Promoting harmonized monitoring for the WASH sector : the rural water and sanitation information system SIASAR as an example
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•280 views
This document discusses harmonized monitoring for the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sector. It provides an overview of the Rural Water and Sanitation Information System (SIASAR) which collects data on service providers, communities, technical assistance providers, and indicators/indices. SIASAR data has been used in several countries to inform planning and improve sustainability. Key challenges discussed include adapting SIASAR to different contexts, maintaining the system over time, and expanding it to new countries and regions in a coordinated way while ensuring harmonization.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie Promoting harmonized monitoring for the WASH sector : the rural water and sanitation information system SIASAR as an example
Ähnlich wie Promoting harmonized monitoring for the WASH sector : the rural water and sanitation information system SIASAR as an example (20)
Mehr von IRC
Mehr von IRC (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Promoting harmonized monitoring for the WASH sector : the rural water and sanitation information system SIASAR as an example
- 1. Antonio Rodriguez Serrano Senior Water and Sanitation Specialist March 5, 2018 IRC's 50th Anniversary Event Series Promoting Harmonized Monitoring for the WASH Sector The Rural Water and Sanitation Information System SIASAR as an example www.siasar.org
- 3. Shared rural water sector challenges Low coverage levels Poor service quality Limited service sustainability No information on actual status Inadequate Information Systems Decisions / Priorities / Interventions
- 4. A B C D Performance Indicators
- 5. What information is collected? SERVICE PROVIDER COMMUNITYSYSTEM • Jurisdiction • Competence • Capacities • Resources • Frequency of support TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER • Tariff / Rate • Legal status • Performance of board • Income / costs • O&M Practices • Access • Location • Population • Coverage • Households • Health and Hygiene Practices • Service typology • Water point • Infrastructure • Treatment Core Entities
- 6. How data is collected and processed?
- 7. Indices Forms Community 11 questions Water System 21 questions Service Providers 34 questions TA Providers 12 questions Water Service Level State of Infrastructure Service Provision TA Provision Sanitation and Hygiene Service Level Schools and Health Centers Global Index Water and Sanitation Performance Index WSP Sustainability Metrics: Indices Construction
- 8. Prestador de servicio WSP Water and Sanitation Performance Index B B B C B Service Provision State of Water Infrastructure A Provision of Technical Assistance Schools and Health Centers Water Service Level Community Sanitation and Hygiene A A Indicators and Indices - Example 1 (Brazil) Comunidade de Córrego dos Rodrigues Aracati, Ceara, Brazil
- 9. Sustainability Metrics: Indices Construction Prestador de servicio WSI | Water System InfrastructureA A B A A Water Source Protection State of Infrastructure Water Treatment System System Autonomy A State Storage Tank A A B Chlorination A Days of service without producing A B A A A Type of system Functionality State of water catchment area State of Conduction State of Distribution network State of Catchment Prestador de servicio WSL | Water Service LevelB A A A B Continuity Accessibility Seasonality Quality D Access Improved Water Sources A Access timeA A Bacteriological Physical and Chemical A D Minimum Water Provision throughout the year
- 10. Sustainability Metrics: Indices Construction Prestador de servicio SHC | Schools and Health CentersB C A B Water Supply in Health Centers Sanitation in Schools Water Supply in Schools Sanitation In Health Centers Sanitation Service Level C Hygiene Service Level B Drinking Water Service LevelC Drinking Water Service LevelC Sanitation Service Level Hygiene Service Level C A Prestador de servicio SHL | Sanitation and Hygiene Service LevelA A A B A Household Hygiene Personal Hygiene Community Hygiene Sanitation Service Level B household wash hands Use of household improved sanitation A A Safe water management at householdA Waste Collection and Treatment Households practicing open defecation B Improved sanitation service level Improved household sanitation coverage B A A B C
- 11. Sustainability Metrics: Indices Construction Prestador de servicio SEP | Service ProvisionA B A B A Financial Management Organization Environmental Management Operation and Maintenance A A Operation and Maintenance Assessment Chlorine management O&M Regulation Operational Metering Level Legal Status Management Structure Operation Equity Tariff Management and Accountability C A A A A A B A A A A B A A Collection Efficiency Operating Cost Ratio Billing Ratio Debt Service Ratio Environmental Sanitation Promotion Corrective Measures for Micro Basin Conservation Preventive Measures for Micro Basin Conservation Prestador de servicio TAP | Technical Assistance ProvisionC C C C C Community Coverage Institutional Capacity Information System A Transport means Water Quality Equipment Ratio Technician/ Community Financial Resources B D % Communities SupportedC Diversity B IT Equipment Access to Internet A C D D A Concentration Typology of Technical Assistance
- 12. Data Collection Update · January 2018
- 13. Using Information for Decision Making
- 14. Preliminary Findings System Service Provider Community TA Provider 4.55% 13.71% 59.49% 22.35% 8.37% 30.26% 39.83% 21.55% 37.18% 44.20% 7.53% 11.03% 1.61% 26.61% 66.94% 4.84% Sustainability Analysis based on a sample of 10,000 communities, 5,000 systems, 5,000 service providers, and 150 TA providers with validated data from Dominican Republic , Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama
- 15. 24% 76% Access to sustainable water service SIASAR (2015) Sustainable access Unsustainable access Service Sustainability into Perspective Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Dominican Republic 77% 23% Access to improved water sources JMP (2015) Improved Unimproved
- 16. Service Provider Sustainability Service provider sustainability vs. nº women on community WSS boards * Service Provider Sustainability by Legal Status O&M Cost Recovery O&M cost unknown by SP O&M cost known by SP But tariffs revenue Insufficient to cover the cost O&M cost recovered by SP through tariff34% 44% 22% Analysis based on a sample of 5,000 systems and service providers with validated data from Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Dominican Republic
- 18. Nicaragua National Level Responsible for the Rural Water and Sanitation sector Regional Level Regional Water and Sanitation Advisors Municipal Level Municipal Water and Sanitation Units Community Level Water and Sanitation Committees FISE ARAS UMAS CAPS Technical assistance providers’ efficiency % Communities effectively supported by PATs Analysis based on a sample of 150 TA providers with validated data from Nicaragua SIASAR as Baseline to develop the National Rural Water and Sanitation Plan Strengthening local and service provider capacities through Results Based Learning (AVAR) 30% Sustainability Chain
- 19. Panama Distribution of Communities by rating Indigenous vs. Non-Indigenous WASH Poverty Analysis in 150 indigenous peoples communities to inform the National Indigenous Peoples Development Plan Analysis based on a sample of 1,000 with validated data from Panama
- 20. State of Ceara, Brazil Complete Aracati Prefecture gathering information. Base line to include Rural Water and Sanitation in the Municipal Development Plan
- 21. Lessons from implementation Key success factors
- 22. Principles
- 23. The Process Matter 2011 First Approach to the concept 2012 First Working prototype 2013 Redefining the concept 2014 - 2015 Auditing and Improving Regional Agreement 2016 -2017 Consolidatin g & Scaling up Strategic stakeholders Civil, research and academic stakeholders
- 24. Implementation Roadmap Agree on the Institutional and Operational framework is key Initial steps are critical for effective implementation
- 25. Acto de Apertura y Firma del Acuerdo SIASAR Dr. Javier Díaz, Ministro de Salud de Panamá Ing. Marco Fortín, Presidente Anda - El Salvador y Pro-Tempore FOCARD-APS Ing. Yesenia Calderón, Presidenta Ejecutiva del AyA, Costa Rica, Ing. Luis Eveline, Gerente de SANAA, Honduras Ing. Julio Cuadra, Presidente Ejecutivo de FISE, Nicaragua Ing. Alberto Holguín, Director Ejecutivo del INAPA, República Dominicana Institutionalization is key
- 26. Institutional Framework Coordination and Harmonization
- 27. Regional and National Leader Institutions Civil, research and academic stakeholders Dominican Republic Strategic stakeholders Costa Rica Panama Honduras Nicaragua Oaxaca - Mexico Peru Ceara (Brazil) Involving Stakeholders and Partners
- 28. Addressing Evolving Challenges Improving conceptual model Expanding to new countries Adapting to different contexts Building on existing databases Enabling new features Taking advantage of new technologies Website App BI GIS
- 29. Supporting National Teams June 2016, San José AppGIS GISD D GL March 2016, Lima
- 30. • Regional and Global – “Base-line Mindset” – Tackling the language barriers for going global (Dictionary of Terms) – Ensuring harmonization while scaling up the system - (Core) – Coordinating global, regional and national priority agendas • Institutional challenges – Walking the Roadmap – institutional arrangements – Expanding usage at all administrative levels – Managing political turnover and institutional changes – Continuous data collection and update (recurrent cost) • Conceptual challenges – Adapting to new contexts – Monitoring use of sanitation facilities – Incorporating the household dimension at scale • IT platform challenges – Keeping the countries at the heart of the SIASAR IT development – Ensuring an IT expert developers team to maintain and enhance the system – Continuing IT improvements to better serve all needs Challenges
- 31. Going Global • System versus M&E support initiative • Prioritization: requirements for new countries • Institutionalized: Governance Structure: Global / Regional / Country Focus • Harmonized: Core (RWSS Global Metrics) vs complementary • Adaptable: Flexible and Modular Approach. Building on existing systems • Modern & Evolvable: Global Server and Support Team
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Thinking out of the box Indeed there are limitations and relevant differences we need to consider when bridging some lessons learned from Central American countries to India. Specially we talking about numbers… as there is a matter of size and population Central America is a set of small and low to middle income countries with a total population of around 44m people. Some 42 percent of the population live in rural areas, where there are some 50,000 rural communities (panchayats). According to the JMP Update 2014, ~20% of the population that lives in rural areas still lack access to improved water sources (2.9m people) and ~51% lack access to sanitation (6.2m people ). Bearing in mind limitations and differences, the fact that we celebrate life using similar colors has helped me focus on commonalities when identifying the learnings that may be relevant to the discussion on the M&E framework for the Rural WSS project for Low Income States in India.
- This chart presents the functional curve of a water supply system. When the system is constructed it is fully functional and it is classified as Category A. As time pass, the system functionality falls exponentially and it reach a level that requires O&M (example the pump start leaking and it needs to be fixed). At this point an O&M intervention could help us to get back to level A, and so on… If no O&M action is done, the system functionality could continue falling to a level that requires rehabilitation (the pump is broken and needs to be replaced). Sustainability is evaluated in a four level metric, “the sustainability metric”, applied over all SIASAR elements or index. These levels, called ABCD qualifications, are determined when each indicator or index reaches a certain score: “A” corresponds to an optimum service level. This is the usual score in new infrastructures or services, and is the appropriate level for population and it should be maintained. “B” corresponds to an acceptable level of performance but there are some issues with certain problems. The service requires attention but problems can be solved by the community. “C” means and inadequate operational level that must be corrected, or rehabilitated. In this case, the community needs external support in order to solve the problem. “D” is the worst level and in this case the service does not exist or is offline and needs full recovery. The community needs external financial and technical support. This level is undesirable.
- What is being monitored? We decided to differentiate four entities relevant to the sector as subjects of interest. Three of them (Community, System, and Service Provider) correspond to each water and sanitation system serving a rural community. The forth entity (Technical Assistance Provider) captures the government, NGOs, or private agencies providing technical and social assistance to rural communities and water and sanitation community boards: O&M, management, hygiene promotion… Traditional M&E focused in the systems and do not capture communities without water system There is a standard form to collect information of each of the four entities monitored. Having disaggregated information for each entity allows for focusing on the different barriers and drivers to improve its performance and sustainability. VC Suggestions: We decided to differentiate four entities relevant to the sector so we are able to monitor the community, the system and the service provider separately. This allows us to focus on actual problems.
- SIASAR Countries SIASAR is currently being implemented in 9+2 Latin American countries and states, including Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, the State of Ceara in northeast Brazil, and the southern Mexican State of Oaxaca. Colombia, and Paraguay have joined recently. It is supported by more than 200 national and municipal partner institutions. SIASAR data collection update Sep 2016 To date, there are over 23,000 rural communities with data entered in the system, covering approximately 19,000 systems across 17,000 service providers. SIASAR coverage data reaches approximately 30 percent of rural communities universe in those countries, amounting to 54 percent of the rural population of the member countries and states, or some 11 million people.
- Each point on the map represents a rural community and the color code is link to the ABCD classification of the service provided in the community. So… what to do with all this information?
- Data gathered through the SIASAR initiative offer a disconcerting picture of rural WSS services sustainability Systems Just 22 percent of the systems that have been built are classified as category “A” and thus fully functional and considered sustainable. A further 59 percent of systems have been assessed as category “B” systems—encompassing those in need of repairs within the community’s abilities. Conversely, some 18 percent of systems have been assessed as category “C” or “D,” suggesting that the system is on the verge of failure or is completely offline, and repairs are beyond the community’s abilities. Service Providers Only 7 percent of service providers are in the “A” bracket, while 44 percent face issues that they can resolve on their own, landing them in category “B.” On the other hand nearly 37 percent of service providers have been assessed to need outside technical assistance or financial support, those in category “C”, and 11 percent of rural communities lack a service provider, those in category “D”. Taken together with the data above on WSS systems, this suggests that there is not only a need for technical assistance for the maintenance and upkeep of systems, but, moreover, there a need exists to provide support to service providers to ensure that they can sustainability manage those existing systems. Communities Then looking at the community level index, which aggregates indicators from the system and service provider level, we observe a similarity of the community level classification distribution with that of service providers. Only 8 percent of communities have achieved a classification of “A”. Fully 70 percent of communities fall in categories “C” or “D,” suggesting a relationship between the sustainability of the service providers and of the WSS service they are tasked with delivering—stronger service providers deliver more sustainable service.
- Access versus Sustainable Service This finding bring with the headline figures for access to drinking water services into perspective. Coverage data reported in the JMP LAC Update 2015 figures indicate that approximately 77 percent of rural residents in SIASAR countries have access to an improved water source. Of that 77 percent, however, SIASAR data indicate that only 24 percent of the systems they rely on deliver sustainable services. Thus, without effective maintenance, technical assistance, and financing, the gains made to expand WSS service coverage are at stake.
- Legal Status Positive correlation between the service provider classification and their legal status: legalized service providers tend to have higher sustainability scores. SIASAR data also highlight that the majority of service providers lack legal status. In many cases, the bureaucratic process of attaining legal status can be complex and many service providers lack the resources and specialized skills to complete the requisite paperwork on their own. Gender Female participation in the administration of public services is thought to improve service quality. Data in the SIASAR system allows us to begin to test this hypothesis in the WSS service context. At this point we cannot state that having women participating in community WSS service provider administrative boards guarantees service sustainability. Data from the SIASAR system indicate no substantial difference in sustainability between service providers with a male or a female president. Nevertheless, Figure shows a positive correlation between the number of women on the board and service sustainability: Category “A” service providers have higher percentages of women board members. In sum, greater female participation in water board management appears to translate to more sustainable service. Further analytical work is underway to better understand how the different roles of female board members factor into sustainability. Effectiveness of Technical Assistance Provision Governments, donors, NGOs, and others have provided technical assistance in the WSS sector for decades and coverage and quality indicator suggest that much room for improvement remains.
- This slide present a summary of relevant examples of how countries are using SIASAR. Looking ahead the SIASAR initiative will continue to dive into the data to identify factors that contribute to the sustainability of rural WSS services and to engage with governments to operationalize the data for decision making.
- Regional cooperation requires communication, coordination effort, and lot of time, but the investment pays off: “learning together how to cope with shared challenges”
- One of the main challenges faced by the rural water supply and sanitation (RWSS) sector in the Latin America and the Caribbean region is the poor quality of service delivery as well as its limited sustainability over time. Water and sanitation services lay at the root of many other development challenges as they impact public health, education, household income, and the environment. Poor sustainability is not exclusively related to infrastructure, the capacity of service providers, hygienic or organizational habits, and the quality of the technical assistance provide, among other factors also play a critical role in the sustainability of water and sanitation services, making the monitoring of all these variables essential for this complex decision-making process.
- “Every decision needs right information and every information should help in right decision-making” Simplicity: “Why do you need to know the color of a pump?” “What?” is important, as well as “How?” and “Why?” Periodical sector monitoring vs. project baseline approach: “What to do after initial investment ends?”