Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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:
THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SU
Page 21 and 22: THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SU
Page 27 and 28: 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 71: ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DAT
Page 79 and 80: PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?