Analysis of VWS Ethiopia Findings Based on Responses from Four Units

Analysis of Vibrant Water Sector Benchmarking in CARE Ethiopia, 2010

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION...... 1 1. The importance of water+ within the unit's strategy & focus...... 1 2. Basic Data (best estimates)...... 2 3. Overall approach adopted in the Unit...... 3 4. Specific approach to hygiene & sanitation...... 3 5. Policy & Advocacy:...... 4 6: Capacity Building...... 5 7. Networked implementation...... 5 8. District impact - % access to water & sanitation...... 6 9. Support to productive uses of water...... 7 10. Environmental resource management & adaptation to climate change...7 11. Diversity & inclusion...... 8 12. Technical/Institutional sustainability...... 9 13. Innovation and Learning...... 9 15. Cost effectiveness...... 10 16 Standards...... 10 CONCLUSION...... 10

INTRODUCTION

The following paper summarizes the findings from CARE Ethiopia based on responses from four units: Emergency, South Gondar Unit, Running Dry GWI Borana and PSNP Plus. Responses were provide around April 2010.

1. The importance of water+ within the unit's strategy & focus

Water+ work is ‘the most important work of the unit’ in 3 cases and ‘fundamental but not dominant’ to 1 unit. The data on these four units provides a useful start in terms of the units most heavily involved in water+ programming.

1 05/04/2018 2. Basic Data (best estimates) Key summaries to the basic data for the units is provided in blue below.

a. No of districts water+ portfolio is working in UNIT Districts PSNP Plus 2 Running Dry GWI 1 South Gondar 4 Emergency 6 Total 13

b. Total annual budget for sector work UNIT US $ PSNP Plus 520,000 Running Dry GWI 118,2406 South Gondar 600,000 Emergency 779,403 Total 3,081,809

c. No of annual direct users/beneficiaries UNIT No PSNP Plus 26,338 Running Dry GWI 31,250 South Gondar 35,000 Emergency 65,000 Total 157,588

Note that the above figures of suggest an overall cost per beneficiary of $20 per person. This seems like a low ball-park figure and needs discussion to ensure that CARE Ethiopia has a clearer understanding of costs, beneficiaries and appropriate ratios to be aiming for in the future.

d. Approximate number of people reached indirectly: Three units didn’t provide data, one unit estimated that it reached 8,000 people. In the future some thinking and strategy about how to measure indirect beneficiaries could usefully be developed.

e. Percentage breakdown of portfolio rural/urban Two units didn’t respond to the question, the others are around 90- 95% rural; 5-10% urban split.

f. Development and/or Emergency work Two units’ approach was development only, one emergency work only and one both.

g. School/institutional and community/household approach in all units

2 05/04/2018 3. Overall approach adopted in the Unit

There was an equal split, two units using IWRM and two units WASH approaches – the logic behind which approach is adopted where and what might be the standard to aim for in different contexts might warrant further discussion

4. Specific approach to hygiene & sanitation

Additional comments: 1. Using Community based Volunteer WASH promoters, paraprofessionals, school clubs and community awareness raising mobilization events ( Drama, Film show) and capacitate Local government health workers 2. CARE Ethiopia, South Gondar Project use CLTS and PHAST as an appropriate approaching tool to mobilize a broad rural community and to realize the health implication of open defecation. The project with partners tried to achieve this goal by educating village level rural people through these tools focusing on the three key H &S behaviors, which are: latrine construction and use by all family members, washing hands at four critical times and using safe water supply and how to treat at household level. 3. IEC materials, counseling cards, mass media & film show were used to give hygiene education

3 05/04/2018 A variety of approaches seem to be in place regarding sanitation and hygiene with CLTS and PHAST being the main ones. Going forward, some analysis of their effectiveness and lessons across units would be useful.

5. Policy & Advocacy: a. The portfolio's work on governance, policy influence or policy enforcement

Clearly more policy and advocacy work is being undertaken in some unit, compared to others. Something for the units to reflect on and a possible overarching advocacy area could be identified.

Additional comment from one unit: 1. So far the sector as a system had institutional problems in developing a coherent vision. But because of different systematically organized capacity building workshops and trainings this scenario have been changed from time to time currently even the project as a system can re-assign concerned and capable institutions for making a day-to-day follow up of the total condition of WaSH schemes and particularly periodic chlorination at kebele level, in this regard responsibility of chlorination transform from water resource development office to health office since health office’s structural arrangement at kebele level allow to take this role, also the sector has an opportunity to be directed under a unified organ ( Steering Committee) which in turn helps us to motivate high level of community participation and to apply CARE’s principles of program quality to all stakeholders

b. The unit has done or is planning significant water+ related policy analysis on:

Questions responded to by two units with the following points: 1. The unit has been working to prepare policy paper on strategy on implementation of IWRM & development and effective WASH promotion approach in the program area

2. As means of better strategy formulation at district level CARE Ethiopia, S/Gondar project repeatedly undertook the water quality analysis and assessment of bacteriological quality test of water at source and at house hold level. As a result of studies revealed, that good construction alone does not guarantee water quality since drinking water supply safe at source

4 05/04/2018 were found contaminated at home, this triggers a question of “what are the barriers for ensuring the safety of a drinking water supply as expected in our program”. The most effective means of consistently ensuring the safety of a drinking-water supply is through the use of a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach that encompasses all steps in water supply from catchments to consumer the project suggest that adopting Water Safety Plan (WSP) for better risk control and managing a system is an appropriate means for assuring safe water utilization. The project also engaged in conducting each year annual scheme inventory to trace the functionality of the water schemes, and also trace hygiene practice periodically through Health Extension Workers (HEW).These analysis helps us to identify core problems and main constraints to reach our desired conditions and to formulate a road map for the way forward to achieve health based targets.

6: Capacity Building

All four units are involved in capacity building at community and local government level. Less capacity building seems to be going on in terms of the other stakeholders. A comparison of capacity building approaches across the units, possibly starting off approaches to local government would be worth exploring.

7. Networked implementation

5 05/04/2018 The feedback is of significant interactions with other CSOs/NGOs. The two areas which most units engage with the least are working with academia/research institutions (C) and cross- country linkages (F). These seem to be areas to consider strengthening in future programs.

Additional Comment from one unit: CARE has established relationships with each of the government, nongovernmental organization via MWA, and a private sector partners identified in the proposals and with any one to work in alignment for the same goal the overall purpose is for sharing technical expertise, scaling up positive lessons and innovative ideas to leverage resourcefulness. The organizational framework should encompass all the components of the sector from planning and design to operation and maintenance considering community participation and management. There should be clear lines of authority and responsibility, and when several government agencies are involved, coordinating mechanisms are essential so the prim mover for WASH implementation in S/Gondar is the district steering committee which plays the overall coordination role.

8. District impact - % access to water & sanitation

Most units were unable to provide figures for this question suggesting that this a major area of lack of data at present – possibly a reflection of the difficulty of getting good data (see note below), however also arguably a reflection of insufficient programming thinking about percentage access issues – which are critical in the context of government targets and MDGs, etc.

The exception was the South Gondar unit which provided the following breakdown:

6 05/04/2018 Comment from unit The main problems we faced for calculation of sanitation and water coverage is lack of commonly used standard and nation wide used formula, then some institution in the sector use federal standards and others used the regional to quantify coverage and rate of change, so this disorder has made grate confusion on providing accurate figure of coverage and performance status of the sector.

9. Support to productive uses of water

Additional comment

7 05/04/2018 A range of technologies and service levels offered to each needy community together with clear information about their costs and the continuing financial or management implications for the community. The community selects a technology based on the amount it is willing and able to pay in kind, labor and as well as cash.

There is some variation in responses to this question on productive use of water, which might be a reflection of different contexts or might just be due to chance and funding opportunities. The critical question however is - are each of the units making an informed decision about what is offered in terms of the different components of the water provided? Are there best practices that can be shared, see not above from South Gondar which seems like a strong place to start.

10. Environmental resource management & adaptation to climate change

The table below on environmental resource management and adaptation to climate change shows significant ‘no’ responses – suggesting that the whole environmental resource management and resource protection are areas of relative weakness requiring significant attention.

11. Diversity & inclusion

8 05/04/2018 The responses on diversity and inclusion are relatively strong. Areas that scored lowest are; - The portfolio works with men to advance understanding of roles of women in management of water resources and involves men in WASH activities in other ways that promote gender equality and - the strategic interests of the vulnerable/marginalized/poorest in the community are addressed

12. Technical/Institutional sustainability Responses on systems in place were:

There are significant variation across units in answers given regarding technical/institutional sustainability.

Overall, areas of comparative strengths include water committees being legal identities (F) and community contribution towards operation and maintenance costs (A).

Areas requiring attention seem to be contributions being sufficient to cover costs (B); Non-functionality of water schemes are generally promptly addressed (D); Sanitation usage and hygiene practices will be sustained (E) and ‘there is annual or periodic financial monitoring’ (H) 9 05/04/2018 13. Innovation and Learning

Additional Comment: As a learning organization CARE Ethiopia, S/Gondar project adopted the following innovation and learning best practices, following demand-responsive approach; Improving shared vision understanding among partners Leveraging resourcefulness through system thinking; Conducting WaSH village based graduation rather than individual based graduation; Establishing WSSG ( women self help saving group) ; Conducting water quality test at HH level; Enhancing community contribution significantly

Responses on innovation and learning suggest that innovation and learning is taking place often and possibly even systematically. There seems to be less systematic attention to: ‘CARE supporting, creating or participating in active learning fora at the district, provincial or national level’ (C) and ‘Is there any evidence of recent uptake of learning from the CARE portfolio by others’ (D)

14. Cost contribution to service provision

Three units provided the data on costs and community contribution The overall contributions of 17% is impressive - (though figures range from 4 to 35%). Government contribution of 3% is a good figure compared to some countries, (the range is 0 for two units and 10% for one). 5. Cost effectiveness Data on Cost effectiveness is only attempted by one unit, PSNP Plus that estimates in US $:

A. Water provision for domestic use 27 B. Sanitation provision 0 C. Hygiene awareness 7 D. Additional water for multiple use work (e.g. irrigation) 0

10 05/04/2018 E. Environmental protection/watershed management/climate 0 proofing work F. Cost per person for water in institutions (e.g. school) 0 G. Cost per person for sanitation in institutions 3 H. Cost per person for hygiene promotion in institutions 10

16 Standards

A range of responses were provided on the degree to which National, WHO and SPHERE standards are being applied and degree to which achievement is monitored

CONCLUSION

This report has picked up some key findings from the vibrant water+ sector benchmarking process undertaken with CARE Ethiopia. It is hoped that this review can be part of a process that, after the development of the first Water+ Strategy for the work in Ethiopia, encourages the sector staff to come together and discuss some of the key differences and key concerns in order to identify ways of strengthening the programs over time.

One fundamental point that arises from this benchmarking process is that there is considerable variation between units. Although some of this is probably a reflection of the different contexts, it is likely that a considerable element is a result of happenstance and units, projects and programs evolving differently. Some attempts to compare and learn across the units is happening already, and this should be strongly encouraged. In addition it would be useful to look at some of the areas of greatest difference of approach and some of the overall weakest areas to consider how to improve both the individual projects and the overall portfolio.

Areas of relative strengths can be found from the summary tables in the report above, however the following provides a summary of the areas to prioritize for greater attention going forward:

1. The need in much of the portfolio of stronger IWRM and environmental protection approaches 2. The importance of reviewing the different hygiene and sanitation approaches across the units 3. There is more policy and advocacy work in some units, compared to others. Something for the units to reflect on and a possible overarching advocacy area could be identified 4. Discuss lessons/comparisons in capacity building approaches across the units, possibly starting off with capacity building of local government 5. Consider building more work with academia/research institutions and cross- country linkages.

11 05/04/2018 6. Increase programming thinking, understanding of and engagement with others on the impact of CARE’s work in terms of district percentage access issues 7. Ensure that the units have informed decision making processes about what is offered in regard to different components – i.e. the different multiple uses to which water can be applied 8. In terms of diversity, areas of relative weakness are working with men to advance an understanding of roles of women in management of water resources and involving men in WASH activities in other ways that promote gender equality and ensuring that the strategic interests of the vulnerable/marginalized/poorest in the community are addressed 9. Areas requiring attention in terms of technical and institutional sustainability seem to be ensuring that community contributions are sufficient to cover costs; non- functionality of water schemes are promptly addressed; Sanitation usage and hygiene practices will be sustained; there is annual or periodic financial monitoring 10. On learning and innovation, current areas of relative weakness are: ‘CARE supporting, creating or participating in active learning fora at the district, provincial or national level’ and ‘evidence of recent uptake of learning from the CARE portfolio by others’ 11. Much better data on per capita costs and cost breakdown for different components is needed 12. Figures on co-financing by community and to a lesser extent by government are impressive and lessons from one unit should be shared with others (if not already done) 13. Greater clarity in the portfolio as a whole would be useful regarding the degree to which National, WHO and SPHERE standards are being applied, implementation, and monitored against

12 05/04/2018