UTS: INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES Review of SNV’s Pro-Poor Support Mechanism in Banteay Meas, Cambodia Prepared for SNV 2017 SECTION BREAK – DO NOT DELETE! Just tex INSTITU TE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES JANUARY 2017 SNV is a not-for-profit international development organisation. Founded in the Netherlands nearly 50 years ago, we have built a long-term, local presence in 39 of the poorest countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Our global team of local and international advisors work with local partners to equip communities, businesses and organisations with the tools, knowledge and connections they need to increase their incomes and gain access to basic services – empowering them to break the cycle of poverty and guide their own development. By sharing our specialist expertise in Agriculture, Renewable Energy, and Water, Sanitation & Hygiene, we contribute to solving some of the leading problems facing the world today – helping to find local solutions to global challenges and sowing the seeds of lasting change. For more information visit: www.snvworld.org The Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) was established by the University of Technology Sydney in 1996 to work with industry, government and the community to develop sustainable futures through research and consultancy. Our mission is to create change toward sustainable futures that protect and enhance the environment, human well-being and social equity. We seek to adopt an inter-disciplinary approach to our work and engage our partner organisations in a collaborative process that emphasises strategic decision-making. For further information visit: www.isf.uts.edu.au CITATION Cite this report as: Murta, J., Foster, T., Willetts, J. (2017), Review of SNV’s Pro-poor support mechanism in Banteay Meas district, Cambodia, Report prepared by the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney for SNV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Sincere appreciation to the review participants from the MRD, Kampot PDRD, Bateay Meas district government, and Bateay Meas DoRD, as well as development agencies such as WaterAid, EMW, Plan for their time and valuable insights. This review would also have not been possible without the support of community and village leaders and the many women and men who contributed their time and reflections. The review team would also like to acknowledge Dr. Keren Winterford from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney for providing invaluable methodological advice and guidance on the appreciative inquiry approach used in this review. Special thanks are also due to Vanny Suon, Lay Thoin and Jenni Lillingston, and the entire SSH4A team for organising the field trips and providing valuable input for this review. DISCLAIMER The authors have used all due care and skill to ensure the material is accurate as at the date of this report. UTS and the authors do not accept any responsibility for any loss that may arise by anyone relying upon its contents. INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES University of Technology Sydney PO Box 123 Broadway, NSW, 2007 www.isf.edu.au © UTS January 2017 ii INSTITU TE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES JANUARY 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations/Acronyms v 1 Introduction 1 2 Country contextual background 1 3 SSH4A program in Cambodia 2 3.1 Achieving district-wide ODF 2 3.2 The pro-poor support mechanism pilot 3 4 Review methodology 4 4.1 Review framework 4 4.1.1 Effectiveness criteria 4 4.1.2 Appreciative inquiry 5 4.2 Methods 6 4.2.1 Desktop review 6 4.2.2 Qualitative research 6 4.2.3 Quantitative survey 7 4.2.4 Stakeholder workshop 8 4.3 Review limitations 8 5 The pro-poor support mechanism implementation process 9 5.1 Initiation and revision process 9 5.2 Delivery process 10 6 Review findings 11 6.1 Achievements of the mechanism 11 6.2 Strengths of the mechanism 15 6.2.1 Local leadership and commitment 15 6.2.2 Effective technical support and capacity building 16 6.2.3 Emphasis on reflection and learning from failure 16 6.2.4 Emphasis on outreach to households and socialisation of the pro-poor mechanism 16 6.2.5 Strong accountability mechanisms and close monitoring 17 iii INSTITU TE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES JANUARY 2017 6.2.6 Transparent process 19 6.3 Effectiveness of the mechanism 19 6.3.1 Targets the poorest households 20 6.3.2 Sustainability 24 6.3.3 Scalability 27 6.3.4 Avoids the risks of distorting the existing and potential market 28 6.3.5 Based on a good understanding of the local context and consumer preferences 30 7 Conclusion and recommendations 32 7.1 Recommendations 33 References 35 Annex I: Original ToR 36 Annex II: Review schedule 41 Annex III: Pro-poor support mechanism monitoring data 43 Annex IV: Qualitative research sampling 48 Annex V: Interview and FGD guides 50 Annex VI: Household survey sampling 66 Annex VII: Household survey questionnaire 67 iv INSTITU TE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES JANUARY 2017 ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS CC – Commune Chief CFP – Commune Focal Point CLTS – Community Led Total Sanitation DoRD – District Office of Rural Development MRD – Ministry of Rural Development NAPs - National Action Plans ODF – Open Defecation Free PAPs - Provincial Action Plans PDRD – Provincial Department of Rural Development SSH4A – Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All ToR – Terms of Reference VC – Village Chief VFP – Village Focal Point EMW – East Meets West v INSTITU TE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES JANUARY 2017 1 INTRODUCTION This document presents the process, findings and recommendations of a review of SNV’s pilot pro-poor support mechanism in Banteay Meas District, Kampot Province in Cambodia. The review was carried out by the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney and SNV in October-November 2016, in consultation with the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) and the District Office of Rural Development (DoRD). The objectives of this review as defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR) (Annex I) were to: 1. Review the effectiveness of the pilot pro-poor support mechanism in enabling increased uptake of improved sanitation amongst ID Poor households, with a focus on scalability and sustainability. 2. Understand the strengths and key enabling factors of the mechanism. 3. Support the Cambodian Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) in efforts to promote a more coordinated and consistent approach to help increase access and usage of improved sanitation amongst the poorest households. 2 COUNTRY CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND Cambodia has seen important improvements in sanitation coverage, with an increase in access to improved toilets rural areas from 10% in 2000 to 30% in 2015 (UNICEF/WHO 2015). However, with nearly half of the population still lacking access to improved sanitation, it remains one of countries with the lowest rates of sanitation coverage in the South East Asian region (CSES 2014; World Bank 2015a). Significant progress has been made in the sector’s governance framework through policies, strategies and plans. In 2014, the government approved the National Strategic Plan (NSP) for Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene 2014-25, with a target of universal access to sanitation in rural areas by 2025 (World Bank 2015a). Achieving this target will require a significant increase in uptake amongst the poor. In rural Cambodia, where over 75% of the population and 90% of the country’s poor live, more than 65% still practicing open defecation (CSES 2014). Further, in the bottom wealth quintile of the rural population, sanitation coverage is 19% (CSES 2012) compared to the national average of 48% (CSES 2014). The recently developed National Action Plan (NAP), aims to operationalise the NSP’s vision, and recognizes that “the rural poor should gain access to rural water and sanitation and hygiene services in equal proportion to those who are better-off” and that in many cases this will “require changes as to how the poor are targeted” (MRD 2016a, p. 7). In Cambodia, to date there has not been a coordinated and consistent nation-wide approach to ensure increased uptake of building and using latrines amongst the poor (EMC 2016). In recognition of problems caused by poorly designed hardware subsidies nationally and internationally, the National Strategy for Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene 2011 - 2025, which preceded the NAP, states that subsidization of sanitation should focus on software costs,1 with possible but limited and cautious use of hardware subsidies targeted at the poorest families only as a last option (MRD 2011). Nevertheless, several developing agencies have continued to use sanitation hardware subsidies in an 1 Costs involved in supporting the development of an enabling environment, hygiene behavior change activities, and sanitation marketing costs (MRD 2011). 1 INSTITU TE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES JANUARY 2017 inconsistent manner (EMC 2016). To promote a coordinated and consistent approach, ‘National Guiding Principles on Hardware Subsidies for Rural Household Sanitation’ were recently drafted (developed with the sector). These principles guide how sanitation hardware subsidies should be implemented in Cambodia and are part of set of national guidance documents to accompany the NAP. Key principles include that subsidies are only introduced to communes with a minimum of 60% improved latrine coverage, targeted at ID-Poor 1 and ID-Poor 2 households without an improved latrine, and applied to cover the costs of a latrine sub-structure only (MRD 2016b). These guiding principles will be assessed and amended based on the various sector development agencies’ experiences of implementing them. Such assessment will be part the annual review of the NAP implementation by the MRD (Ibid). 3 SSH4A PROGRAM IN CAMBODIA The pro-poor support mechanism pilot reviewed in this report is part of SNV’s broader Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All (SSH4A) program. In this section we provide background information about the SSH4A program more broadly and the pro-poor support mechanism pilot.