What may be the effects? Whatmight make it fair? The results are used forscoring and planning and monitoring changeas with previous activities, and divisionspresented as pie charts at the community reviewmeeting.85

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.11 Stakeholders’ meetingWSLIC 1 project stakeholders’meeting, Gorontalo district,IndonesiaPurposeThis one-day meeting uses various activities toassess the indicators that stand for institutionalsupport for gender- and poverty-sensitive, demandresponsiveparticipation 28 (the variables under Fin Figure 3 and Box 10 in Chapter 3). They arecarried out with the institutions that were involvedin the establishment of the water supply andsanitation service in the sampled communities. Itis also an ideal opportunity to cross-validate theresults, especially of indicator E (Equity incommunity management and Participation withempowerment), as several of the variables assessedare related to the community as well as theinstitutional level.Historically, participatory tools were developed toempower and work primarily with communitieswith low or no literacy. Recognizing the powerfulprinciples underlying the SARAR 29 tools, the WSP- IRC team designed the stakeholders’ meeting toapply the same principles to assessment withinstitutions. The approach was found effective notonly for the learning assessment but also intriggering collective action to address some of theemerging issues.To the extent it is possible, the representatives fromthe institutions should include those persons whowere involved in planning, design andestablishment of the service in the selectedcommunities, as the range of indicators to betested relate to the rules and practices at the timeof establishment. Care should be taken to includeboth male and female representatives. Participantsinclude representatives from:●●●The service delivery agency (engineers, socialdevelopment staff if any).Social intermediaries/NGOs/CBOs, if any.Other institutions, such as heads of schoolswhere there is a school sanitation program.28 Enabling organizational system (explicit objectives, strategies, performance criteria on sustainability andequity; gender and class – desegregated planning and monitoring; mix of staff expertise; extent of teamapproach), and enabling organizational climate (capacity building; managerial support; staff performanceincentives).29 SARAR stands for Self – Esteem, Associative Strengths, Resourcefulness, Action Planning, and Responsibility.86

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA●●Community organizations that were involvedin the service establishment, e.g., members ofthe then water and sanitation committees orvillage development committees.Special categories/groups who madesignificant contributions to serviceestablishment, such as female masons, healthworkers involved in hygiene education, etc.The stakeholders’ meeting is organized at the districtor project level. In situations where geographicdistances are vast, two or three such meetingsmay have to be organized and the results collatedfor reporting. The stakeholders’ meeting shouldnot be held at the office of the service agency. Aneutral place with adequate meeting space isneeded.ProcessThe process and group dynamics are significantand revealing. It is therefore critical that thefacilitator is assisted by recorder/s who take notesvery carefully and use them for reporting on thequalitative aspects. The full meeting is conductedin the local language.IntroductionThis is the formal opening at which all theparticipants give a brief background of themselvesand their interests. Some introductory icebreakerexercise compatible with the local culture isnecessary at this point, to neutralize hierarchicalbarriers to interaction and create an informal,relaxed climate conducive to sharing and learningtogether.Open discussions focusing attention onsustained and effectively used servicesare important in establishing a sustainable andeffectively used service?”Identified factors can be those that have eitherpositive or negative influence. Rather than lettinga dominant person speak up and answer for therest, it is advisable to have the different types ofparticipants record their views on color-codedresponse cards, e.g., blue cards for technicalagency staff, pink for social development agency’sstaff, yellow for village level intermediaries, whitefor community representatives and so forth. Ifwomen and men write cards of different shapes,e.g., men write rectangular cards while womenwrite oval ones, the results are visually very“telling.” Writing is done with thick markers, andonly one idea may be written on one card. Thecards are displayed on the wall or floor.The participants subsequently cluster the cardsbased on the similarity of ideas expressed on them.Each cluster is given a self-explanatory label. Thisactivity reveals the answers to the above questionas expressed by the whole group. The facilitatorthen helps the group to draw conclusions on thenature of factors and observed patterns, relatingexpressed views to the participants’ backgrounds.For example, do technical staff have views thatare different from those of the social developmentstaff or the village leaders? Do women thinkdifferently from men?The presence of hierarchical relationships amongthe participants may inhibit honest responses aboutagency factors. If that were the case, the firstexercise is done in three separate but parallelgroups with the help of three facilitators and theresults collated. This helps bring out majordisparities in views among different categories ofstaff without threatening anyone.The first step in the group process is an opendiscussion on the influence of institutional factorsaround the question “What agency factors were/Assessing agency objectives and strategiesThis may be done using the card sorting technique87

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAdescribed earlier. Each participant sorts the cardswith scale options on agency policy on sustainedservices, from the lowest to the highest order. Emptycards of a different color are provided to addanother option if needed. Sorting is done in smallgroups of different categories of participants, oreven individually if the number of participants isless than 15.Each person selects the card, which, in his/heropinion, best matches the project approach theiragency used at the time of establishing the servicesin the selected communities. Each person uses acolor-coded voting token or sticker to mark theselected card. The colors represent participantcategories, i.e., whether the person is technical,social or village level staff or community memberand whether male or female. The groups displaytheir cards and markings on the floor or a wall.The facilitator helps the group to draw conclusionsabout the similarity or divergence of views andscores by different participant categories. Majorvariations stimulate discussions on underlyingreasons, meanings of concepts, problems andrequired actions.The activity is repeated for the other indicators -i.e., policies regarding demand-responsiveservices, community ownership and managementand gender-sensitivity and gender balance.The groups examine the degree of consensus andagree on overall scores in the scoring tables withthe whole group. When consensus cannot bereached, it is important to explore reasons for thedivergence of scores, which may be too sensitiveto do in the plenary discussion. Facilitators shouldnote if there are agreements within certain subgroups.Smaller, more homogenous groups canbe formed to discuss people’s rationales for givenscores and the results gathered from all. Persistentlack of consensus should be recorded byfacilitators as such, identifying which groupsagreed with which scores and why.Assessing enabling organizational systemsThis variable (see footnote 28) requires assessorsto have experienced the relevant organizationalsystems themselves, and thus can only be assessedby agency personnel. Community representativesmay however be invited to comment on the resultsof the assessment, as described below. The aspectscovered include planning and monitoring systems,skill mixes of agencies, expertise in field teams,and use of team approaches.Several creative techniques have been used tomeasure the degree to which the organization isperceived to have gender- and poverty-sensitivesystems. One such technique was using ribbonsin different colors for each category. Participantsfolded the ribbons conforming to their opinion oflevel of support (fully open if the support is 100percent to folded four times if the support is only25 percent) and stuck the ribbons on to a board.It is interesting as well as revealing to see howcolleagues in the same organization or in otherstakeholder groups view the organizationalculture.Another alternative is to use pocket voting for eachscale. Empty envelopes are taped to individualcards carrying descriptions for scores of 0, 1, 2, 3or 4 for each scale. Each set of cards is placed ona board turned towards the wall. Participants gobehind the board and vote using color-codedtokens, one at a time. Since the topics covered inthis section may be sensitive, more honestassessments are made possible through voting inprivacy. Results are then tallied in front of the wholegroup, so everyone can see the voting pattern,88

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAdiscuss the rationale for it, and agree on theoverall scores.Community representatives are asked to report theirimpressions on staff capacity, management supportand incentives. A plenary discussion is held on thereporting and any emerging trends and issues.Assessing enabling organizational climateFor this activity, each participant is given a sheetwith descriptions of scores for the aspect beingassessed (capacity building provisions,management support, staff incentives forperformance). If translations of scoring tablesare used with participants, it is advisable tohave bilingual versions that make both Englishand translated sections available on the samepage.Each participant selects the situation that best fitsthe project being assessed and writes his/herreasons for selecting that score, on the sheet.Participants also record their gender andparticipant category on the sheet. The process isrepeated for the scales about management supportand staff incentives.After each round, the results are summarizedpublicly for each participant category, by tallyinginformation from the sheets collected by thefacilitator, who also lists out the reasons given forselection of each score. This reveals theperceptions of different levels and types of staffregarding organizational support for working ina gender-sensitive and poverty-targeted manner.An overall score is agreed on if a consensus canbe reached. If there are major score variationsamong participant categories, the variations arereported by categories instead of an overall score.Role of the facilitatorThe stakeholders’ meeting is, by virtue of the rangeof participants, a significant challenge for thefacilitator. All efforts must be made to ensure thatthe hierarchy of institutions is not reflected in theproceedings, i.e., the poorer or femaleparticipants are not relegated to the backgroundwhile the community elite and project staff takecenter stage. Special care must be taken to ensureequal participation by all. It is advisable to usethe services of professional facilitators adept inthe local language. A team of one facilitator andone or two co-facilitators/recorders is preferable.The facilitator and recorders are asked to be veryalert to capture special features of the groupdynamics between the different categories ofparticipants and make notes when views differconsistently. The facilitator is further asked to recordhis/her gut feelings on the credibility of the data:did all participants take the activities seriously andseem to answer truthfully? Were there anyinhibitions with certain individuals or groups?Scales are scored on the spot, and refreshmentsare made available during the activities.89

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA6.12 Policy level assessmentAssessing the definition of gender in water sector policies in the PhilippinesPurposeThis activity helps identify the national or aid agencypolicies that were operational during the planningand implementation of water and sanitationprojects, and reveal how they relate to institutionalpractices and thus finally influence results atcommunity level. The activity consists of assessingthe G variable in the MPA analytical framework(Figure 3 and Box 10, Chapter 3).Option I: Structured interviews with selectedpolicy officialsAt the policy level, a structured interview guide isused for discussion with officers involved at thetime of establishment of the service. During thediscussion, the facilitator provides a brief feedbackon the outcomes of assessment at the communityand institutional levels.Option II: Policy dialogue workshopA more participatory option is the organization ofa half-day workshop with the key officials at thepolicy level, national directors of assessed projectsand representatives of external support agenciesand NGOs working in the sector. It is ideal if themeeting is organized in collaboration with theagency responsible for sector coordination. It isimportant to ensure that all participants arefamiliar with the assessed projects, the policiesgoverning their design and implementation, andnational sector policies/regulations at the time theywere implemented.Process and ResultsA workshop usually lasts about three to four hoursand has three main content blocks.IntroductionThis is the formal opening at which participantsintroduce themselves and a facilitator explains thepurpose of the gathering. The participants areusually familiar with each other as most are fromthe central government and national level NGOsand external aid agencies. A carefully designed,culturally appropriate icebreaker exercise is90

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAnecessary to create an informal, relaxed climateconducive to sharing and learning together.It is very important for the facilitating agency toemphasize that the purpose of the meeting is notto compare or evaluate the projects from whichMPA results are being discussed, but to identifywhat policy elements and institutional factorsinfluenced by the policy elements could have ledto the community level outcomes observed.Presentation of results of the assessment atcommunity and institutional levelsSummarized scores, qualitative findings andgraphic presentations from both community andinstitutional assessments are presented byfacilitators, or invited project implementers.Facilitators use the presentations, usually displayedat the meeting venue, to raise questions and invitediscussions, using a creatively crafted process. Theyhelp relate findings from communities andinstitutions to existing policies and facilitate adebate on what policies need to change and how,to better support gender- and poverty-sensitivedemand-responsive approaches, for the ultimategoals of sustainability and equity.Scoring of relevant policiesstakeholders from implementing agencies anduser communities and if the country’s culturaland political climate allows candid interactionsacross all levels of stakeholders. In practice ithas been possible to include institutional andpolicy levels but not the communityrepresentatives in policy dialogues to date.Community level assessments have howeverbeen presented in policy dialogues as the basisfor policy discussions, with powerful impact.UsesThe policy dialogue process is proving to be apowerful tool for influencing mind-sets since it isable to show how policies translate to action onthe ground. It is a process that is already beingused at various sub-national levels wheredecentralization has devolved power andresponsibilities to province and regional levels.Getting all levels of stakeholders to interact, learnfrom each other and improve the end result is nota new idea. The MPA only adds some concreteand interesting ways to make the idea actionable.To maximize the potential advantages of the policydialogue, it is necessary to use it as a part of theprocess linking communities, institutions andpolicies, and institutionalize it as a periodiclearning exercise for the national sector.Open discussion and participatory exercises suchas pocket voting, card sorting and visualizedscaling are then used, to get the participants toassess the indicators under Policy support. 30 It isimportant to facilitate discussions on each visualoutput before a score can be agreed upon.It can be very productive and eye-opening forall if the policy dialogue can includeThis policy assessment rounds off the activities ofdata collection, sharing and analysis and beginsprocesses for planning and implementingimprovements.The entry of the data into the database and theanalysis and reporting of the overall quantitativeand qualitative findings which comprise the secondlevel of action are described earlier in Chapter 4.30 Presence and nature of national sector policy for water supply and sanitation; Presence of sector strategiesto set in motion community participation, demand-responsive approaches, gender and social equity.91

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPABox 24 Policy analysis builds consensus for needed changeIn a policy dialogue workshop held in 1999 in Indonesia, based on results from one World Bankandone AusAID–supported project, the principal reason for lack of community participation inplanning certain types of water supply systems was traced back to a law which prohibits theplanning and construction of such technologies by anyone other that the government’s PublicWorks Department.The finding prompted a discussion and identification of other legal and regulatory mechanisms inuse in 1999, all designed when centrally decided supply-driven modes of providing water supplywere the only service delivery mechanisms. The need for change was suddenly very concretelyvisible to all.PLA Initiative Country report, Indonesia.Water and Sanitation Program - East Asia and the Pacific92

Section 2MPAApplication Case Studies

Section 2MPA APPLICATION CASE STUDIESDO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE Bruce Gross 95SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?An ex post facto assessment in 40 communitiesserved by five past projects in Indonesia.FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE Suzanne Reiff 104A study of rural water supply and sanitationstrategy implementation: PADEAR in Benin.Evaluating the effectiveness of gender- andpoverty-targeting in project strategies, to improvefinal impact of ongoing and forthcoming projects.ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR Nilanjana Mukherjee 111GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONand Nina ShatifanLearning from the process of institutionalizinggender- and poverty-sensitivity in large scaleCommunity-Driven Development (CDD) projectsin Indonesia.LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARD Soutsakhone Chanthaphone 127Learning from communities about the use and and Santanu Lahirisustainability of RWSS services in Lao PDR.Sector experience assessment for scaling upthe application of national RWSS sector strategy.EFFECTS OF THE MPA ON GENDER Christine van Wijk 138RELATIONS IN THE COMMUNITYCase study from Java, Indonesia, of an MPAexperience changing community views on genderroles and gender relations towards greater equity.ACHIEVING SUSTAINED SANITATION WSP-EAP 141FOR THE POORParticipatory policy research applications fromIndonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam - lessons from aset of three country reports and a regional synthesis.HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT Richard Hopkins 143PROJECTS IN FLORES WORK?Evaluating development effectiveness of past aidprojects and drawing policy lessons, Flores,Indonesia.

DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?Do Project Rules PromoteSustainability and Equity?An ex post facto assessment in 40 communities served byfive past projects in IndonesiaBruce GrossBackgroundIndonesia has not yet adopted a national ruralwater supply and sanitation policy, and fundingagencies have pretty much followed their owndevelopment philosophies. The result has beenthat projects vary substantially in their objectives,financial rules, and approaches to demand andcommunity participation. Forty Indonesiancommunities in seven different provinces, whichhad received support to improve water supplyservices in the past, were assisted to use the MPAto find answers to the following questions:●●●●●What kind of outcomes have the differentprojects produced?How well do they do in giving women and thepoor voice and choice?Is there a link between project approaches andaccess to services?How successful are multi-sector projects inhelping communities build the structures andcapacity to sustain their water systems?What can be learned for policy developmentand for future projects?95

DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?Projects, process, and watersystemsThree projects - the Village Infrastructure Project Iand II (VIP) and the first Kecamatan DevelopmentProject (KDP 1) funded by the World Bank, andthe Village Infrastructure Project funded by theOverseas Economic Cooperation Fund of Japan(OECF) - were multi-sectoral poverty reductionprojects with water supplies as one of several publicinfrastructure choices. The other two projects - theWater Supply and Sanitation for Low IncomeCommunities (WSLIC) Project funded by the WorldBank, and the Asian Development Bank-assistedRural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) Projectofferedonly water supply and sanitation.Six teams of four MPA facilitators each assistedthe communities between March and June 2001.All team leaders had prior experience with theMPA. Only the community level MPA indicatorswere used. Project documents and reports werereviewed to compare objectives, rules, andapproaches, and some project personnel wereinterviewed to clarify how the projects worked inpractice.The community sample was not completelyrepresentative. It included user communities thatwere willing to devote time for assessments of theirwater systems, and since that is rarely the case fornon-functioning systems, the sample left outcompletely broken down ones. It likely includedthe better of the WSLIC, VIP and, in Jambi, theRWSS water systems. The KDP and OECF-assistedvillages and the RWSS villages from south Sumatraare the “available” villages in the geographicalarea, because there were few water projects fromwhich to select. Hence, the lessons learned mostlikely show the best picture. No tests of statisticalsignificance were performed for this analysis andthe results do not represent a comparativeevaluation of the projects. The focus of theexploration was on the variations in project rulesand the outcomes associated with them.Thirty water systems relied on gravity-flow pipeddistribution, six had pumping systems, and fourused simpler technologies such as dug wells,handpumps, and rainwater collection. Theaverage number of households per communitywas 290 with a range from 83 to 639. WSLICsystems had been in existence the longest, anaverage of five years; KDP systems for the shortesttime, just over two years on average.Three main positive findings1. Despite the projects’ lack ofemphasis on sustainability,sustainability was average orbetter.Only WSLIC had an explicit sustainability objective.Sustainability was one of five project principles forKDP. Sustainability in RWSS and VIP was expectedto result from community ownership. Despite thislack of emphasis, sustainability of the water supplysystems was gratifying. 80 percent, or 32 of the40 communities achieved a score of at least 200out of 400, the point below which sustainability isin doubt, although three of those 32 scored juston the borderline of sustainability (Figure 10).2. Active and trained communitywater managementorganizations do better onsustainability, local managementand financing, and expansion ofaccess and convenience.The strong performance probably reflects growingcapacity and awareness within communities, ofwhat it takes to achieve sustainability, after manysuccessive development efforts. Although only thewater sector projects routinely set up managementarrangements, all of the communities in the upper80 percent had some provision - mostly watermanagement organizations (WMOs) - to ensuremaintenance and repair over time. If the projectdid not help the community establish a WMO,96

DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?Figure 10 How effectively are water supply services sustained by the communities?Score400300Minimum scoreindicatingsustainability2001000Bantu Lanteh/ MalaloCurahwediPajar BulanPenimbung/Tunjang PolakMuara TigaBetungPengaringanHajranLubuk NipisBanyusidiMalasan WetanSelengan/SalutSelampaungMangoloKarang Baru/Jurang KoakBayemharjoSukadana/SemokanBetara KananBatu KalangTeratak TempatihKampung BatuCandisariUlu WoloKrobunganCerocokSenaningKotobaruManggihanPagergedogKondowaPuloharjoCikembulanPanggangPucungrotoBambangPaningkabanSlamparejoPoogalampaKrinjingKalisemutPossible Maximum ScoreSystem Quality Effective Functioning Effective Financing Effective ManagementFigure 11 How effectively are water services managed?Score400300200100070306080CentralJavaVIPMinimum scoreindicatingsustainability50384055NTBOECF103545SouthSumatraRWSS75259090Jambi88945425757592 75Central SoutheastJava SulawesiWSLIC 142425054EastJava75448869WestSumatraKDP100100100100PossibleMaximumScoreCommunity responsibility for repairsQuality of budgetingTimeliness of repairsTransparency in accounting to consumers97

DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?enlightened community leaders often did so ontheir own.Communities with WMOs performed better,especially in management and financing. Noneof the 12 communities with the lowest sustainabilityscores had a functioning WMO. WSLIC, inparticular, offered maintenance and managementtraining to the WMO members. The multi-sectoralprojects did not emphasize managementarrangements and did little training, althoughKDP required village proposals to contain a planfor maintenance and to set up a managementcommittee after the system was built.Communities with WMOs were also more likelyto increase access or convenience (householdconnections) than communities that did nothave WMOs. Many of the WMOs took theinitiative to correct system problems, expandsystem capacity, or add house connections,usually with locally generated financing. Thisfinding was particularly evident in WSLICcommunities, where systems had been inoperation longer (an average of five years). Allhad active WMOs with women members. Nineout of ten of them also held regular publicmeetings to review performance and planahead, and five made efforts to have meetingsat suitable times for all. Users of servicesresponded by paying user fees universally andregularly (Figure 12).Figure 12 How effectively are water services financed?Score400300Minimum scoreindicatingsustainability851002001006040309050303560106 61008060509569761006375568163714271516949971001001000CentralJavaVIPNTBOECFSouthSumatraRWSSJambiCentral SoutheastJava SulawesiWSLIC 1EastJavaWestSumatraKDPPossibleMaximumScoreCommunity responsibility for cost of waterEquity in payment systemCost recovery for O&MUniversality & timeliness of payment by consumers98

DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?3. Construction quality was higherwhen community members andan engineer cooperated, andcommunity women and men hadgreater control over decisions atproject start.System quality was highest in the VIP systems,where a consultant engineer worked withLKMDs 31 to determine community wants and todesign the system, and then oversaw theconstruction by paid community labor. Systemquality was also high in WSLIC communitiesin Southeast Sulawesi, where communitiesplayed a greater role because contractorstended to be weaker. Both projects also scoredhighest on both women, and men’sparticipation in making key planning decisionsfor establishing the water supply services (Figure13).Figure 13Who was involved in making decisions about the project?8007006005004003002001000CentralJavaVIPNTBOECFSouthSumatraRWSSJambiCentralJavaSoutheastSulawesiWSLIC 1EastJavaKDPWestSumatraPossibleMaximumScoreDeciding who should be trainedDeciding about the financing of the servicesDeciding on arrangement fo O&MDeciding the composition of water management organizationDeciding the location of facilitiesDeciding about the level of servicesDeciding about technology choiceInitiating the projectMeaning of Score for each type of decision:0 -- Outside agency20 -- Male community leader(s) only40 -- Male and female leaders only60 -- Male and female leaders and elite men’s group80 -- Male and female leaders and elite and common/poor men,poor women not asked100 -- Male and female leaders and elite and common poor womenand men31 Lembaga Ketahanan Masyarakat Desa (Village community resilience committee).99

DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?Three major weaknesses1. In almost all cases with accessbelow 100 percent, wealthierhouseholds had greater accessthan poor ones.2. Sanitation access was low exceptin Java and Southwest Sulawesi,and highly inequitableeverywhere. Improvementsfollow water, but outside supportcan give sanitation a boost.The study checked access only in the parts of thevillage covered by the project. In less than half ofthe 40 villages did the project cover all the dusuns(sub-village habitations). Only in Central Java didall five VIP communities achieve 100 percentaccess, though three of six WSLIC communities inCentral Java also had reached 100 percent. Therewas no baseline against which to measure thechange in equity of access, so it is not known towhat extent the project approaches contributed tothese results.In 15 communities fewer than 10 percent of thehouseholds used a toilet. Even where there wasaccess, access for poor households laggeddramatically. Convenient water access is almost aprerequisite for a latrine, and wealthierhouseholds still got water (or more convenientwater) first. The multi-sectoral projects did not evenoffer household latrines as a choice. WSLIC andRWSS did, but only to a very limited extent. Mosttoilets apparently came from homeowners’ ownefforts, at their own cost, and the wealthierFigure 14 Who has access to improved sanitation?100%80%Percentage of households60%40%20%0%Central JavaVIPNTBOECFSouth Sumatra Jambi Central Java SoutheastSulawesiRWSSWSLIC 1East JavaKDPWest SumatraUpper Class Middle Class Lower Class100

DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?households got adequate sanitation first, or werethe only ones to have it (Figure 14).Rural Indonesians prefer household pour-flushlatrines and use water for cleansing. Of the 12communities that had sanitation access over 60percent, the average water access was 84 percent,and seven of the twelve had achieved 100 percentwater access. The assessment teams reported thatsanitation “took off” in a number of communitiesafter house connections came. They also foundthat Ministry of Health (MOH) programs led tovigorous sanitation programs in several villages.In one, people were trained and groups were setup with revolving funds to build latrines. Inanother, sanitation received special attention whenthe village was selected as a MOH model watersupply and sanitation community.Five lessons about theprojects for the future1. Project inputs follow projectobjectives.Only WSLIC had a clear sustainability objective.Achieving sustainability in rural water supply andsanitation requires attention to five aspects:technical, environmental, financial, institutional(managerial), and social. Community-managedsystems need a management organization toensure longer-term sustainability, particularly onein which all categories of users, both women andmen, have a voice. Yet, only WSLIC and, to alesser extent, the RWSS project sought to establishwater management organizations and build theircapacity to sustain their water systems.3. Women and poor householdshad little voice and choice indecisions and service control.None of the projects had sufficiently effectivemechanisms to reach out to women and poorhouseholds. Getting information is an essentialfirst step if people are to make informed choicesand decisions, but none of the projects didvery well in spreading information beyond thevillage elite. VIP’s information disseminationefforts worked best, followed by WSLIC’s inSouth Sulawesi. These two groups ofcommunities, not surprisingly, also reported agreater equity in control over decisions abouttheir water systems. As with informationprovision, however, none of the villagesreported that ordinary people were involved indecision making to any extent (Figure 13).None of the projects had an equity objective.Few project inputs - mainly in WSLIC and KDP -were directed towards actions to increase thechance that women, poor households, groupsin the project villages, and other marginalizedgroups would have a voice and choice in theirservices.WSLIC was the only project to involve womenmeaningfully in any project-supported activity.It set out to include women in the WMOs itestablished and in the training it offered.Women and some poor people were broughtinto management organizations and have stayedinvolved over the years. Women were trainedand continue to use the skills they gained, andboth poor people and women have benefitedfrom the paid and unpaid jobs created in WSLICcommunity-managed systems on Java.101

DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?2. Targeting poor villages does nottarget poor households in thesevillages.Villages which the national poverty indices classifyas “poor” consist of a mix of wealthier and lesswell-off households. Projects without explicitmechanisms to identify poor households and givethem voice and choice may not bring any directbenefits to the poor and marginalized membersof the community.3. National policy could establish acommon understanding ofdemand-responsive servicesand encourage projectstrategies that give a voice andinformed choice to women andthe poor too.The two water sector projects (WSLIC 1 and RWSS)were planned before much was known about howto elicit or respond to consumer demand. Thesector now strives to bring decision making downto the household level, giving women and menequal access to information and decisions aboutservices. Neither WSLIC nor RWSS was verydemand-responsive in these terms. The watersector includes in its definition of demand awillingness to pay for services, and only WSLICrequired fixed percentage contributions in cashand kind.The three multi-sector projects had broad povertyalleviation concerns. If they considered demandat all, they considered it to be satisfied when acommunity made a choice from a menu of options.KDP 1 is a more recent design than VIP and OECFprojects, but demand and equity in demandfeatured neither in its objectives nor as its operatingprinciples (which were sustainability, communityparticipation and empowerment, transparency,simplicity, and competition among villages forfunds). Willingness to pay was also not aconsideration; none of the three multi-sectorprojects required contributions.4. As more Indonesian villagesnear or reach 100 percentaccess to water, convenience ofaccess and access to sanitationbecome increasingly importantequity issues.Convenient water access means houseconnections. When public funds become availablefor villages where wealthier people already haveaccess, will they be used to upgrade systems inways that help the better off gain more convenientaccess (increased volume and better distribution,for example), or to close the access gap for thepoor? Unless there are safeguards, not all villageswill make a fair decision, as Kalisemut did, where,with very low water volume, house connectionswere prohibited but every household gained accessthrough a system of public tanks and taps.Most of the household toilets found in the 40communities came from households’ own efforts,using their own funds. Almost none came from thetwo water sector projects, and the multi-sectoralprojects did not fund household sanitation. Notsurprisingly, the wealthier households had the toilets.Ways need to be found to help poor householdsbuild latrines while encouraging the householdsthat can afford them to do it on their own.102

DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY?Figure 15 Importance of benefits to poor and rich women and menPercentage of focus groups mentioning the benefit40 %35 %30 %25 %20 %15 %10 %5 %0 %Time/laborsaving, greaterconvenienceSufficient waterfor householduseImprovedwaterqualityImprovedhealth offamilyUsed foranimaland plantsIncreasedincomeIntensifiedreligiousobservancePoor WomenPoor Men Rich Women Rich Men5. Communities attach a high valueto their water services,suggesting that they might beprepared to pay more and thatprojects could experiment withreduced subsidies.Groups of rich and poor women and men almostall said that their water services were worth morethan their cost. In addition to the high value forcost, there was a surprising amount ofagreement among rich and poor women andmen as to the importance of specific benefits(Figure 15). The high value attached alsosuggests that the communities will strive to keepthe water systems functioning. It also suggeststhat communities are prepared to pay more forwater than they presently do, possibly allowingdevelopment projects to reduce subsidies acrossthe board, and reach more people with servicesper rupiah (Indonesian currency) of developmentassistance.103

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEFrom Theory to PracticeA study of rural water supply and sanitaion strategy implementation:PADEAR 32 in BeninSuzanne Reiff 33BackgroundIn 1994, the Direction of Hydraulics in Benin,with the support of the Water and SanitationProgram (WSP), developed a rural water supplyand sanitation strategy which consisted ofimplementing a demand-responsive approachbased on the principles of communityparticipation and decision making. The strategyenabled communities to participate in the projectonce the required communitycontribution (approximately 5 percent ofinvestment costs) was collected anddeposited in a bank account. Thecommunities (including both men andwomen) were enabled to choose theirtechnological option (improved well,hand pump, and piped water systems)with full knowledge of the recurrent costsand maintenance for which they wereresponsible. Community managementcommittees were set up by thecommunities themselves and wereresponsible for the management of the systemas well as small repairs, which were to befinanced from the sale of water. This strategy wastested in two regions (Zou and Atlantique) duringa pilot project co-financed by IDA (InternationalDevelopment Association) and DANIDA (DanishInternational Development Agency). Soon after theimplementation of this project, GTZ (GermanAgency for Technical Cooperation) and KFWdecided to follow suit and supported PADEARprojects in two other regions of Benin. In 1999,32 Projet d’Assistance au Développement du secteur d’alimentation en Eau potable et de l’Assainissement enmilieu Rural.33 Suzanne Reiff, Gender and Environmental Health Specialist, WSP - Africa.104

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEDANIDA began supporting another PADEARproject in two more regions in the north. DANIDAhas also continued to support an intermediaryphase in the regions of the Zou and Atlantiqueas the PADEAR IDA/DANIDA came to a close inDecember 2000. Moreover, the Belgian TechnicalCooperation is about to start supporting anotherPADEAR project in the last region which was notcovered yet by the PADEAR strategy.During the mid-term review of the PADEAR IDA/DANIDA project, it became clear that gender andpoverty issues were not being adequatelyaddressed. Hence, towards the end of this projectan evaluation was carried out using the MPAwith an aim to look at gender, equity and thelong-term sustainability aspects of this project.The methodology and the findings of theevaluation were presented to the different actorsin the RWSS sector in Benin and were wellreceived by the Government of Benin (GOB) aswell as by the donors. This led to requests fromPADEAR IDA/DANIDA to use the MPA in anadapted form for a poverty study and from theGTZ/KFW PADEAR project to evaluate the initialphase of the project. The findings of theseevaluations and studies and the lessons learnedfrom the implementation of the MPA are presentedin this case study, as well as the future plans forthe use of this methodology in Benin.1. Application of the MPA inBenin: lessons from threeprojectsPADEAR IDA/DANIDAThe first application of the MPA was carried outduring the evaluation of the PADEAR IDA/DANIDAproject. A training was organized for some twentypeople including government personnel, projectstaff and eight independent extension workers whohad not previously been involved in the projectbut were well acquainted with the regions. Theseextension workers were then requested to carryout the community level assessments. The sampleconsisted of twenty villages from the two regionswhere the systems had been operational onaverage for two years . 34 One male and one femaleextension worker made up one team, and theyspent at least four days with each village.Generally the methodology was well appreciatedby the extension workers and community members,although in several villages people commentedthat the exercises were very time consuming andgot in the way of their daily duties. This is likely tohappen when facilitators do not plan sessions inconsultation with villagers, at times convenient tothem.A policy level discussion using the MPA processwas also carried out with staff from the nodalMinistry, the regional representatives of the Ministry,the NGOs, and members of the Community WaterCommittees. Finally, a high level policydiscussion was held with the Director of Water,the Director of Sanitation, and their assistants.This discussion once again looked at the overallimplementation of the strategy. Also, a discussionwas held around the themes of equity, costsharingand cost-recovery, communityparticipation, and whether this was a pro-poorstrategy and a gender-sensitive one.PADEAR-DANIDAThis project is the continuation of the first PADEARIDA/DANIDA project and is now solely financedby DANIDA. The MPA was used in this project to34 For more information on this evaluation please refer to: ‘Les hommes et les femmes du Bénin évaluent leursprojet d’approvisionnement en eau potable et d’assainissement – Leçons d’une évaluation participative 20 duPADEAR IDA/DANIDA.105

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEcarry out a study on poverty zones in Benin. Theassumption underlying this study was thatapplying the PADEAR strategy (which required afinancial contribution from the community withina fixed time) may end up excluding some of thepoorer communities. It was indeed noticed in thefirst PADEAR project that certain communities couldnot get the total amount of their contributionstogether on time. The question was: what othermechanisms and principles could the PADEAR testto assure that poor villages would not be excludedfrom participating in RWSS projects?The study (using selected MPA tools and MPAtrained extension workers for poverty profiling) wascarried out in 14 villages and a “poverty profile”was developed for each village. The next step wasfor several new approaches to be tested in thethree poorest villages to see what principles in thePADEAR strategy needed to be made more flexible,to insure that the poorest villages are not excludedfrom the PADEAR. The approaches looked atdifferent mechanisms to mobilize communitycontributions and also applied differentapproaches to social intermediation.PADEAR-GTZ/KFWThis is the second project that is testing the PADEARstrategy. An evaluation of this project was carriedout by the same team of extension workers usingselected MPA tools at community level. The samplefor this evaluation was quite small (six villages),and the systems had been working for one yearon average. Some interesting results anddifferences were seen when compared with thefirst PADEAR project.Figure 16Who had voice and choice in WSS project implementation, as perceived by women and menin the communityPercentage of decisions100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%12314341313163231652109412223131320%78710%30%Who tookthe initiativeAccess toInformationTechnologychoiceDecision onlevelof serviceDecision onlocation of thewaterpointDecision onmake-up ofcommitteeDecision onO & MDecision onfinancing ofserviceDecision onwho should betrainedCommunity women and men Chief and power elite Chief alone Project staff106

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE2. Key findings from thethree studiesCommunities had voice and choicein only some areas of projectdecisions●●Community voice was strong in the first stepsof the development of the projects such asproject initiation, levels of service, and howthe system was to be financed. The projectshad also tended to give information aboutthese choices to both women and men. In theserespects the projects had been quite demandresponsive(Figure 16).However, the community’s voice waned whendecisions were to be made concerning rolesand responsibilities in the water managementcommittee and training for operation andmaintenance. Project staff made most of thedecisions regarding who would get trained forwhat. This was apparent especially in the pilotproject and to a certain extent, is still the casein the GTZ/KFW project communities,although generally they fared better in termsof roles of men and women in watermanagement committees. The domination ofthe power elite was clearly visible in decidingthe location for water facilities.Capacity building for communitymanagement is bearing fruit●Progress on this was seen from one PADEARproject (IDA/DANIDA) to the next (GTZ/KFW).Water management committees were presentin all the villages participating in the projectand were trained in technical aspects,construction, small repairs, generalmanagement and leadership and hygiene. Thesecond project put an additional emphasis ontraining in financial management for moneymade from the water sales.●Progress in book keeping and budgeting wasclear from the assessments. Financialmanagement was particularly good in theGTZ/KFW project, where financial tools wereused in the management of the systems.Community management remainselite-dominated, and gender rolesin management remainstereotypical●●Gender and poverty issues presented someinteresting results for the IDA/DANIDA project.In all the 20 villages the position of thepresident was held by well-off men and thepersons responsible for hygiene were alwayswomen (both poor and wealthier).Access to training showed the same genderinequity. Men got almost all the training.Women received very little training and neveron aspects of decision making or control offinances. With regards to gender aspects, theGTZ/KFW project attempted to be moregender-sensitive by putting in place rules formore women gaining access to different typesof training. Nevertheless the key positions inthe committees assessed were still held by men.It was clear however that women in thesecommunities had more knowledge about themanagement issues of the water system ingeneral and we may hope that when womengain a more equal position with men onmanagement structures, this will lead togreater sustainability in the long run.Communities recognize and dealwith ”equity” problems in theirmidst, but within the householdwomen pay most of the cost of water●In all projects, the proportions of wealthierversus poorer was approximately the same inall the villages with on average 15-20 percent107

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEFigure 17 Gender equity User in contributions cost-sharing to for constuction water servicesUser contributionto constructionUser contribution tooperation and maintenance1009080% of household contribution7060504030424265702058581035300Rich Poor Rich PoorMaleFemale●of the households being “wealthier” and 80-85 percent households being “poorer”. In thepoverty study carried out, the average of poorerhouseholds was slightly higher.It is interesting that in all projects the differencein access for the poor and rich was minimal,and that in each village generally there was away of dealing with the poorest householdsby letting them have water for free or for asmaller fee. With regard to contributions forconstruction, clearly everybody contributed, butoften each according to his or her means. Thisindicated that in Benin, villagers are well awarewhich families are poorest and reducing●contributions is an accepted compensatorycommunity practice for such families.In terms of contribution in cash for serviceestablishment, there was a certain measure ofequity, with women contributing marginally lessthan men and the poor contributing less thanthe wealthier households. Particularly, in themen’s group, poor men contributed on averagethree times less than men who were better off.However, continued payment after theestablishment of the service, in particular forthe payment of water, became a larger financialburden of women. This is illustrated in Figure17.108

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEReality of enmeshed gender andpoverty issues●From the studies in Benin, it became clearthat most villages already deal effectively withsocio-economic variations betweenhouseholds by adjusting contributions todifferential payment capacities. In contrast,the gender gap remains large and is currentlythe most important problem. One urgent pointfor policy action that came out of the povertyprofile is that the poorest villages are alsothose that have the highest proportion offemale-headed households. In some villages,more that 75 percent of households arefemale-headed.Changing hygiene behavior takesmore than hygiene promotion●The sanitation and hygiene component didpoorly in these projects. Construction rate oflatrines was very low and little behaviorchange was observed. The strategy for thesanitation component was to train localmasons in the building and promotion oflow-cost sanitation technology, and to put theemphasis on hygiene and sanitationpromotion in order to foster demand ratherthan offering subsidies for household latrines,which has proved to be unsustainable. Eventhough the PADEAR GTZ/KFW did put moreof an accent on hygiene by having a specificgroup of people in each village beingresponsible for carrying out door-to-doorhygiene promotion, little change was seen.The hygiene promotion method was not well●developed and not targeted which led tocommunities getting bored with the samemessages being repeated by the field projectstaff.The sanitation component did poorly and thelatrine construction was clearly low in the 20villages. 35 This was mainly due to the lowpriority the sanitation component was givenfor the first year of the project. Also, moreefforts will have to be put into trainingmasons, in carrying out the marketing forlatrines, and allowing for households to payfor their latrines in installments. It may bepossible to experiment with training womenlatrine masons, which has been successful inraising demand in other countries.The PADEAR strategy succeeded tosome extent in promoting communityvoice and choice, communitymanagement capacity, and socialequity in project benefit-sharing●In general, the strategy was successful inproviding the communities with a voice, andto a lesser extent a choice, in the outcome oftheir WSS projects. It is also clear from theresults that certain areas of the strategy wereless sensitive to the demand-responsiveapproach than was expected. In many cases,project staff made the choice as to who wouldget trained in the water committee, and whenand how feedback to the community wouldbe given. Within communities, the village chiefand the male elite still dominate decisions onthe location of facilities.35 Only 2 percent of this population gained access to a latrine. Of these 2 percent (48 households), 92 percent(44 households) were from the better off class.109

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE●Regarding poverty issues, it appeared thatequity was quite good in all the projects interms of access and in financial matters. Butthis may be more due to Benin’s culturaltraditions of helping neighbors than thestrategy’s principles.different groups have for wanting to install anduse latrines, and tailor messages accordingly.The problem is much the same with hygienepromotion, where the methods used were notadapted to the rural situation and the differentroles and responsibilities of women and men.●The PADEAR strategy enabled communities toget water supply services that they wanted andwere willing to pay for and maintain. To acertain extent, mechanisms were put in placeand tools developed for the water committeesto be able to manage their systems adequately.The PADEAR strategy needs toimprove its gender-sensitivity andsanitation promotion approach●●It was clear that the gender-sensitivity of thestrategy was weak. It became stronger as theproject staff received training in gender issuestoward the end of the pilot project as well asin the GTZ/KFW supported project.It is clear that the PADEAR strategy still needsto improve its approach to sanitation andhygiene. There is a strong belief that thesubsidy-free policy for sanitation is the wayforward for rural sanitation in Benin. Indeedthe problem is not so much the price of thelatrines, since they range from traditional typelatrines to VIP (Ventilated Improved Pit) latrines,and thus there is a range of prices available.In a study on the willingness to pay forlatrines, 36 traditional latrines were consideredaffordable to large segments of thecommunities interviewed. The challenge thatPADEAR faces is generating demand forlatrines. Much progress can be made bylearning what motives women and men in the3. Plans for the futureThe ongoing implementation of the PADEARprojects as well as the results of the MPA evaluationsand others have yielded many lessons for thecontinuation and adaptation of the strategy. TheGovernment of Benin and other stakeholders haveagreed that the PADEAR strategy is ready forfurther refinement. The lessons learnt from the MPAevaluations, especially concerning gender issues,demand-responsiveness, sanitation and hygiene,will be taken into account when reviewing andupdating the strategy.Particular focus will be put on giving all projectstaff (not only central level staff) training to look atgender and poverty issues in a cross-cutting wayas well as providing improved hygiene promotionmethods and tools.The strategy will also review how it can increasinglyput the community’s women and men at theforefront on decisions regarding the establishmentand the management of their WSS services.Regarding the continued use of the MPA in Benindiscussions are underway for the extension workersin the PADEAR projects to be trained in using theMPA tools for monitoring purposes. Thismonitoring would be incorporated into theirregular social intermediation program in thevillages and would not require additionalresources.36 Strassler, Dossou et Kinsiklounon, ‘La volonté de payer dans le domaine de l’eau et de l’assainissement-Une expérience au Bénin’, Helvetas - Bénin, Avril 2000.110

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEAdding Accountability forGender Equity and Social InclusionLearning from the process of institutionalizing gender- and poverty-sensitivityin large scale Community-Driven Development (CDD) projects in IndonesiaNilanjana Mukherjee and Nina ShatifanPreambleHalf the population in Indonesia remainshighly vulnerable to poverty in this posteconomiccrisis period. It is evident that thepoor have not received a fair share of thebenefits of growth over the past three decades,when community development servicesremained low quality, excessively top-down andoften not matched to local demands. Localgovernance has often not been transparent orequitable, with the poorest people in generaland women in particular, having had little voiceor choice in developmental interventions. 37The water and sanitation sector in Indonesia hasuntil recently had a history of being construction–focused. Sector institutions still lack skills andpersonnel for socialdevelopment activities, arepredominantly male andtechnical in composition.Although genderawarenessexists atpolicymaking levels, alarge portion of theoperational staff is not yetconvinced that gender isan issue in projectperformance.This issue has becomemore complex with theadvent of decentralization.Now that development37 Indonesia; Constructing a New Strategy for Poverty Reduction, The World Bank, 2001;Mukherjee, Nilanjana, “ Indonesia - coping with vulnurability and crisis” in From Many Lands: Voices of thePoor vol. 3, World Bank, 2002.111

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONprojects have become the responsibility of multiplestakeholders at national, provincial and districtlevels, issues of capacity now extend frompolicymaking to administration at sub-nationallevels and communities.Participatory evaluations have shown that pastwater supply and sanitation interventionssupported by aid agencies in Indonesia have oftendone poorly in terms of ensuring equity of accessfor the poor or women in the community, toempowering interventions. Moreover, communitywater supply systems that have been evaluatedtended to have fairly adequate technical quality,but community management and financing of theiroperation and maintenance were ofteninadequate, putting longer-term sustainability atrisk. 38 At the same time, empirical evidence froma worldwide study has shown the sustainability ofwater-sanitation services to have positiverelationships with gender and social equity incommunity empowerment. 391.1. Gender and povertymainstreaming in two newprojectsTwo projects starting in Indonesia in 2001 offeredideal opportunities to build on the knowledgegained to date, by addressing social and genderequity and sustainability concerns in infrastructureinvestments in concretely verifiable ways, andbuilding those mechanisms into local governancestructures and systems. To this end, a GENFUNDgrant was used by WSP-EAP during 2001-02 tosupport gender- and poverty-mainstreaming in twoWorld Bank supported infrastructure developmentprojects. This paper explains what interventionswere made and what was learned in the processof institutionalizing them. Whether or not the MPAbasedinterventions make a difference to projectoutcomes will be monitored periodically during2003-05 and evaluated near the end of projectsin 2006-07.The second Kecamatan Development Program(KDP 2, a multi-sector intervention) and the secondWater and Sanitation for Low Income CommunitiesProject (WSLIC 2, a health sector project) both aimto improve basic infrastructure in poor villagessimultaneously with community empowerment andimprovement of local governance, using acommunity demand-driven approach. WSLIC 2plans to reach at least two million people in 2000villages of seven provinces between 2001 -2008while KDP 2 will use a similar approach to reachan estimated 20-30 million people in twentyprovinces in four and a half years starting in 2002.Together they constitute nearly $530 million incredit and grant funds, although water andsanitation will likely comprise only a part of theKDP 2 project, the actual outlay being determinedby community demand.The objectives of this gender and povertymainstreaming initiative were:1. Developing and testing the use of verifiableindicators and tools for gender equity andsocial inclusion (poverty-targeting) withincommunities in the community level planningprocess for the multi sectoral SecondKecamatan Development Program (KDP 2);and2. Developing and operationalizing a gender-38 Reports available from www.wsp.org of WSP-EAP’s evaluation of community-based components of UNICEFIndonesia’s WES programme (Local Voices Heard), West Nusa Tenggara ESWS Project and Flores WSSprojects supported by AusAID, RWSS project supported by ADB, (1997-99).39 Linking Sustainability with Demand, Gender and Poverty: A Study in Community-Managed Water SupplyProjects in 15 Countries; Gross, B., van Wijk, C. and Mukherjee, N. Water and Sanitation Program and IRCInternational Water and Sanitation Centre, (2001).112

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONand poverty-sensitive community action planpreparation process for water supply and/orsanitation interventions, in the Second Waterand Sanitation for Low Income Communities(WSLIC 2) Project, and also for theseinterventions through social fund type projects. 40The Methodology for Participatory Assessments(MPA) was the principal instrument for analysisand intervention used in both projects. Selectedqualitative tools from two other participatorymethodologies, PRA and PHAST 41 were used tocomplement MPA in both cases.2. Entry points andinterventions made inKDP 2Government of Indonesia’s KecamatanDevelopment Program supported by the WorldBank aims at reducing rural poverty andimproving local governance. KDP provides blockgrants directly to sub-districts (Kecamatans), outof which funds are made available to villages onthe basis of proposals presented and defendedby village teams at a sub-district level communitydecision making forum. Program rules specifyceilings for funds available to each village, thekinds of activities that may be funded, and requirethat if a village submits more than one proposal,one must come from women’s groups. KDPobjectives emphasize community participation -especially that of women and poor villagerstransparentdecision making, competition amongvillages for funds, and sustainability of projectinvestments. In view of the multi-dimensionalgender mainstreaming actions already under wayin KDP 2, the WSP-EAP chose to focus strategicallyon one piece of the whole picture, i.e., improvingthe gender-poverty-sensitivity of village leveldecision making processes for: a) village proposalpreparation, and subsequently, b) the finalselection of proposals to be funded by KDP 2, atthe sub-district level.It was agreed with the project management teamthat this would require a holistic approach, inwhich:a) capacity building for community facilitatorswould be integrated with a gender- andpoverty-inclusive and empowering communitylevel planning process, andb) the extent of empowerment and poverty/gender-sensitivity of that process would beverifiable and be monitored by the program(KDP 2).a. Providing a process and tools forinclusion and empowermentA structure of activities was designed for thecommunity level process that will formulate activityproposals for funding.Table 1 summarizes the tools introduced and theirpurposes (for details on MPA tools see Chapter 6of this book), and Figure 18 illustrates how theyfit in the KDP 2 activity cycle.b. Incorporating the process/ toolsfor inclusion and empowermentinto facilitator trainingA training program to equip sub-district andvillage-level facilitators to use these tools withcommunities was piloted in one province. At the40 In both cases, the objectives are pursued by working with KDP 2 and WSLIC 2 project implementing agenciesand drawing on project budgets for stakeholder involvement, training, and piloting of activities.41 PRA - Participatory Rural Appraisal, and PHAST - Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation.113

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONend of training the facilitators evaluated theproposed new tools in the light of their communitywork experience in KDP 1. They said that theproposed tools:●●●enabled more democratic decision making atsub-village and village levels;provided proof of local poverty conditions, fromboth men’s and women’s perspectives, to useas the basis for proposal selection andformulation;reduced the potential for conflict between●●●●different habitations (dusuns) and within thecommunity, by making the process transparent;simplified monitoring of implementation, forboth the community and outsiders;made the village facilitators’ work easier andmore effective;helped sub-district facilitators to supervise andassess success of the program;required at least two days of field practice todevelop basic skills for application, andtherefore KDP 2 facilitator training programsshould provide for the same.c. Adding transparency andverifiability for gender- andpoverty-sensitivity in communityprocessesThe following ways were worked out by thenational technical assistance providing consultantsfor KDP 2, in consultation with the trainees:●●●Visual outputs from the tools (welfareclassification criteria, social and poverty map,causal diagram of poverty, prioritization,and voting results for proposal selection) willbecome the means of monitoring whetherthe KDP 2 village level process has beensufficiently gender-responsive and povertysensitive.These outputs will be required attachmentsto village proposals submitted for funding atthe sub-district forum. They will serve as themeans to evaluate proposals in terms of theirresponsiveness to root causes of local povertyand responsiveness to the voices of bothwomen and men in decision making.Selected visual outputs from approvedproposals will be permanently displayed in thevillage to serve as public monitoring tools forall villagers can track progress of projectinterventions.Training of KDP 2 village facilitators in gender–andpoverty–sensitive process facilitationThe process, tools, and indicators are nowincorporated in: a) KDP 2 training programs for114

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONTable 1 Social inclusion and empowerment tools introduced in KDP 2Tool andtarget groupPurposeHow does it help gender-poverty mainstreaming?1. WelfareTo identify the local poor. Allows community members to discuss the basisClassificationfor socio-economic segmentation in theirTo establish a baselinecommunity and agree on criteria for differentiation.With poorpoverty profile of the village.and wealthierGives voice to a broader range of people.men andTo ensure that the lowestwomen, during socio-economic sub-groups Allows for the economically weakest to besub-village are targeted for identified by local consensus.meetingsparticipation.2. Social To map out socio-economic Community has control of the process.Mappingdistribution of the communityand current service provision. Increases community confidence in their capacity toWith poor andanalyze their own situation and plan for improvements.wealthier men To assess equity in currentand women, access to and usage of Adds transparency to plans. Enables communityduring dusun available services. members to monitor the impact of the program on themeetingspoor and non-poor sections of their population.To check for improved accessof the poor while planningfuture infrastructureimprovements.3. Selecting To elicit ideas for desired Individual members match their preferences againstactivity ideas improvements and identify community needs in an open and transparent mannerfor proposal potential benefits for different that promotes equity in decision making.formulationsocio-economic groups,drawing on informationEnables collective evaluation of the effectiveness ofWith poor and provided through social suggested activities for poverty reduction, and theirwealthier men and mapping. potential sustainability.women, duringdusun and village To publicly evaluate ideas Prevents elite-domination of decision making by givingmeetings generated against a range of equal voice to poor and better off, women and men,poverty targeting and gender through individual voting and public vote counting,inclusive criteria and rank them to select the activities that would be developed intousing a transparent voting system. village proposals.4. Causal To identify root causes of local Provides space for women’s voices. Visually representdiagram of poverty and links between women’s realities of poverty and links between causes.local povertycauses, in order to identify theand proposal most appropriate strategies Provides evaluation of proposed activities from theformulation which will benefit the poor viewpoints of poor women and ranking of the mostand can be supported byeffective poverty-reducing activity by consensusWith women from community resources. achieved through individual voting.poorest cluster ofhouseholds in the To evaluate strategies/action Prevents male-domination and elite-hijacking of decisionvillage,together ideas against a range of making in selecting ideas for women’s proposals.with womenpoverty- and gender inclusiveinvited from other criteria. Provides visual record of the process and rationaledusuns, duringunderlying women’s proposals – to be used as presentationwomen’s meeting To rank ideas using a aids by women representatives while defending their(Musbangdes democratic voting system. proposals at sub-district decision making forum forperempuan)funding.(Note: 1 and 2 above are MPA tools, outputs from which are, then used to target poorest households and women’s groups forfurther analysis and planning using 3 and 4, which are PRA tools).115

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY FOR GENDER AND SOCIAL EQUITY INCLUSION AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONFigure 18 KDP 2 activity cycle with proposed inserts for gender-poverty mainstreaming116

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONvillage and sub-district facilitators and their districtlevel supervisors, and b) KDP 2 project manualson proposal formulation, verification and finalselection criteria. In late 2002 project trainingbecame operational.2.1 Lessons learned in KDP 22.1.1 Capacity building for the MPAand PRA ToolsThere is capacity and readiness among the villagefacilitators of KDP 42 to use the selectedparticipatory tools. The trainees demonstratedhigh levels of enthusiasm for using them at thecommunity level, but stressed the importance offield practice for building skill and self-confidence.Accordingly, at least two days of field practice arenow included in the seven-day training programdesigned for KDP 2 village facilitators.Village facilitators need additional sensitivity andskills building in analysing gender issues in localcultures and dealing with them in culturallyacceptable ways. All participants demonstrateda lack of gender analysis skills and ability toaddress gender issues. Some gender training wasprovided during KDP 1, which could bestrengthened by linking it in a practical mannerwith the community level facilitation tasks and thefacilitators’ own community experiences. Gendertargeting would also benefit from an increase inthe number of female facilitators at village andsub-district levels. Efforts are currently ongoing toachieve this objective in KDP 2.The field test experience suggested somerevisions in the criteria for the selection of villagefacilitators. Empowering methodologies call forfacilitators with listening skills and openness tolearning. Criteria used during KDP 1 emphasized“speaking skills” and “ability to impartinformation”, which can lead to the selection ofthose who command respect. Such people areused to providing direction and advice inIndonesian communities, and are ill-at-ease inlistening and learning-facilitation roles. Duringthe training pilot, a few facilitators who happenedto be figures of authority in communitiesdemonstrated low capacity and interest to workin a participatory learning mode.The participatory nature of the training,modeled after the approach to be used incommunities was appreciated, with manyparticipants commenting during evaluation thatthey enjoyed the “relaxed” nature of thelearning. Facilitator training programs need toexemplify the desired kind of facilitation forbetter skill development.2.1.2 Community use of the toolsduring field testThe high level of enthusiasm shown by thecommunity, , both men and women demonstratedtheir interest in working with the selected tools.Their ability to grasp the concepts and purpose ofthe tools was encouragingly high even thoughunderstanding depends on the presentation styleand information provided by the facilitators. Itrequired approximately two hours per tool to makesure that information emerging from a communitygroup is relevant and of good quality. This wasnot seen as a constraint if group sessions werescheduled at the convenience of communitymembers.42 KDP’s village facilitators are residents of the village where they work and are to be chosen by the villagers.They are expected to have at least middle-school level education and “good communication skills.” KDP 1 didnot formally provide them with facilitation training but KDP 2 does.117

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONWomen in particular appreciated the opportunityto vocalize their views, but were often interrupted.One of the tools was used solely with women, asis intended in the Musbangdes Perempuan orvillage women’s meeting. Women respondedactively, as long as there were no men around.However, it was often difficult to sustain gendersegregatedwomen’s group meetings for longbecause some community men felt a need toparticipate in the process, or at least be presenteven in women’s meetings and answer on theirbehalf. Unless specially sensitized to the need toensure the expression of women’s voices, villagefacilitators tend to accept this situation rather thandeal with it, as it is culturally acceptable for mento “take over” in this manner.3 Interventions made inWSLIC 2WSLIC 2 is a second-generation community-basedproject for improving water and sanitationinfrastructure for poor communities in Indonesia.It is a community-demand-driven project that offerschoices to communities about serviceimprovements and requires that they pay aminimum 20 percent of the construction cost forthe chosen type and level of services, part in cash(4 percent) and part in kind (16 percent).Operation and maintenance are to be fully userfinanced,with some project inputs for capacitybuilding.Information derived from the tools was gender-and poverty-sensitive, in the sense that the differentpriorities and viewpoints of men and women, thepoor and the non-poor, were made clear anddiscussed by all. The trainees reported that thetools allowed more community members to havea voice, as compared to the methods they hadpreviously used.One potential impact of the use of participatoryanalysis methods is a reduced need for forms tobe completed, as the outputs from the tools providethe supporting evidence and data for communityproposals (as indicated in Figure 18, the KDP 2Activity cycle). A review of the current recording/monitoring mechanisms is now being conductedto see which ones can be simplified, eliminatedand replaced with actual outputs fromparticipatory analysis and planning tools. Theongoing review is also aimed at institutionalizingthe monitoring of gender- and poverty-sensitivityof KDP 2 processes and outcomes.Gender and poverty mainstreaming were built intothe design of WSLIC 2 with a requirement for useof MPA as the main approach for communitymobilization and planning process for improvingservices and health, combined with PHAST. 43 Themajor challenges for this project thus far havebeen the development of MPA as a methodologyfor planning by combining it with PHAST, scalingup a process that has hitherto been used forrelatively small scale monitoring and evaluationexercise, and gaining “buy-in” at the provincial,district, and community levels. Since the projectwas launched in late 2001, the followinginterventions have been made.a) Project management●●Provision of a national level specialist adviserfor MPA and PHAST on the central projectmanagement team.Project design requiring participatorymonitoring and evaluation at village level to43 Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation: A participatory approach for the control of diarrhoealdisease, developed through a collaboration between WHO and the UNDP/World Bank Water and SanitationProgram in the mid 1990s.118

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION●be linked to the project’s MonitoringInformation System (MIS).Defining project monitoring and evaluationindicators for sustainability; incorporatingprocess indicators for sustainability in termsof gender-and-poverty-sensitive demandresponsiveapproaches (in process, at the endof 2002).b) Capacity building●●●Orientations on gender- and poverty-sensitiveempowering methodologies for projectconsultants at all levels (central, provincial, anddistrict) and stakeholders (local governmentagencies and contractors).Setting criteria for participatory skills andexperience as part of the selection process forcommunity facilitators.Intensive training in gender- and povertyinclusiveempowering methodologies (the MPA-PHAST-based process) for communityfacilitators and district implementation teams,incorporating substantial in-field practice.c) Community engagement process●●●●●●Road shows (public information activities atproject launch) at district, sub-district andvillage levels which emphasize the communitydemand-drivenapproach, choices availableto communities and the rules of engagementwith the project.Requirement for a formal expression ofcommunity demand (a Letter of Intent) as thestarting point for project engagement withinterested communities.Developing a community planning processthat uses a demand-responsive, genderbalancedand socially-inclusive approach,combining MPA and PHAST methodologiesinto one community planning process 44 (SeeTable 2 for process outline and tools used).Establishing the requirements for participatory,gender and poverty-sensitive approaches tobe used in preparing community action plans(setting criteria related to gender equity andpoverty-targeting for evaluating andapproving community action plans for projectfunding).Providing trained facilitator teams to assistcommunities to develop and implement theiraction plans through the MPA-PHAST basedprocess.Providing training for village implementationteams in participatory, gender- and povertyinclusiveapproaches.3.1 Lessons learned in WSLIC 22002 is the first year of WSLIC 2 implementation.Whether or not the processes, tools, and indicatorswill have made a difference in outcomes will notbe known until at least another year. Some lessonsthat have been learned to date, aboutinstitutionalizing and scaling up gender- andsocial-inclusion are presented here.Institutionalization●Incorporating gender- and socially-inclusivemethodologies into the project design hasproved essential in gaining acceptance atnational level. The requirement for the use ofthe MPA has caused gender, poverty andsustainability issues to be more easilydiscussed and addressed in the normal course44 Until this point, MPA had been used as an assessment tool for monitoring and evaluating project implementation.WSLIC 2 provides the first opportunity for it to be tested as a planning methodology on a large scale. It hasnecessitated some modification to the recording and use of information gathered through the participatorytools. Further modifications are expected following the first round of field application in WSLIC 2 provinces in2002.119

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION●of project implementation. Because they arenot seen as optional, the risks of these issuesbeing marginalised is lower, unlike what hasoften been seen in past projects.A definite marketing strategy and extensivepromotion are necessary to “sell” theapproach for gender and socially inclusiveparticipatory development to stakeholders atthe national, provincial, and district levels.The strategy adopted by WSLIC 2 was not tosell these ideas separately, but integrate theminto a package that can attract all stakeholders’interest. Since stakeholders at all levels areconcerned about sustainability, “sustainabilityof services/project investments/health impact“●was strategically selected as the package formarketing all the interlinked concepts, i.e.,demand-responsive approaches, gender- andpoverty-inclusion, community empowermentand participation. This is helping to developa degree of ownership of the project goals(sustainability and equity) by various categoriesof WSLIC 2 stakeholders, whereas, in othercases, participation/gender/poverty issues tendto be delegated only to social developmentpersonnel in projects.The issue of institutional capacity building atthe local government level is emerging as amajor challenge. The consultants that areimplementing the project using the newmethodologies are supervised and managedby district level government agencies. Theseagencies are habituated to traditional, topdownways of executing programs. WSLIC 2faces an enormous challenge of bringingabout a common understanding of projectconcepts, facilitating more participatory,downwardly accountable management stylesand new kinds of quality control criteria withlocal government agencies, which are currentlyalso experiencing decentralization of centralpower for the first time. Provincial and districtlevel structures are keen to test the limits oftheir autonomy and are now less amenableto central guidance than in the past.Mapping households by welfare categories with villagers - communityfacilitators training in WSLIC 2 project, Indonesia.●There needs to be an integrated strategy thatsynchronizes the establishment ofparticipatory, , community demand-drivendrivenprocesses with ith institutional changemanagement at local government levels.Project teams also need institutiondevelopment skills. The use of empoweringmethodologies, which mainstream genderandpoverty-inclusion, necessitates majorchanges in traditional institutionalmechanisms at local level. The nature andscale of the institutional change managementchallenge (to get local government agencies120

Table 2WSLIC 2: ADDING POVERTY ACCOUNTABILITY AND GENDER MAINSTREAMING FOR GENDER EQUITY IN THE COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL PLANNING INCLUSIONPROCESS THROUGH MPA* ANDPHAST**(Basis for community facilitators’ training program)PlanningStageInformation obtained Relevant tools Use of the informationProblem Social and economic Community Data Inventory (MPA) To establish a baseline for the community socioidentificationcharacteristics of economic profile which will enable sub-groups (rich/the community. Welfare Classification (MPA) poor/women/men) to be targeted for participation incommunity planning process.Current provision of services Social Map (MPA) For community to map out its current service provisionand gaps in service provision. Pocket Voting (MPA) and assess social and gender equity in decision making,User satisfaction with existing Voice and Choice (MPA) access, usage and training and management ofservices. Assessment of Training (MPA) water and sanitation services.Involvement in establishing Transect Walks: This shows how existing services were developed andexisting services, including Source Management (MPA) the differentials in access and use of services by womentraining. Quality of Works (MPA) and men, the rich and the poor.User Satisfaction Rating (MPA) This allows different user groups (and non-users)Who does not have access Unserved Populations (MPA) to assess what can be built on, to plan for improved orto services and why.new WSS services that are more equitable.Gender Roles – WhoDoes What (PHAST)Men and women examine gender division of labourto identify how this might impact on availability toparticipate in decision making and projectimplementation and the likely consequences forbenefits and sustainability of services.Management of existing water Gender Division of Time To check the extent of equity in managing currentsupply provision. and Tasks (MPA) services and the effectiveness of managementManagement andand financing, with whoever is managing andDecision making (MPA)operating them.Financial Management (MPA)History of Participation (MPA)Current health problems Contamination Route (PHAST) Men and women identify predominant health problemsperceived by women and men Good and Bad Hygiene Behaviors in the community, perceived links betwee healthin the community. (PHAST) problems and current water-sanitation situation,perceived “good” and “bad” hygiene behaviours.This encourages men’s responsibility for healthrelatedbehaviours, and identifies existing healthhygieneawarness among men and women.Preliminary discussion of impact Community Review Assembly (MPA) To present the findings to the larger communityof findings for projectas a starting point for participatory planning of newdevelopment in water facilitiesservices. Issues to be discussed include equity inand management, sanitationplanning and management and improvingfacilities and hygiene behavioursustainability of services.change as they affect men andwomen, rich and poor.121121

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONTable 2 (continued) WSLIC 2: POVERTY AND GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS THROUGHMPA AND PHAST(Basis for community facilitators’ training program)PlanningStageInformation Required Relevant Tools Use of the InformationProblem Assessing demand for different Water supply ladder To elicit people’s (users and non-users) preferences, byanalysis user groups social class and gender, for different types ofand Choosing sanitation improvements improvements for WSS services, and the potentialselection of (PHAST) community resources available. Community groupstechnicalmatch the diversity of their needs against technicaland healthoptions available and capacity and willingness to pay,optionsin order to determine the level of demand.This provides the basis for discussion on financingoptions for different social groups and promotes equityin community planning and management ofcontributions.Selecting possible hygiene and Blocking the spread of disease To assist different groups within the community tohealth improvements for (PHAST) deepen their understanding of ways to improve theircommunity and schools Selecting the barriers (PHAST) health status and identify key hygiene behavior targetsChoosing improved hygiene for community and school action.behaviours (PHAST)Planning Community action planning Planning for change: water services Sufficient information (quantitative and qualitative) isfor ladder available to the community for informed choices aboutwater and Planning for change: sanitation possible project interventions. The interests of differentsanitation Allocating responsibilities (PHAST) groups are represented in the Community Action Planservices Planning for change: hygiene through their participation in decision making (about newand behaviours (PHAST) development and management of new or improvedhygiene Planning who does what services, training needs and hygiene behaviour change).behaviour and by when (PHAST)changeRisk analysis and Identifying what might go wrong Community conducts its own risk analysis and developsmanagement (PHAST) risk management strategies.Monitoring plan Identifying indicators for Community identifies its own indicators and processparticipatory monitoring and for monitoring service development and maintenanceevaluation.and hygiene improvements.* MPA - Methodology for Participatory Assessment** PHAST - Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation*** PRA - Participatory Rural Appraisal122

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION●●to function in a demand-responsive modewhen they have had a history of being entirelysupply-oriented) were underestimated in theproject design. Moreover, bureaucraticexigencies have caused batches of personneljoining WSLIC 2 project in a manner that isneither systematic nor properly sequenced.Their readiness to function in the project hashad to be built in a reactive “fire-fighting” modeinstead of systematically and therefore costeffectively.MPA offers a process model for gender andpoverty-inclusive participatory planning thatfits with the new planning paradigm forIndonesia, in theory. At this initial phase ofthe project the process is seen to be helpingtechnical specialists, health and communitydevelopment specialists function in a moreintegrated manner than previouslyexperienced. However, ultimate success willdepend on MPA applications being maintainedconsistently into the implementation phase toensure gender and social equity in futureoutcomes, e.g., in community capacity buildingfor infrastructure operation and maintenance,participation in water managementorganizations, and more equitable distributionof workloads, power and benefits resultingfrom the project.Monitoring and evaluation specialists are animportant target to ensure that key genderand poverty indicators are included inManagement Information Systems (MIS).While process indicators are an important partof assessing empowering approaches, projectlevel M&E is usually more concerned withphysical inputs and outputs. Successfulintegration of MPA into the project MIS is akey milestone, which has not yet been reached.Table 3 provides a sample of gender- andpoverty-sensitive process indicators built intoWSLIC project design, which now need to bemade operational through participatorymonitoring mechanisms and the MIS.Capacity building for communityprocesses●●●Capacity building is an iterative andcontinuous requirement. WSLIC 2 recognizesthat the community level interface is the mostcritical one for the success of empoweringmethodologies and for project sustainability,and that quality training is required for thosewho work at this level. WSLIC 2 provided fiveweeks of initial training for communityfacilitators in three tranches, interspersed withthree phases of fieldwork. Despite this, furthertechnical guidance in the field during initialstages has been identified as necessary andongoing refresher training is planned.Capacity building improves in quality throughlearning from the field. The first year’scommunity planning process has yieldedvaluable feedback on how to streamline andsharpen the MPA-PHAST process, and refinecommunity facilitators’ skills. A stakeholders’review of the process has been planned withthe objective of reaching consensus beforemaking changes for the next round.Who makes the best participatory facilitator?There are trade offs. WSLIC 2 experienceshowed that fresh college graduates recruitedas community facilitators were more responsiveto the new empowering approaches. Duringtraining they were more open to learning ascompared to those who have spent significanttime in bureaucracies, such as extensionworkers within government systems (asomewhat comparable finding is reported inthe section on KDP). However, while MPA toolsare relatively easily learned, the rationale fortheir use is not easily understood withoutsome fieldwork and community experience.123

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION●There is a need to develop a more user-friendlyrationale in local languages for MPA/PHAST.The workability of MPA/PHAST as a planningtool was demonstrated through the firstround of community planning in fiveprovinces. It was shown to be adaptable forplanning, particularly where there are existingservices and usable in diverse settings, withappropriate adjustments of the visual toolsfor specific cultural and geographic variations.The transparency afforded by the use of theparticipatory planning tools was frequentlyremarked upon as valuable by rural men’sand women’s groups in project provinces.They enjoyed using the tools, althoughcommunity facilitators are not yet sufficientlyskilled in using the data gathered for probingand encouraging greater communityunderstanding of their local situation.Whether or not the MPA-PHAST-based interventionsmake a difference to project outcomes is beingmonitored by implementing agencies andresearchers independent of the project, and willbe evaluated near the end of project.Table 3PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION INDICATORS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES(Excerpts from Table 7a: Project Implementation Plan, WSLIC 2)PLANNING PHASE (Note: M/W, , R/P = Men and Women, Rich and Poor)ProjectDevelopment Input Indicators Outcome IndicatorsObjectivesMPAVariablesIndicators and Sub-indicators to Assess1.Providing safe,adequate, costeffective andeasilyaccessiblewatersupply andsanitationfacilities●●●CFs A provide feasiblesystem options tocommunity (includingwater sources ofadequate quality andquantity).Full communityparticipation (gender andclass-sensitive) inchoosing system andservice level.DED B for WS system isdeveloped and includedin CAP C .System option chosen istechnically appropriate.System option/s chosen arewhat all sections ofcommunity want.Technical quality of CAPand DED meetsstandards.Desired service levelreflected in systemdesign.Projectresponsivenessto demand(Users’ voiceand choice inplanning anddesign)Degree of informed choice made by M/W, , R/Pon: Kind of technology. Service level (e.g., public tap, house connection,private latrine). Location of facilities (public taps, tanks, etc.). Type of local service management organization. Size of cash and in kind contributions forconstruction, modes of payment and utilization. Tariff rate (water user fee) for chosen level ofservice and mode of payment. Organization responsible for construction. Training needed for construction, operation andmanagement.●DED for sanitationfacilities is developed andSystem management andincluded in CAP.financing needs●Plan for collecting andaccurately estimated.managing water user feesincluded in CAP.ACF : Community FacilitatorBDED : Detailed Engineering DesignCCAP : Community Action Plan124

Table 3 (continued) ADDING PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MONITORING FOR GENDER AND EVALUATION EQUITY AND INDICATORS SOCIAL INCLUSIONFOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES(Excerpts from Table 7a: Project Implementation Plan, WSLIC 2)PLANNING PHASE (Note: M/W, , R/P = Men and Women, Rich and Poor)ProjectDevelopment Input Indicators Outcome IndicatorsObjectivesMPAVariablesIndicators and Sub-indicators to Assess2.Developingsustainabilityandeffectivenessthroughcommunityparticipation●●●Number of communitymembers participating inproject activities isbalanced in terms ofgender and class.PHAST process isconducted.CFT D is in place and●For the system chosen,the community (M/W,R/P) understands andagrees on level/qualityof service expected,maintenanceimplications, design lifeand coverage as perEquity insharingburdens andbenefitsExtent of understanding and agreement ofcommunity M/W, , R/P regarding: CAP contents (system type, level of service,community cash/in kind contributions, water tariffs,hygiene behavior improvements plan, O&Marrangements and Training plan). Criteria for trainee selection, considering equityof opportunity and sustainability of services.●functioning.Monitoring plan isdeveloped.●design.Community formallyComposition and functioning of VITs reflect genderand social equity principles (CFT task).●●System option is chosen bycommunity.Community agreement toagrees to providecontributions accordingto CAP schedule.Extent of community control of financing andimplementation, by M/W, R/P.provide share is in CAP.●Community agreement topay O&M is in CAP.●Community members (M/W, R/P) participating inPHAST.3.Improvinghealthbehavior andhealthservices ofcommunities●●●●Health CF is in place.Teachers are trained inPHAST and school healthprogram.VIT E health is trained inPHAST.Sanitarians are trained inPHAST.●●●PHAST sessions areproperly sequenced incommunity meetings andin schools.Community classifies itsown good and badhealth behaviors.Community identifies keyParticipationin serviceestablishmentExtent of community voice and choice in planningand design of hygiene and sanitation program:Decision making by M/W, R/P on: Key behavior changes needed in the community. How behavior changes will be promoted andmonitored. Type of special health program to be taught inschool linked to key behavioral changes identified.●Planning for behaviorbehavioral changeschange as part of CAPneeded to improvepreparation.health and QOL F.●Teachers understandhow to conduct HSP.●Sanitarian and VITunderstand how to usePHAST for HSP G .●CAP includes behaviorchange activities plan,and behavior changemonitoring indicatorslocally decided.DCFT : Community Facilitator TeamEVIT : Village Implementation TeamFQOL : Quality of Life GHSP : Hygiene & Sanitation Promotion125

Table 3 (continued)PERFORMANCE MONITORING ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND EVALUATION FOR INDICATORS GENDER EQUITY FOR PROJECT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUSIONOBJECTIVES(Excerpts from Table 7a: Project Implementation Plan, WSLIC 2)PLANNING PHASE (Note: M/W, , R/P = Men and Women, Rich and Poor)ProjectMPADevelopment Input Indicators Outcome IndicatorsIndicators and Sub-indicators to AssessVariablesObjectives4.Efficient andeffective projectmanagement●●●VIT is established.CFTs are trained inproject principles andtheir required role andare at the place of theirassignment.On the job training toVIT by CFs on CAPdevelopment.●●●●●CFTs are in place.VIT is established.CAP is submitted ontime.Quality andcompleteness of CAPcontents adequate.Quality of facilitationprovided by VIT duringPHAST and CAPdevelopment process isadequate.Institutionalsupport forgender- andpovertysensitive,demandresponsiveparticipationSupportive Organizational System Project implementation strategies andperformance indicators verifiably reflect overallguiding principles: DRA, sustainability of servicesand impact on QOL, community ownership andmanagement, gender equity and poverty targeting(CIT H task). Guidelines for gender and class-disaggregated(poor/non-poor) planning and monitoring systemsare available to DIT I s, PMC J s and CFTs for inclusionin the project (CIT-CMT K task).Supportive Organizational Climate Guidelines formulated for types of expertiseneeded in management and implementationteams at different levels (DPMU L , DIT, CFTs) fordemand-responsive approaches (CIT-CPMU M task). Policy guidelines are basis for resource allocationsin project management budgets for staff capacitybuilding, management support and performanceincentives for functioning in a demand-responsive,gender-sensitive and poverty-targeted manner(CTT-CMT task).HCIT : Central Implementation Team (Central TA Consultants)IDIT : District Implementation Team (consultants)JPMC : Project Monitoring ConsultantKCMT : Central Management Team (Central Government Staff)LMDPMU : District Project Management Unit (DIT + DMT)CPMU : Central Project Management Unit (CIT + CMT)126

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONLooking Back to See ForwardLearning from communities about use and sustainability ofRWSS services in Lao PDRSoutsakhone Chanthaphone and Santanu LahiriBackgroundFigure 19 Location map of Lao PDRLao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR), commonlyknown as Lao PDR, is a land-locked area betweenChina, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, andCambodia. It has a population of 5.2 million.Around 85 percent of the population lives in ruralareas that are often remote and very difficult toaccess. There is a broad range of linguistic andethnic diversity throughout the country. Thesefactors combine to make provision of rural water21356supply and sanitation (RWSS) a challenging task.4Vientiane MunicipalityWater and Sanitation SectorStrategyThe National Center for Environmental Health andStudy AreasNorthern RegionCentral RegionSouthern Region87Water Supply, commonly known as Nam Saat,within the Ministry of Health is responsible for coordination,guidance and facilitation of the RWSSsector. Prior to 1997, the approach to RWSS inLao PDR was top-down, focusing on coveragerather than use and sustainability, and centeredon areas that were easily accessible. Following aStudy areas: Provinces1. Luang Namtha2. Bokeo3. Sayaboury4. Vientiane5. Xiang Khouang6. Bolikhamxai7. Attapeu8. Champasak127

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDreview of the RWSS situation, Nam Saat preparedand launched in 1997 a RWSS Sector Strategy,that was developed with sector partners, withsupport from the Water and Sanitation Program -East Asia and the Pacific (WSP-EAP). The strategyoutlined a new approach to improve the way watersupply and sanitation services are delivered to ruralcommunities.Guiding principles of thestrategy now beingoperationalizedNam Saat has completed Phase II 45 (1998-2002)of sector reform. The RWSS Sector Strategy outlinesseveral changes to make the delivery of WSSservices to rural communities more sustainable.These changes focus on a demand-basedFigure 20 Annual RWSS cycle• Reviews andConsultations• Monitoring• Evaluations• Case Studies• Pilot Studies• Sector Forums• Exchanges• WATSAN Committee• Constructionmaterials• Hygiene Promotion• Construction ofwater supply andlatrinesEnsure Ensure Ensure Ensure EnsureLearning Learning Learning Learning LearningImplementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation of of of of ofCommunity Community Community Community Community Plans Plans Plans Plans PlansProgram Program Program Program Program Planning Planning Planning Planning Planningand and and and and Operations Operations Operations Operations OperationsCommunityCommunityCommunityCommunityCommunityPlanning Planning Planning Planning Planning• Planning Workshopwith Partners• Training• Work Plans• Operations• Dialogue & DemandAssessments• Choice of options forhygiene, latrine andwater system• Action Plan andAgreementsapproach through increased communitycontributions and local decision making.As compared to the past (when the tendency wasto focus on easily accessible lowland villages andtechnicians deciding specific technologyinterventions for communities), user communitiesare now the decision makers. They are supportedby technicians from Nam Saat and social workers(from Lao Women’s Union, Youth Union, andRural Development Committee), who work togetherto facilitate local decision making based oninformed choices. 46 Both sanitation and watersupply options are now presented in a ladderformat or menu 47 so that people are able tocompare many different options and choose themost affordable and appropriate technology andservice levels for themselves.The guiding principles of the NationalRWSS Sector Strategy include:- National policies and standards- Equity of service- Linking with partners- Bottom-up decentralized planning- Participatory approach- Community management andownership- Gender and cultural sensitivity- Accountability and transparency- Informed choice- Learning processThese principles are summarized in theannual RWSS cycle as illustrated inFigure 20.45 Phase II (1998-2002) of Nam Saat program funded by Swedish International Development CooperationAgency.46 For further information please visit Lao PDR Country page of the http://www.wsp.org website.47 These are options for sanitation and water supply services, starting with minimal cost hardwareinterventions.128

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDMembers from the followingorganizations were trained in the MPAField assessment study through MPA,Bolikhamxai province, 2001Nam SaatDepartment of Hygiene andDisease PreventionWater Supply AuthorityDept. of Housing andUrban PlanningLao Youth UnionCare InternationalSave the Children, AustraliaQuaker Service LaoEuropean Union6 people3 people2 people1 person1 person1 person1 person1 person1 personAssessing existing servicesin light of the guidingprinciplesDuring April-December 2001 a study was carriedout by Nam Saat to capture learning about howRWSS infrastructure built in the past is beingmanaged and sustained. The aim of thisassessment was to gain experience from projectsthroughout the country supported by thegovernment and various external agencies. Thisexperience is now being integrated into ongoingand future projects to strengthen the Lao guidingprinciples. The assessment was organized by NamSaat and partners with support from WSP-EAPusing the following process:●A consultation workshop took place wheresector partners 48 discussed possible alternativesand decided on the Methodology forParticipatory Assessment (MPA) as the mostappropriate methodology to assess the watersupply and sanitation systems.●MPA training program was conducted in Laosto establish a national core team of trainedprofessionals to conduct this assessment.Included in the training were practical fieldassessments in two villages to provide handsonexperience. The MPA fieldbook was tailoredfor the Lao situation and translated into theLao language. As part of the preparation forthe field assessment study, Nam Saat requestedSample village selection criteria forconducting the MPA study● Major types of technologies used in Laos.● Age of the systems (at least 3 years).● Different types of supporting agencies:(Government, NGOs, external aid agencies,communities, others).● Remoteness from district town (representingzones 0, 1, 2 and 3 depending on time takento access from the district headquarters ).48 The Consultation Workshop took place on 24-26 January, 2001 and partners included Nam Saat, WSP-EAP,UNICEF, Water Supply Authority, Department of Hygiene and Disease Prevention, Lao Women’s Union, LaoYouth Union, selected NGOs and provincial representatives.129

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARD●●●interested sector partners to nominate personsto be a part of a “national core team.” Inresponse, sector partners nominated elevenpeople to attend the training program for MPAcarried out by Nam Saat and WSP-EAP regionaland Lao PDR country offices.Assessments were carried out in 38 villages ineight provinces. The core team was dividedinto three sub-teams, assisted by provincialand district Nam Saat partners, who workedin parallel in different provinces. The first phaseof the assessment was done in 14 villages inLuang Namtha, Bokeo, Bolikhamxai andVientiane provinces. After the first phase, themethodology was further refined. The secondphase of the assessment was carried out in24 villages of Xiang Khouang, Sayaboury,Champasak and Attapeu provinces.Analysis of results was carried out aftercompletion of both phases of the assessment.Nam Saat analyzed the data and preparedan assessment report.A National Workshop was organized by NamSaat to share the learning from the study withsector partners in March 2002. Policy questionsarising from the study were been identified fordiscussion and consensus building for futureaction in the Lao PDR RWSS sector.Findings from the assessmentof past RWSS investmentsThis study is of strategic importance for reasonsof national capacity and consensus developmentin support of the Sector Strategy principles. This isthe first time in Lao PDR that major stakeholderagencies in RWSS (Government, NGOs and ESAs)have come together in a collaborative effort toassist communities to assess the equity,sustainability and impact of their RWSS systems.Also, the study was conducted entirely by a nationalcore team, which now has the capacity to scaleup the assessment process for continuingimprovements in the overall Nam Saat program.Participants in the assessment included menand women in village water managementcommittees, and men and women present inopen village meetings. In each village, separatefocus group discussions (average nine focusgroup discussions per village) were alsoorganized with men and women from poor andwealthier households.Major learning outcomesTechnologies assessed inthirty-eight villages Gravity fed system 18 Dugwell 9 Borehole with hand pump 9 Piped system from electricpump in borehole 2 Latrines: 37 villages withpour-flush latrines. One villagewith no latrines.●Many interrelated factors influence the useand sustainability of services: The studymarked a new era when the national agencyfor RWSS looked back to evaluate theperformance of past efforts in terms of use andsustainability, using a broad-basedmethodology that combined qualitative andquantitative participatory techniques. The studyclearly demonstrated that sustainability isaffected by a combination of technical, financialand socio-organizational factors. Effectivefinancing and management mechanisms arerequired to support the quality and effectivefunctioning of the systems. Villages that scored130

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDFigure 21 How effectively are water services sustained?(Grouped by province)Score400350300Minimum scoreindicatingsustainability250200150100500VongvilayKokkongVongsamphanhBan MaiLayaokangLayaonuakaoPhonsavadKuanchanhPhadaiPungSidonngeunNammaNamtoungHuia PheungNon saatHeirBungkeoKatiupBan km 19MorphuTaohomeNambakPhiengngamBorpietNamon NuaSomsinsaiPangkhamDonemaneTakdadBungmaNahintayNamlinNayongHokangXiengkieoBan FaiBaanPhathangAttapeu BLK Bokeo Champasak Luang Namtha VTE XayabouryXiengkhouangSystem Quality Effective Functioning Effective Financing Effective Managementhighest on sustainability tended to do well onall the factors, whereas villages where one ormore factor lagged, overall sustainabilityscores tended to be dragged down (see Figure21).Figure 22 Overall sustainability ofwater supply in 38 villages(percentage of villages)●Ownership of Services helps sustainability:Overall, only 8 percent of the sampled villages(three communities) showed high sustainabilityscores of 300 or more on a 400-point scale).In these cases, all the factors had beenoptimized to encourage local ownership,resulting in better sustainability. As Figure 22illustrates, around 53 percent of the samplevillages (20 communities) judged their fourcomponents for sustainability to be acceptable.The remaining 39 percent (15 communities)had low ratings, suggesting poor sustainability.39%8%●Perceptions of benefits from improved facilitiesvary between communities and outsiders: Forhousehold latrines, men and women identified“comfort and convenience” as being the mainbenefit. External agencies have so far mainly53%stressed “health” as the most important benefitwhile promoting sanitation and hygiene300 - 400 (good)200 - 299 (moderate)< 200 (poor)awareness, without taking into account theperceptions of the users. The studydemonstrated that communities’ views oftendiffer from those of outside agencies. This willhelp Nam Saat to develop new hygiene131

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDFigure 23 Benefits of household latrines as perceived by user groups in 37 communities(precentage of total mentions in focus groups)6%2%9%def34%ac22%b27%a - comfort/convenience/protection from rain and sun/save timeb - healthier/protection from disease/reduce diarrheac - clean/hygienic/no odor/clean home and environmentd - safety/protection from danger (animals and insects)e - privacyf - others (reduce animal morbidity/reduce expenditure for treatment of sickness/train children to use latrine)●promotion materials based on localperceptions (see Figure 23).Understanding problems and needs ofcommunities requires quality time andresources: Like other participatory techniques,MPA applications require time and well-trainedfacilitators. The quality of assessment resultsis influenced by the skills of the facilitators wholead this process in the villages. For this study,it took almost six months to develop a trainedteam of 17 members to apply this process in38 villages. The methodology also needs tobe tailored and adapted to the local situationto make the application easier and moreeffective.● Cost-effectiveness of participatoryassessments: Participatory assessments can bevery cost-effective when trained teams extendtheir work to other parts of the country or otherprojects. Also, when the participatoryevaluation is used as the basis for communitylearning and new investments planning, initialpreparatory costs yield high returns for projects.Specific findings onsustainabilitySustainability was assessed using four factors:System quality: quality of design, construction,materials, workmanship.Effective functioning: quality, quantity,reliability, and predictability of water serviceavailable.Effective financing: cost-coverage achieved foroperation and maintenance, regularity anduniversality of user payments.132

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDFigure 24 System quality100908070Minimum scoreindicatingsustainability60Score50403020100NayongNambakTaohomeBaanNamon NuaBan FaiSidonngeunPhonsavadXiengkieoHokangKuanchanhSomsinsaiPhadaiNon saatHeirHuia PheungKokkongBan MaiNamlinPangkhamVongvilayBungmaPungNahintayKatiupDonemanePhiengngamNammaLayaonuakaoLayaokangBungkeoVongsamphanhMorphuNamtoungTakdadBorpietBan km 19Figure 25 Effective financing100908070Minimum scoreindicatingsustainabilityScore6050403020100Figure 26Effective managementPangkhamVongsamphanhPhiengngamSidonngeunVongvilayBan FaiKokkongLayaokangTaohomeBan MaiDonemaneNambakBungkeoHeirHokangKatiupNammaBaanNayongTakdadXiengkieoBorpietHuia PheungNahintayNamlinNamon NuaNamtoungPhonsavadNonesaatBungmaPhathangKuanchanhSomsinsaiPungLayaonuakaoMorphuBan km 19PhadaiNayongNambakTaohomeBaanNamon NuaBan FaiSidonngeunPhonsavadXiengkieoHokangKuanchanhSomsinsaiPhadaiNon saatHeirHuia PheungKokkongBan MaiNamlinPangkhamVongvilayBungmaPungNahintayKatiupDonemanePhiengngamNammaLayaonuakaoLayaokangBungkeoVongsamphanhMorphuNamtoungTakdadBorpietBan km 19100908070Minimum scoreindicatingsustainability60Score50403020100133

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDEffective management: level and timelinessof repairs, quality of budgeting and accountkeeping.Men and women in each community had theopportunity to express their qualitative andquantitative perceptions regarding the aspectsbeing assessed, and to see where their systemsstood on the sustainability scales. They were thusable to see areas where they needed to improvescores, for their systems to be more sustainable.The summary of the specific findings from 38villages are presented in Figures 24, 25, 26.●Only ten communities out of 38 haveestablished a water and sanitation committee.Systems are mostly managed by user groupsthat have very limited knowledge of operation,management and maintenance. Women’sparticipation in decision making andmanagement of the facilities is very low.Emerging implicationsThe study pinpoints several key issues to considerduring future planning, implementation and useof rural water supply services in Lao PDR.●Most communities judged the quality of theirsystem (design, construction and materials) tobe generally sound (Figure 24). Only 5 percentof the communities classified the technicaldesign as poor. Improved technical trainingand services of district and provincial Nam Saatofficers seem to be producing positive impacts●All the four factors - such as system quality,effective functioning, effective financing, andeffective management - are essential and needto be studied to assess sustainability. As thisstudy shows, even though all households in avillage may have access, households do noton design, construction, and installation ofequipment. Also, the growing free market islikely injecting exposure to new technology andcompetition.●While the majority of systems scored abovethe mid-point of 100-point scales, i.e., above50 point 49 for system quality and effectivefunctioning, the scores for financing andmanagement were generally poor, with morethan half of the sample communities scoringbelow the sustainability benchmark level of 50points (see Figures 25 and 26).●No proper financial system is in place in amajority of the sampled communities. Less thanone third of the communities have establisheduser fees. Even where if established, user feesare insufficient to cover costs of operation andmaintenance, repairs, and future expansionof the system. Communities do very little orno financial planning for the future.49 Possible maximum score for each component of sustainability is 100. Thus, for each of the four “factors”a maximum score of 100 is possible. These four “factor” scores are added together to give an overallsustainability score out of 400, in Figure 21.134

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARD●●●always use their protected water source. In theassessment, more than three out of tenhouseholds did not use available protectedwater sources all the time. Simply countingthe numbers of households having accessto protected water supplies may camouflageuse problems that need to be addressed.Approaches to community financing andcommunity management need to be improvedto ensure sustainability of rural water supplyservices. Overall, the technical quality andfunctioning of water supply systems were ratedmoderately high, showing improvements intechnical sustainability over time.The score for effective management was lowwhen the community did not establish a formalmanagement committee. This was discussedin the national consultation workshop withpartners. The discussion concluded thatmanagement options need to be offeredtogether with the various technology options.Improvements in health, added convenienceand cost efficiency in the delivery of improvedwater supplies were the key benefits identifiedby households about their improved watersupplies. Both women and men mentionedbenefits related to health and hygiene asimportant in their satisfaction with improvedwater supplies.The study pinpointed many related issues onsanitation and hygiene:●●Examining the effective use and quality oflatrines revealed valuable information aboutspecific local hygiene behavior changes.Simply counting the number of latrines in eachcommunity leaves out the qualitative aspectsof latrine improvements. Existence of ahouseholds latrine does not necessarily mean●●●that the household members will use it effectivelyand keep it clean.The quality of construction, maintenance anduse of latrines was not always correlated tothe level of household income.Comfort and convenience are by far the mainbenefits reported by latrine users.No significant behavior change has occurredin terms of the disposal of infant feces.Regardless of the ownership of latrine facilities,families seem to think that a baby’s feces areharmless and therefore continue withunhygienic disposal practices.ConclusionsThis assessment is a landmark for the ruralwater supply and sanitation sector in Lao PDRand for the country as a whole. Through indepthparticipatory discussions withcommunities, local people have given valuableguidance for the future of RWSS services in LaoPDR regarding:●●●●the strengths and weaknesses of past ruralwater supply and sanitation initiatives interms of achieving goals such as increasedaccess, effective use and management ofservices, and community ability to sustain theservices;how local partners (Nam Saat and its lineagencies) can make their planning processdynamic, based upon continual learningabout problems and successes;innovative ways of addressing problems fromthe viewpoints of user communities andprimary beneficiaries; andhow to operationalize highly participatorycommunity-based models for conductingassessments of all types.135

Box 25 What is associated LOOKING with BACK low TO or high SEE FORWARD sustainability?Externally decided interventions – recipe for low sustainability?None sa-at, Champasak districtNone sa-at is a village located about 60 kilometers from Champasak district of Champasak province. It has a populationof 882 people with 173 households. The original source of water in the village was a large natural swamp. Until the early1990s the village had four boreholes using Tara hand pumps that were provided by UNICEF. The four boreholes had beenworking quite well and were providing enough water for drinking and cooking purposes to the whole village.In 1998, None sa-at was selected by an NGO as a focus village for an integrated rural development project. Assistancefrom the NGO provided, amongst other things, a rural piped water distribution system from a new borehole fitted with anelectric pump. The scheme was constructed and supervised by the NGO project staff. Community members had very littleinvolvement in the construction of the system, even though they had contributed labor and local materials.The system was run by two male villagers, who had been designated by the project to look after the operation, maintenance,and financing, which included billing and collection. The money collected was to cover minor repairs and part of it wasused for remunerating the two workers. Collections went smoothly for the first year after construction. From the secondyear onward, however, there have been many defaulters, and as a result, fees collected did not cover the costs for repairsand remuneration. The community emphasized that the service provided did not fulfill their expectations, e.g., very oftenwater was not available due to technical design problems of pump operation, or faults in the distribution system.In April, 2001, the distribution pipes were broken up by a road construction company. Eight months later (December, 2001),the pipes had still not been repaired. No one knows who is responsible for getting the system repaired. Due to the lack ofclarity about ownership of the facilities, and division of roles and responsibilities between village volunteers, the community,and Nam Saat, the villagers have returned to using water from the old Tara hand pumps and the traditional swamp.During field visits by the study team, villagers said that that they are expecting the NGO project to come back and fix thewater system.Community voice and choice makes a difference - Morphu, Pathumphone districtMorphu is a village located in Pathumphone district,Comparison between Morphu and None sa-atChampasak province. It has a total population of 1000on the level of sustainibility of water supply schemespeople in 174 households. In the early 1990s, Morphu400received seventeen boreholes with Tara hand pumps from350an external support agency. By the late 1990s, the wealth300Effective Managementof the villagers had increased, and they proposed to250Effective Financingconstruct a new piped water scheme with household200Effective Functioningconnections.System Quality150In 2000, the villagers in collaboration with a private 100company constructed a new piped water system with an 50electrical pump. The private company had set the initial0None sa-at Morpucontribution for each household at KIP 700,000 (approx. ScoreCommunityUS$80) plus household connection fees. A privatecompany constructed the system, while the community supervised the works. The company covered 30 percent of the capitalcosts and will reclaim this investment through user fees.After construction, the scheme was leased to the same private company to manage the system for five years. The companyhas set the user fees and hires villagers who were trained to become responsible for billing and repairs. The company is fullyresponsible for operation and maintenance of the scheme.There have been no complaints about the services provided by the company, and there are no defaulters on the payment ofbills.As per the contract signed by villagers and the company, the villagers have the option to manage the system by themselvesafter five years of lease. However, there is a possibility that the private company could extend its management contractdepending upon the community’s satisfaction with its performance during the five years’ lease.136

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDMPA core team members in Lao PDRSonephet Chanthaphone, WASAKheuvanh Souphindara, Nam SaatVing Sengsirichanh, Nam SaatKhonekeo Phongvichit, Nam SaatPhousavanh Sisavath, Nam SaatKeo Oudom Namsena, Nam SaatBolilak Duangsavanh, Youth UnionDengsong Seunou, Care InternationalVanthong Sengvilay, Save the Children - AustraliaSengpaseuth Simmanivong, Quaker Service LaosSisavanh Phanouvong, focal Point for MPA, WSP-EAP137

EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIONS IN THE COMMUNITYEffects of the MPA on GenderRelations in the CommunityCase study from Java, IndonesiaChristine van WijkIn September 2000, a group of MPA practitionerscarried out an MPA asssessment with thecommunity members of Sewukan community inMagelang district, Java, Indonesia. The purposewas to assess the community’s experiences withtheir existing water supplies before embarking onthe design and construction of a new, additionalsystem. Before their participation in theassessment, the women in Sewukan had met onlyto discuss social or religious events. Theirparticipation in the evaluation of the existing watersupplies in the community affected gender relationsin several ways.Value of women’s knowledgerecognizedInitially, the kepala dusun (sub-village head)considered the consultation of women ontechnical design and construction of the watersystems a waste of time. He said that womenknew nothing about such matters. However, hisviews and those of the other men changed whenthe group of women pointed out significantdesign errors such as too low a ratio of cementto sand in concrete mixing 50 and entry pointsfor the water pipes being set too low in thereservoirs. The men’s group had given only verygeneral remarks such as lack of training. Theexperience led the kepala dusun to make, inthat culture, an unusual remark in public thatthe women had brought out more usefultechnical observations than the men. When themen presented the outcomes in the plenarymeeting (women and men alternated inpresentations and the men started), theypresented only the women’s findings. Thisbrought general hilarity, when a man in theaudience asked: “But what about our findings?”Gender-specific needs anddemands brought outThe women’s evaluation of the existing watersystems also brought out two major women’sneeds for the new project: a better distribution ofdomestic water and the addition of a sanitationcomponent to the project.50 Reportedly observed by women during the construction of the facility by the contractor hired by the PublicWorks Department.138

EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIONS IN THE COMMUNITYBecause the community already had 11 smalldomestic water supply systems, the male leadershad assumed that there was no need for a twelfth.They had decided that the new water system wouldbe designed for irrigation. The women’sevaluation showed that, while all households hadaccess to domestic water, the distribution of thewater in the community was skewed. This findingemerged during the social mapping and roperating in the different sections of the community. Itwas visualized in the social map by using colouredwool to mark off well served and underservedareas. In consequence, the village assembly inwhich the groups presented the map and theoutcomes of the rope rating decided that the newsystem would be designed for domestic water use.They also decided to use the social map in thedesign of the distribution net.A hot debate developed on the addition of asanitation component. The women disliked thelack of privacy and the inconvenience of havingto go out at night for defecation in the localstreams. The men had no problems with that andthought private latrines were too expensive for themto install. However, during the discussion itbecame clear that the men had taken the costlypublic latrine at the mosque as the model fordomestic facilities. The MPA team then providedthe groups with pictures of different options forlatrines and latrine materials. Calculating whateach model would cost, the groups soon realizedthat they could build any type according to theirpreferences and ability to pay. The womenfurthermore came up with the suggestion that upto five households could build and share onetogether.In the two days of the MPA event, this issue couldnot be resolved. However, the women had becomeconscious of their common demand and hadunited around the issue. Pressure to solve theproblem will therefore quite likely continue until asatisfactory solution has been found.Women examine a range of latrine designs and cost options139

EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIONS IN THE COMMUNITYAwareness of commoninterests and emergence ofgender cooperationThrough the MPA process, the women ofSewukan became aware that they had a numberof common development problems irrespectiveof their differences in personal and socioeconomicbackgrounds. They said that,although they were organized and held women’smeetings, they had not previously discussedwomen’s development concerns. In the assemblywhere they presented their findings along withthe men, they stated that they wanted to set upcommittees in each of the six hamlets toparticipate in the design of the new water supplyand monitor the contractors on the quality ofconstruction. The male leaders supported thisidea stating that, when the work was not donewell, they would use the legal means open tothem to ensure good quality design andconstruction.Building self-confidence andloosening hierarchyin the plenary meeting. Presenters acted in pairsof two women or men for mutual support. Theevent started very formally with the leadersopening the meeting using a hand-heldmicrophone, which they passed on to thepresenting teams. The first male team used itwith skill and confidence. The first woman didnot know how to use it and was helped by aman. The second woman closely observed thisand handled the microphone with moreconfidence. Soon thereafter, discussions becameso lively that the circle broke up, participantsgathered around the outputs from the MPA toolsand the microphone was forgotten. Asked laterabout whether they could continue to use thetools, the older women were doubtful. Suddenly,a young woman spoke up and said that maybeit was not possible for everyone but that shethought she could do so. The facilitator thenconsulted the older women who in thishierarchical society will normally lead while theyoung women sit back. Here again changecould be noted. The older women said thatperhaps they, too, could learn how to use them,but “meanwhile, let the younger women takethe lead.”In the group sessions, women and men hadagreed to alternate in presenting their outcomesWomen’s team presenting their assessment resultsat the village meeting140

EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIONS IN THE COMMUNITYAchieving Sustained Sanitationfor the Poor 51MPA application for policy research studies in Indonesia, Cambodia, VietnamMPA assessments werecarried out in selectedcommunities in three EastAsian countries, using acommon set of samplingcriteria, a commonsequence of tools andmethods of analysis. Thepurpose of theassessments was toidentify what helps orhinders demands forsanitation facilities in ruralcommunities, whatcontributes to sustainingsanitation services oncecreated, and how to reach the poor with sustainedsanitation services. All three studies were conductedby country teams trained and assisted technicallyby WSP-EAP, as a part of WSP-EAP’s policy reformand sector strategy development work with countrypartners. The learning gained in each country wasintegrated with national sector strategies beingdeveloped.51 The following country reports and a regional synthesis from the 3 countries are available from WSP - EastAsia and the Pacific, or the WSP website www.wsp.org. Interested readers should look for the followingtitles:1. Achieving Sustained Sanitation for the Poor: Policy and Strategy Lessons from ParticipatoryAssessments in Cambodia, Indonesia and Vietnam. (WSP-EAP, 2001).2. “Is it selling toilets?” “No, A lifestyle” (Indonesia country report). (WSP-EAP, 2000).3. Selling Sanitation: What Works? (Vietnam country report). (WSP-EAP, 2002).4. Learning What Works for Sanitation: Revisiting Sanitation Successes in Cambodia (Cambodia countryreport). (WSP-EAP, 2002).141

ACHIEVING SUSTAINED SANITATION FOR THE POORMajor findings and learningemerging from the studies1. Sanitation coverage figures generally maskedthe fact that the poor households withincommunities, which constituted between 20-54 percent of all households in the samplevillages in the three countries, are not gainingaccess to sanitation. Sanitation programseverywhere have tended to promote only onetype of technology/design of facility at a fixedcost, and have not developed options speciallysuited to the poorer sections of communities.2. Demand-responsive approaches are essentialto increasing sustained access to sanitation,since sanitation facilities tend to have thecharacteristics of consumer products.Household latrines that people build at theirown cost are of higher quality, prove moresatisfying to their users and are maintainedmuch better than latrines that are subsidizedor provided free of charge.3. Demand for and ownership of sanitationfacilities are not synonymous with improvedcommunity sanitation behavior, i.e., consistentuse of safe excreta disposal practices by allmembers of the household. A very highproportion of latrine-owning householdscontinue to occasionally use unsafe, outdoordefecation practices.4. “Health improvements” are not the mostimportant motivating factor for people toacquire household latrines. Sanitationpromotion methods currently in use are notutilizing other, locally prevalent motivations foracquiring sanitation improvements.5. Women are markedly more interested inacquiring household latrines, but programshave not adequately targeted promotionalactivities to women.6. Even though some key hygiene behaviors areuniversally important, their promotion methodsneed to be varied because risky hygienepractices take many different forms in differentcultures and vary from one community toanother. Communities usually know best whattriggers behavior change among theirmembers.7. Time frames for sanitation projects need to belonger than 4-5 years, because measurablechanges in community sanitation behavior onlyhappen after a viable, self-sustaining marketfor sanitation services has developed, i.e.,demand has been generated and supplymechanisms have grown to service the demand.Changes in community awareness of improvedsanitation as a more desirable way of life alsorequires substantial population coverage to begenerated – which takes time.142

ACHIEVING SUSTAINED SANITATION FOR THE POORHow Well did those DevelopmentProjects in Flores Work?An evaluation of water and sanitation interventions made in52 villages in Flores, IndonesiaRichard HopkinsIn December 1992, Flores island in the easternportion of the Indonesian archipelago suffered amajor earthquake and tidal wave. This eventclaimed several thousand lives and destroyed mostof the existing, meager infrastructure. Some of thesubsequent emergency relief efforts progressivelyevolved into, or gave way to, longer-termdevelopment projects. The water and sanitationsector was a priority.One such project was the AusAID 52 -assisted FloresWater Supply and Sanitation Reconstruction andDevelopment Project (FWSSRDP, later known asFLOWS). Others included the World Bank-assistedWater Supply and Sanitation for Low IncomeCommunities (WSLIC) project, and smallerprograms implemented by NGOs. About five yearsafter the projects had been completed it wasconsidered a good time to evaluate how well theyhad worked.As a part of a national water and sanitation policyreform initiative, WASPOLA 53 , it was originallyenvisaged to conduct a longitudinal study of52 AusAID – the Australian Agency for International Development53 WASPOLA – Indonesian Water Supply and Sanitation Policy Formulation and Action Planning Project, apartnership led by the Government of Indonesia with the National Planning Agency, BAPPENAS as chair,facilitated by the Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific (WSP-EAP), with majority grantfunding by AusAID.143

HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN FLORES WORK?sustainability and use of water supply andenvironmental sanitation services in a small sampleof sites over a period of several years. The MPAwas the chosen basis for the evaluationmethodology. It expanded into a much largerscaleassessment when AusAID expressed aninterest in gaining a better appreciation of thecurrent conditions of WSES 54 facilities and servicesacross the island, particularly those constructedunder FLOWS.To ensure representativeness of the findings andconclusions, sampling of villages for assessmentwas undertaken with adequate rigor. A stratifiedrandom sample of 33 sites was drawn from anestimated total of 260, properly representing theprojects, scheme size and type, districts,topographical and climate variations across themain island. For reasons of lack of access andnon-functioning of some facilities in the sample,it was possible to complete the full MPAsustainability assessments in some 52 of these 63villages. For the rest, key informants provided theinformation.Within each village, sampling was also carefullyundertaken to ensure that all groups, especiallythose traditionally marginalized – women and thepoor – were included in the assessments. WithinMPA there are specific techniques, which focusactivities on groups that may not otherwiseparticipate.The approximate total direct costs for the studywere: for the international consultants US$45,000,and for the national inputs US$105,000equivalent.The outcomes of the assessment provide richinsights, mostly from the perspective of the endusers,for stakeholders at many levels:●●●●the beneficiary communities themselves;local governments and support agencies closeto the communities;policymakers and decision makers in higherlevels of government; andexternal support agencies (donors fundingproject/s).Some key findings from the evaluation arehighlighted here.1. Did aid work? (More precisely, were theinvestments still providing benefits?) Of thecompleted water supply schemes, almost allwere still functioning to some degree, three toeight years after construction. It was thecommunities themselves that kept the schemesoperating, with minor maintenance andrepairs. However, service levels had fallenseriously at more than half the sites, and 22percent of the systems were providing little orno water for more than three months of theyear.Similarly in the area of sanitation, those toiletswhich had actually been constructed and wereworking during the projects, were almost allstill functional. The distribution of toiletsbetween and within villages was very uneven.The percentage of households with toiletsranged from 6 to 100 percent in differentvillages, reflecting wide inconsistencies inproject approaches or in their application.2. Did aid work for the poor? (Was thedistribution of benefits equitable, and has itremained so?) The access to improved watersupplies was still rated as “good” 55 by the usersin 85 percent of villages, although in only 4054 Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation (human waste, solid waste and drainage).55 According to users “good” was a relative concept, only meaning that access was “better than before theproject”, when they used to have to walk to water sources much farther away.144

HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN FLORES WORK?percent was that access considered equallygood for all households. While there was noevidence of systematic exclusion of the poor,the adequacy of water was generally less goodfor this group. Three to eight years afterconstruction, one-third of all the systems weremeeting the needs for drinking and cookingonly; for all other needs households had torely on other sources. Half the schemes wereable to supply water 24-hours per day all yearround. For the remainder, reliability andpredictability were seasonal, and seriouslyproblematic in 27 percent of all villages in thedry season. Interestingly, these problems werenot correlated with source difficulties, or withecological conditions, but were related totechnical issues of design, quality of materialsand construction.More than half the water supply schemes hadbeen modified from their original projectdesigns; most of the modifications were to thedistribution network, and almost all of thoseinvolved house connections from the pipednetwork. As the systems were designed forcommunal standpipes only, take-offs for houseconnections affected flows in the rest of thenetwork. Elsewhere, plastic hoses were usedto make informal house connections andextensions to the distribution network, thoughmostly for the rich and middle-incomehouseholds. These adaptations are clearindicators of:●●Poor consultation with end-users during thedesign stage of the schemes; andInequitable capturing of benefits by certainsections of the community, usually thewealthier and the powerful.Where public standpipes were functioning,some curious restrictions had been imposedon their use, ostensibly for hygiene-relatedpurposes. These “rules” (see Box 26) forbadethe washing of babies and clothes in the vicinityof the taps. Their origin and rationale wereunclear (possibly to limit consumption, or toameliorate drainage problems; if so neitherresult was effectively achieved by such rules)but the burden was felt mostly by those withouthouse connections, i.e., the poor.Access to toilets was improved by the projects,but was extremely variable, as noted above.Self-financed toilets accounted for highproportions of facilities in some regions.Almost all toilets were used, but this did notmean that behavioral changes had beenachieved. Three-quarters of all adults andchildren (all age and gender groups) stilldefecated in other places at times.3. High rate of aborted projects, mainly due tosocial conflicts. In 13 percent of the samplevillages water supply schemes were neverconstructed, even though communitiescontributed cash and labor. Social conflict wasBox 26 Project “rule” discouraging hygiene?Hygiene knowledge and perceptions regarding behavioral change were evaluated with representativegroups of women and men villagers using the three-pile sorting (PHAST) activity. An interestingresult was that washing children at public taps was classified by the community as a “bad practice.”This is actually a good healthy practice, especially in dry areas, as prevention against skin and eyeinfections, amongst others, and it also reduces the workload of women and girls. If this projectimposedrule was aimed at eliminating drainage problems around public taps, it has failed toachieve this outcome. In a high proportion of the public taps still functioning, drainage problemscontinue to constitute a significant health risk.145

HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN FLORES WORK?the major reason, especially concerning thesharing of water resources. The projects hadno particular mechanisms to deal with thisimportant determinant of sustainability, neitherin brokering agreements nor in facilitatingalternative supply options in the absence ofreasonable agreements. The more ambitiousschemes were more likely to expose conflicts,and conflicts tended to be more severe in drierareas, where the competition for scarceresources, especially during the dry season,was more pronounced.4. A few made the decisions for many. All thesampled projects were designed aroundparticipatory, community-based approaches.But in implementation, ordinary villagers (bothmen and women) had little say in the keyproject decisions. They had participated in 10percent or fewer decisions about projectinitiation, choice of technology or level ofservice; in 19 percent of the decisions regardinglocations for facilities; in 26 percent of thedecisions about operation and maintenancearrangements, and less than half the decisionsregarding the selection of committee membersand financing arrangements. These matterswere typically decided by project staff with thevillage elite or with community leaders.Where project planning had been moreinclusive of both women and men, and of thepoor households, water systems weresignificantly better sustained and used (seeFigure 27 for correlations found).5. Financial sustainability threatened. Regularuser payments do not cover full recurrent costs(operation and maintenance, repairs, plusdepreciation) for water supplies in any of thesampled villages. 59 percent of communitieshave major shortfalls in covering justoperational costs. Similar to the trend seen indetermining contributions towards capital costs,almost all villages had set fixed water usercharges for all consumers (flat rates per capitaor per household) irrespective of economicmeans and lifestyles. Where these water userfees are actually collected, the flat ratedisadvantages the poor, who tend to consumeless water, but for whom the water tariffrepresents a greater proportion of their income.This inequity likely reflects their lack ofparticipation in decision making as mentionedearlier.6. What makes for better management? Only31 percent of the communities still have activeWater Management Organizations (WMOs)three to eight years after project completion.Those with higher proportions of women aremore active. More equitable (gender andpoverty inclusive) WMOs are associated withbetter performing services, more effectivemanagement and better cost recovery from userpayments. These relationships are statisticallysignificant (see Figure 27). The quality of localmanagement was the most important groupof factors correlated with sustainabilityoutcomes. The communities which had bettermanagement arrangements (equitable control,setting own rules, accounting to users forservices and financial issues) also tended tohave better functioning and more regularlyand universally paid-for services, although thelevel of financing was not optimal.Emerging lessons for agencypolicy and practiceThe findings point clearly towards the followingconclusions and lessons for future projects:146

HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN FLORES WORK?Figure 27Correlations between project approaches and sustainability and use of serviceson the ground.r = .66**(E)COMMUNITYEMPOWERMENT WITHGENDER AND SOCIALEQUITY(A B)SUSTAINED ANDEFFECTIVELY USEDIMPROVED WATER SUPPLYAND ENVIRONMENTALSANITATIONr = .42**r = .52**(C)DEMAND-RESPONSIVEPROJECT APPROACHESr = .46**(D)EQUITABLE DIVISIONOF BURDENS AND BENEFITSIN OPERATION ANDMAINTENANCEr = .41**** - Significant at 99% level of confidence● The greater the gender and social equity achieved in community empowerment for operation andmanagement (cluster E), the better the services are sustained and used (cluster A B).● The more responsive the project approaches are to demands of different gender and socio-economicgroups of users (cluster C), the better the services are sustained and used. (Cluster A B).● The more responsive the project approaches are to demands of different gender and socio-economicgroups of users (cluster C), the greater the community empowerment with gender and social equity(cluster E).● The greater the demand-responsiveness of the project (cluster C) and the greater the equity in communityempowerment achieved (cluster E), the greater the gender and social equity achieved in division ofburdens and benefits during operation and maintenance (cluster D). In other words, a fair division ofburdens and benefits happens in the post-construction phase, when project approaches in the preconstruction/planningphase have been responsive to what different user groups want. This also happenswhen projects have empowered different gender and social class groups equitably with voice in decisions,control over implementation and capacity building for service management.For poverty reduction impact, equity needs to beaddressed as a specific cross-cutting issue, notonly as general policy but also within the detailsof implementation strategies. Failure to do sotends to result in the poor not gainingproportionally fair shares of development benefits,which in turn threatens sustainability of theinterventions made in the long run. For example,the findings are clear that poor women and menwithin the user communities are rarely involved indeciding the technology type, levels of service andlocations of facilities – all of which determine theirultimate access to services. If they could be betterinvolved and afforded greater voice and choice,fairer decisions, which are more acceptable to themajority, could be reached, about contributions,tariffs and operation and maintenancearrangements. This would minimize later conflicts147

HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN FLORES WORK?and refusals to pay. In designing project strategies,it would therefore be cost-effective to allocateresources, skills and time for engagingcommunities equitably in early planning anddecision making, along with providing themequitable access to relevant information formaking decisions. This will help communities planmore realistically, especially in terms of:- The scope and complexity of water supplyschemes attempted, and- The arrangements for sharing waterresources with others.feasible solutions with user communitydemands. For instance, problems such asinadequate source flows cannot be overcomeby project engineers setting arbitrary limits onthe technical options and levels of service,when the majority of users want houseconnections. The only sustainable solution insuch cases is for the user community to makeproperly informed choices about technicaloptions and levels of service that the sourcecan sustain, and to set tariffs to reflect the realcosts of those choices.●●●Equality is not equitable. Nor are communitiesnecessarily egalitarian. Project rules, or rulesset by community leaders which stipulate equalcontributions by all households to capital oroperating costs actually disadvantage thepoor, particularly when the poor have littlevoice in community decisions.Equitable gender and socially inclusivecommunity level management organizationsare a key to sustained services. For long-termfunctioning and financial sustainability ofservices, it is necessary that projects helpestablish such organizations, through genderandpoverty-sensitive planning and capacitybuilding. This is important enough to be astated project objective, against which projectperformance should be judged.Water supply scheme designs need toreconcile technically and environmentally●Technicallyechnically, , water supply systems need to berealistic in terms of distribution of small sourceflows (which need to be measured at minimumdry-season levels) and complexity of operations.It is the project’s responsibility to advisecommunities so that their expectations areguided by the limits of technical feasibility.Compromises in quality of materials andconstruction due to over-ambitious schemescan then be avoided. It is better to meet thereasonable demands of fewer people withinsingle independent schemes, if necessaryhaving several independent schemes servingan area, rather than complex schemes spreadover several villages.At the policy level, the study confirms the generalthrust of the new Indonesian sector policy, with itsemphasis on sustainability and effective use, andthe application of demand-responsive approachesthrough participatory methods.148

Appendix AInstitutions that currently have MPA-trained facilitators* Also have MPA trainersINDONESIAEAST ASIA● Water and Sanitation Program - EastAsia and the PacificRegional Office*Jakarta Stock Exchange BuildingTower 2, 13th floorJl. Jenderal Sudirman Kav. 52-53, SCBDJakarta 12190, IndonesiaPhone : 62-21 5299-3003Fax : 62-21 5299-3004Telex : 62141 IBRD IAE-mail : wspeap@worldbank.orgWebsite : http://www.wsp.org● Pradipta Paramitha*Jl. Putri no. 19,Guntur - ManggaraiJakarta 12970, IndonesiaTelefax : 62-21 831 2216E-mail : pradta@lycos.com● Mitra Samya*Jl. Sultan Salahuddin no. 17Tanjung Karang, AmpenanLombok - NTB 83151, IndonesiaTelefax : 62-370 624 232E-mail : mitra@mataram.wasantara.net.id● Dian DesaJl. Kaliurang Km. 7, JurugsariP.O. Box 19 BulaksumurYogyakarta, IndonesiaPhone : 62-274 885 247Fax : 62-274 885 423E-mail : anton@yogya.wasantara.net.id● Catra DaraniJl. Pangkalan Jati IV/60EJatiwaringinJakarta Timur, IndonesiaPhone : 62-21 857 2359E-mail : catradarani@hotmail.comLAO PDR● Water and Sanitation Program - EastAsia and the PacificLao PDR country office*The World BankPathou XayVientiane, Lao PDRPhone : 856-21 415 729,856-21 413 710,856-21 450 014Fax : 856-21 450 015● Nam Saat - National Centre forEnvironmental Health and Water Supply*Ministry of Public HealthJunchong That Luangond Nangbond RoadsVientiane, Lao PDRPhone : 856-21 415 726,856-21 450 130,856-21 450 126Fax : 856-21 413 310E-mail : soutch@laotel.comVIETNAM● Water and Sanitation Program - EastAsia and the PacificVietnam country office*c/o The World Bank Resident Mission63 Ly Thai To StreetHanoi, VietnamPhone : 84-4 934-6600Telefax : 84-4 934-6597● ADCOM Co., LtdNo. 1 B1A, 25 Lang Ha Street, Ba DinhHanoi, VietnamPhone : 84-4 514 2352Fax : 84-4 514 1157E-mail : adcom_info@hn.vnn.vnAppendix A 149

CAMBODIA*● Partners for DevelopmentNo. 24, Street 294 (B.P.551)Phnom Penh - Kingdom of CambodiaPhone : 855 23 213 335Fax : 855 23 213 275THE PHILIPPINES● Philippine Center for Water and SanitationITN FoundationP-3 Minnesota Mansion 267,Ermin Garcia StreetCubao Quezon City, the PhilippinesPhone : +63 2 9120531Fax : +63 2 9115783E-mail : itnphil@compass.com.phWebsite : http://www.itnphil.org.phINDIASOUTH ASIA● Socio Economic Unit Foundation*Easwara Vilasm Road,Post Box No. 507,Thycaud, Trivandrum - 14,Kerala - 695 014, IndiaPhone : +91-471 325 907Fax : +91-471 325 914E-mail : seuf@md2.vsnl.net.intrc_seuftcr@sancharnet.inNEPAL● NEWAH - Nepal Water for HealthP.O. Box 4231Baluwatar Kathmandhu, NepalPhone : +977 1 377 107Fax : +977 1 370078E-mail : newah@newah.org.npEUROPE● IRC International Water and SanitationCentre*P.O. Box 28692601 CW DelftThe NetherlandsTel : +31 15 21 92 957Fax : +31 15 21 90 955Website : http://www.irc.nlAFRICA● Water and Sanitation Program - Africa*West and Central Africa officeCorner of Booker Washington andJacques Aka StreetsCocody, Abidjan 01, Côte d’IvoirePhone : 225 22-40-04-00,225 22-40-04-10Telefax : 225 22-40-04-61● Institute of Water and SanitationDevelopment*Maasdoop Avenue, Alexandra Park, HarareBox MP 422 Mount PleasantHarare, ZimbabwePhone : +4 250-522Fax : +263 4 735 017, 735 026,735 035, 250 522E-mail : admin@iwsd.co.zwWebsite : http://www.iwsd.co.zw● NETWAS - Network for Water andSanitationPlot no. 1, Norfolk Gardens, Lower KyambogoP.O. Box 40223Kampala, UgandaTel/fax : 256-041 286 352E-mail : netwas@swiftuganda.com; ornetwas@africaonline.co.ugCOLUMBIALATIN AMERICA● CINARA*AA 25157Ciudad Universitaria Melendez, edificio 344,Cali, ColumbiaPhone : 57-2 339 23 4557-2 321 22 90Fax : 57-2 339 32 89E-mail : cinarauv@univalle.edu.coWebsite : http://www.cinara.org.coBRAZIL● Contact Maria Lucia Cr. BorbaRua Jose GuardianoParque Primavera0632-190 Carapicuiba,Sao Paulo, BrazilPhone : +55 11 4186 0841E-mail : maluborba@yahoo.com150 Appendix A

Appendix BProcess designed forPLA POLICY ASSESSMENT WORKSHOPIndonesia, September 1999Appendix B 151

StepNo.1.ProcessPLA Background – Policy Assessment – NOT anevaluation of projects (5 minutes)Explanatory NotesLead facilitator to explain.2.“Whose Voice ? Whose Choice ? “ Film (10 minutes)3.Feedback from field assessments (10 minutes)By research team. Highlighting lessons learnedfrom assessments in several projects which arerelevant to national sector policy and havingimplications for policy changes, with a view tosustainability and impact on lives of the poor.4.Ask participants to consider : “What do you recallabout the projects? Were they any different from otherWATSAN projects you had worked with at that time?If yes, in what ways?”2 Facilitators write-up answers that emerge fromparticipants on WHITE cards, put up on the wall.Check if DRA/GENDER/PARTICIPATORYAPPROACHES/SUSTAINABILITY mentioned at all.5.Put up 4 cards on policies , from Fieldbook scale ondefinition of : SUSTAINABILITY in sector policies at thetime of project design and inception. Use a randomorder and placing for cards, not on a scale.Ask “Which situation best describes the policies usedto design projects?” Let individuals vote their answerson the cards using given voting tokens.If anyone is unable to decide from among the cards,give them OVAL cards, BLUE (WSSLIC) / PINK(FLOWS) to write their reasons. Put them up too.Facilitate a discussion in plenary to probe therationale for the way people voted. Either record thedistribution of votes over scores, or see if aconsensus can be reached about a score for thenational policy. Help the participants drawconclusions related to action needed.Give ▲- shaped tokens for voting to eachperson. BLUE token for WSSLIC. PINK token forFLOWS.6.Ask “How were coverage and use targets defined indefined in project design?”Ask project-specific groups to discuss and select theirresponse out of the 4 A-4 sheets carrying differentscores and explanations from the scale on EQUITY ,put up on the wall/board/sticky cloth.If unable to choose, give BLUE / PINK (WSSLIC/FLOWS) oval cards to write reasons..Project groups decide and put 1 rectangular votenext to the relevant A-4 sheet on the wall.Facilitate discussion on emerging consensus/lack ofit - reasons and insights gained.Give different answers with different shape ofcards.Record salient learning emerging along with scoregiven.152 Appendix B

StepNo.7.ProcessAsk “Were users expected to contribute in any way forthe services?” Let individuals mark their responses forcontribution in different phases (Construction/O&M/Any other) on a chart as shown on the right.Give out copies of the scale on COST SHARING &MANAGEMENT. Ask for each project group to decidewhere that project fits on it. Give each project groupone ® BLUE / PINK arrow to place on the scalearranged on the wall/ cloth / board.Explanatory NotesLet people vote Construction O&M Otherson scale. Give ● ● ● ● ● ●colored tokensto each person, to put on this table.Then give 1 arrow to each group. They shouldplace it on scale.Facilitate discussion on emerging consensus/lack of it- reasons and insights gained.Record salient learning emerging along with scoregiven.8.Ask “On which aspects could future user decide or codecide?”Project sub-groups discuss and mark their responseswith BLUE/PINK votes for :a. Initiating servicesb. Technology choicec. Level of service choiced. Location of facilitye. Implementing agencyf. Local maintenance/management systemg. Local financing system/feesh. Any other (specify)Then they choose the score on the policy scale forPARTICIPATION IN DECISIONS.Mark it with CIRCLE vote in BLUE / PINK.a b c d e f g h● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●WhiteRecord salient learning emerging along with scoregiven.●Facilitate discussion on emerging consensus/lack of it- reasons and insights gained.9.Ask “Was the government giving any subsidies to theseservices?”Put up chart as shown. Ask for project groups to marktheir response by adding a cross (x) where relevant.Score according to principle of increasing score fordeclining subsidies, as :Yes, to investment and O&M costs - score 1Yes, to O&M costs - score 2Yes, to investment costs - score 3No subsidies - score 4Then ask: “What was the rationale behind the subsidies?How did this influence sustainability of projectoutcomes?”Yes, forconstructionYes, forO&MYes, forconstructionNo,subsidiesRationale RationaleExplanation by the groupsDiscuss and conclude implications for policy.Appendix B 153

StepNo.10.ProcessPut up scale statements on “FINANCING STRATEGY FORTHE POOR”Ask“Which is the statement you most agree with?”“Which statement best describes the policy in place atthe time of creating WSS services under projects?”Explanatory NotesArrange at random,NOT as a scale.Ask about what happened as a result, in each project.Facilitate discussions on what implications can be drawnabout how to improve access of the poor to sustainedservices.Record conclusions.Individuals to vote using BLUE/PINK tokens forspecific projects. Scores are then added to show thegradation.11.Put up 5 statements from the scale on PRESENCEAND DEFINITION OF GENDER in the project, on 5cards as shown on the left. Ask :“Which statement best describes the policy in place atthe time of establishing WSS services in projects?”●●Groups discuss and each group puts 1 vote on the wall,using BLUE/PINK circles, next to the statement that bestfits the answer.Scores for statements are then placed on the cards.Discussion is facilitated on selected statements, theirscores and rationale for the selection.12.Present all final scores to plenary on chart (which wasgradually built up during the workshop). Ask whichareas are most in need of sector policy reform. (Getthem to discuss in 4 small groups of mixed project /non-project. Groups give their ranking to plenary, withrationale). Each group reports on flipchart with thefollowing format :Ranks Policy Area RationaleEnsure clarifications of why they say so.1234567If there is consensus about areas with the lowestscores, facilitate discussion about obstacles topolicy changes therein, and what can be done atpolicy-makers’ level to improve the situation.For areas which look like strengths, discuss howthey could be utilized to improve the weak areas.Record and distribute final conclusions along withfinal consolidated scores.154 Appendix B

ReferencesBernard, Russel H. (1995). Research Methods in Anthropology, Walnut Creek, London, New Delhi,Altamira Press.Collinson, Michael. (1981). A low-cost approach to understanding small farmers. AgriculturalAdministration, 8, 433-450.Esrey, Steven A. (1994). Complementary strategies for decreasing diarrhea morbidity and mortality:water and sanitation. Paper presented at the Pan American Health Organization, March 2-3.Fong, Monica S., Wakeman, Wendy and Bhushan, Anjana. (1996). Toolkit on gender in water andsanitation. (Worldbank gender toolkit No. 2). Washington D.C. The World Bank. Also available:http://www.worldbank.org/gender/know/agtlkit.pdf. (April 25, 2001).Gross, Bruce. Wijk, Christine van and Mukherjee, Nilanjana. (2001). Linking Sustainability withDemand, Gender and Poverty: A Study in community-managed water supply projects in 15 countries.Water and Sanitation Program and IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.James, A.J. (2000). ‘An Improved methodology for participatory assessments’, Paper presented atworkshop on Participatory Approaches to Project Design, Implementation and Evaluation. IIRR Philippinesand MYRADA, Bangalore.Katz, Travis and Sara, Jennifer. (1997). Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Recommendationsfrom a global study. UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program.Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Moser, Caroline O.N. (1993). Gender Planning and Development : Theory, Practice and Training.London and New York: Routledge.Mukherjee, Nilanjana and Josodipoero, Ratna I. (2000). Is it Selling Toilets? No, A Lifestyle. Waterand Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific.Mukherjee, Nilanjana. (2001). Achieving Sustained Sanitation for the Poor: Policy and strategy lessonsfrom participatory assessments in Cambodia, Indonesia and Vietnam. Water and Sanitation Program –East Asia and the Pacific.References 155

Mukherjee, Nilanjana. (2002). ‘Indonesia – Coping with Vulnerability and Crisis’, in Narayan andPetesch (eds). From Many Lands. Washington D.C. The World Bank.Narayan, Deepa. (1993). Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water and Sanitation.World Bank Technical Paper number 207. Washington D.C. The World Bank.Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M.K. and Petesch, P. (2000). Crying Out for Change. The WorldBank.Overholt, Catherine et al (eds.) (1984). Gender Roles in Development Projects: A Case Book. EastHartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Pfohl, Jacob. (1986). Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A user’s guide. New York: PACTPretty, J., Guijt, I., Thompson, I. and Scoones, I. (1995). Participatory Learning and Action: ATrainer’s Guide. International Institute of Environment and Development, London.Srinivasan, Lyra. (1990). Tools for Community Participation: A Manual for Training Trainers inParticipatory Techniques. PROWWESS/UNDP Technical Series, New York, N.Y.Strassler, Dosou. (2000). La volonte de payer dans le domaine de l’eau et de l’assainissement – uneexperience au Benin. Helvetas – Benin.Walujan, R., Hopkins, R. and Istandar, A. (2002) Sanitation in Wonosobo: Two Evaluation ApproachesCompared. Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific.Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific. (1998). Participatory Learning andAction Initiative – Indonesia Country Report.Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific. (2001). Towards Sustainability withEquity: Report of East Asia Regional Water and Sanitation Conference.Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific. (2002). Learning What Works forSanitation: Revisiting Sanitation Successes in Cambodia.Water and Sanitation Program – East and Southern Africa. (2000). Demand-responsiveness,Participation, Gender and Poverty: East and Southern Africa regional synthesis report of the ParticipatoryLearning and Action Initiative.Water and Sanitation Program - South Asia. (1998). Improving Sustainability in RWSS Projects:Report of South and East Asia Regional Water and Sanitation Conference.156 References

Wijk, Christine van. (1998). ‘Gender in Water Resources Management’, in Water and Sanitation:Roles and Realities Revisited. Technical paper No. 33-E. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.The Hague.Wijk-Sijbesma, Christine van. (2001). Best of two Worlds? Methodology for Participatory Assessmentof Community Water Services. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. Delft.World Health Organization. (1983). Minimum Evaluation Procedures (MEP) for Water Supply andSanitation Projects, Geneva.World Health Organization (1998). PHAST Step-by-Step Guide: A Participatory Approach for theControl of Diarrhoea Disease, Geneva.Woroniuk, Beth (Ed.). (1994). Gender and water resources management, II (Report of a workshopheld in Stockholm, 1-3 December 1993). Sida. Stockholm.References 157

Previous publications on the MPAThe original Metguide, 2000Information flyer, 2000 15 - Country study report, 2001This document is published by the Water and Sanitation Program. It was edited and produced in East Asia. Copies can be ordered from theProgram: telephone 202 473 9785, fax 202 522 3313 or 522 3228, e-mai info@wsp.org.The World Bank does not accept responsibility for the views expressed herein, which are those of the authors and should not be attributed tothe World Bank or its affiliated organizations. The findings, interpretations and conclusions are the results of research supported by the Bank.The designations employed and the presentation of the material are solely for the convenience of the reader and do not imply the expressionof any legal opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bank or its affiliates concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, area, orits authorities, or concerning the delimitations of its boundaries or national affiliations.One of the cover photographs and the photo on page 1 are by Guy Stubbs.Design & lay out by Ariya Pramudiya

Water and Sanitation ProgramWater Supply and SanitationWorld Bank1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433Phone: +1 (202) 473-9785Fax: +1 (202) 522-3313, 522-3228E-mail: info@wsp.orgWeb site: www.wsp.orgIRC International Water and Sanitation CentrePO Box 2869, 2601 CW DelftThe NetherlandsTelephone: +31 (0) 15 291 2939Fax: +31 (0) 15 219 0955E-mail: general@irc.nlWebsite: http://www.irc.nl2003The Water and Sanitation Programis an international partnership to helpthe poor gain sustained access toimproved water supply and sanitationservices. The program’s main fundingpartners are the Governments ofAustralia, Belgium, Canada,Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan,Luxembourg, the Netherlands,Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, andthe United Kingdom; the UnitedNations Development Programmeand the World Bank.