Performance Report for FY 2009/10 - UWASNET

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Performance Report for FY 2009/10 of the interventions taken. Part two of the format generated qualitative data on a number of water and sanitation variables that include gender, equity, operation and maintenance (O&M).It also captured water quality and promotion of sanitation and hygiene practices and technologies in households, institutions and public places. It also covered; Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and HIV/AIDS mainstreaming among others. As part of sharing experiences and best practices, NGOs have been encouraged to contribute case studies and other documentations of real life experiences- stories that show how lives have been changed as a result of their interventions. Many of these have included in the report. 1.3.2 Responses A total of 104 NGOS and CBOs constituting 57 % of UWASNET members submitted data. This indicates a progressive increase in NGO and CBO reporting from 41% and 53% in 2007/8 and 2008/9 respectively. In order to capture contributions from all NGOs and CBOs in the sector, UWASNET is encouraging reporting by all NGOs and CBOs irrespective of registration status as a member organisation. Annex 1 presents all NGOs and CBOs who have submitted data for this report. To encourage reporting, other CSOs that have not submitted data have also been indicated. As observed in the 2009 report, most NGOs who were operating under emergency humanitarian response have now moved to mainstream CSO developmental work. Consequently, whereas in the past UWASNET and the WASH Cluster reported separately, this year the UWASNET reports incorporated data from 13 out of 24 (54%) WASH Cluster members operating in Northern Uganda. Figure 1 reflects the distribution of NGOs reporting by area of operation Figure 1.1: Reporting NGOs areas of operation Rural and urban 28% Urban 8% NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector | 22 Rural 64% From Figure 1, the majority of the NGOs (64%) work in rural area reflecting a rural bias of most NGOs and CBOs. Only 8% of the reporting NGOs work in urban area while 28% work in both rural and urban areas. A classification of reporting NGO is as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1.2: Classification of reporting NGOs Local NGOs 57% Performance Report for FY 2009/10 From Figure 2, the majority of the reporting CSOs were local NGOs (57%). International NGOs constituted 22%; CBOs 14%, and Faith based organisations 7%. 1.3.3 Challenges International NGOs 22% Faith Based NGOs 7% The need for a high degree of transparency and accountability on part of NGOs needs not be overemphasised. UWASNET Secretariat has progressively sought to improve reporting. However challenges to reporting still exist. As observed in the previous years, response rate for data submission is still unsatisfactory. Report formats need to be received in good time and the NGOs need to provide appropriate data where required. Incomplete reporting gives a distorted picture at data analysis stage. Complete NGO investment and contribution to the sector will remain unknown till all CSOs appreciate the need and are committed to complete reporting. It has been suggested that reporting formats be received early by the NGOs who would then be encouraged to keep a data base based on the reporting requirement. CBOs 14% 23 | NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector
Page 1 and 2: NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanit
Page 3 and 4: NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanit
Page 5 and 6: About UWASNET Performance Report fo
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Performance Repor
Page 9 and 10: List of Tables Performance Report f
Page 11 and 12: List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page 13 and 14: Glossary and definitions Performanc
Page 15 and 16: Water and Sanitation Development Fa
Page 17 and 18: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 p
Page 19 and 20: Supporting Community Based Manageme
Page 21: 1 Introduction 1.1 Context Performa
Page 25 and 26: 2.2.2 Institutional Framework Perfo
Page 27 and 28: Sub-Sector Strategies Water for Pro
Page 29 and 30: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 2
Page 31 and 32: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 D
Page 33 and 34: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 U
Page 35 and 36: 3.5 Unit costs Performance Report f
Page 37 and 38: SN Measurement Theme Golden Indicat
Page 39 and 40: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 T
Page 41 and 42: 4.4 Per Capita Costs 4.4.1 Per capi
Page 43 and 44: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 4
Page 45 and 46: 4.5.2 Improving the pupil-stance ra
Page 47 and 48: Case Study 4.6 Performance Report f
Page 49 and 50: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 o
Page 51 and 52: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 C
Page 53 and 54: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 b
Page 55 and 56: Case Study 4.12 Pre-paid water mete
Page 57 and 58: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 A
Page 59 and 60: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 L
Page 61 and 62: 4.14 Activities, outputs, and key r
Page 63 and 64: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 T
Page 65 and 66: Case Study 4.18 Ecosan: Farmer’s
Page 67 and 68: Community mobilisation/ Sensitisati
Page 69 and 70: Case Study 4.20 Performance Report
Page 71 and 72: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 i
Page 73 and 74:
6 Challenges and recommendations 6.
Page 75 and 76:
Performance Report for FY 2009/10 B
Page 77 and 78:
Case Study 6.1 Performance Report f
Page 79 and 80:
Performance Report for FY 2009/10
Page 81 and 82:
Performance Report for FY 2009/10
Page 83 and 84:
Institution Key responsibility Dire
Page 85 and 86:
Annex 2 Water and Sanitation NGOs a
Page 87 and 88:
Population served Expenditure (UGX)
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
show all

Performance Report for FY 2009/10 - UWASNET

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?