Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2:
SustainabilityPlanning andMonitorin
Page 3:
SustainabilityPlanning andMonitorin
Page 6 and 7:
PrefaceThe mission of the Water and
Page 8 and 9:
AcknowledgementsThe Participatory L
Page 10 and 11:
viii
Page 12 and 13:
4.9 Visualization and self-scoring
Page 14 and 15:
Figure 18 KDP 2 activity cycle with
Page 17 and 18:
THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SU
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGER
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSkey va
Page 37 and 38:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSsevera
Page 39 and 40:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESS●●
Page 41 and 42:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSThe MP
Page 43 and 44:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSsegreg
Page 45 and 46:
THE MPA IN ACTIONaction points in i
Page 47 and 48:
THE MPA IN ACTION●●●●●●
Page 49 and 50:
THE MPA IN ACTIONBox 15 Key element
Page 51 and 52:
THE MPA IN ACTIONsuccessful or unsu
Page 53 and 54:
THE MPA IN ACTIONexternal facilitat
Page 55 and 56:
THE MPA IN ACTIONBox 17 Indicative
Page 57 and 58:
THE MPA IN ACTIONvisits and conduct
Page 59 and 60:
THE MPA IN ACTIONScoring principles
Page 61 and 62:
THE MPA IN ACTION4.10 Quality contr
Page 63 and 64:
THE MPA IN ACTIONExperiences with t
Page 65 and 66:
THE MPA IN ACTION5Organizing and In
Page 67 and 68:
Box 22 Gender and poverty analysis
Page 69 and 70:
ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DAT
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110: Section 2MPAApplication Case Studie
Page 111 and 112: DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABI
Page 121 and 122: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEDANIDA began
Page 123 and 124: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE2. Key findi
Page 125 and 126: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEReality of e
Page 127 and 128: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEAdding Accou
Page 129 and 130: ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQ
Page 137 and 138: Table 2WSLIC 2: ADDING POVERTY ACCO
Page 141 and 142: Table 3 (continued) ADDING PERFORMA
Page 145 and 146: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDMembers
Page 147 and 148: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDFigure 2
Page 149 and 150: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDFigure 2
Page 151 and 152: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARD●●
Page 153 and 154: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDMPA core
Page 155 and 156: EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIO
Page 157 and 158: EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIO
Page 159: ACHIEVING SUSTAINED SANITATION FOR
Page 163 and 164: HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJ
Page 165 and 166: Appendix AInstitutions that current
Page 167 and 168: Appendix BProcess designed forPLA P
Page 169 and 170: StepNo.7.ProcessAsk “Were users e
Page 171 and 172: ReferencesBernard, Russel H. (1995)
Page 173: Wijk, Christine van. (1998). ‘Gen
Page 176: Water and Sanitation ProgramWater S
show all

Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?