Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 27: A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGER
Page 31 and 32: A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGER
Page 33 and 34: A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGER
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 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 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
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 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Table 2WSLIC 2: ADDING POVERTY ACCO
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Table 3 (continued) ADDING PERFORMA
Page 143 and 144:
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 and 160:
ACHIEVING SUSTAINED SANITATION FOR
Page 161 and 162:
HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJ
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?