The DRC WASH Consortium London, 13 th March 2019
Water, sanitation and hygiene in DRC https://washdata.org/data/household#!/cod
Water, sanitation and hygiene in DRC https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/17248/578310revised01ous0re cord10rpostudy.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
DFID Business Case Urban WASH Rural WASH Imagine (Mercy Corps): PNEVA phase II (UNICEF): £38m £85m Sanitation marketing DRC WASH Consortium pilot (Oxfam GB): (Concern Worldwide): £6m £30m Total 2013-2019: £164m https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-203445
DRC WASH Consortium overview £29.8m 2013-2019 7 provinces 16 Health Zones 612 communities 810 water points Population 656,000
Budget breakdown Amount, £ Proportion Activities 8,094,328 27% Logistics and running costs 5,064,504 17% Human resources 13,142,616 44% Equipment 1,349,282 5% Visibility 95,329 0.3% Indirect costs 1,942,223 7%
Some key steps • Consortium starts, £24m 2013 • Build up of strategy 2014 • Internal rearrangements 2015 • Scale-up, £30m 2016 • Security-related target revision 2017 • Grant amendment, £29.8 2018 • Conclusion (March) 2019
Strategic framework Reinforce sustainability ‘Economic’ Community approach empowerment Enabling Local National Sector environment level level learning
The 12-step approach 1 2 3 Community Selection of Triggering of mobilisation and intervention zones community work selection 4 5 6 Mobilisation of Village Community Action Plan Social marketing Committee and PAFI campaigns 7 8 9 Self-assessment and Technical feasibility Installation and request for external study and business operation of the water investment Plan point + training 10 11 12 Social marketing for Evaluation and Monitoring and project sustainability certification exit
The Economic Approach Progressive levels of community self-sufficiency: Below Level 1: In most cases a committee is in place and community contributes
Community mobilisation and “PAFIs” Community-driven Inspired by CLTS Easy-to-adopt WASH practices Low or no cost Local technology, resources and expertise
Strong Technical M&E Working system Group Linking Improved the local Identifying national debate to best the WASH practices national capacities one Advocacy for the Sharing adoption lessons of best learned practices Sector learning and advocacy: the framework
5 agencies assisting 656,416 people
612 communities in 7 provinces
810 water points
Gradual onset… then speed up
A composite results framework DFID’s global indicators Consortium’s own approach The “7 norms” of PNEVA
Logframe structure Output 1: Hygiene (4 indicators) Output 2: Local governance (5 indic.) Impact: Outcome: Improved health Sustainable Output 3: Committees (5 indic.) and productivity community through reduced WASH, with local Output 4: Water (4 indic.) water-related governance and diseases services Output 5: Sanitation (4 indic.) (1 indicator) (8 indicators) Output 6: Coordination (4 indic.) Output 7: Learning (4 indic.)
A snapshot of results Time for water collection Maintain ‘7 norms’ (communities) Maintain ‘7 norms’ (individuals) Water point in use two years after Committees’ capacities Support from local authorities Active ‘ ReCos ’ six months after Committees’ finances
A snapshot of results Indicators Before: After: Handwashing station near latrine with soap or ash (5.2) 2% 52% Hygienic improved sanitation facility (5.1) 35% 71% Properly dispose of household waste (5.3) 27% 76% Transport and stock water in a hygienic manner (4.4) (not available) 76% Source: Sample of the baseline: Oct 2016 - June 2018. Results as of June 2018
Sustainability two years after Water points managed by 99% committees 89% Committees with adequate 81% capacities Water points in regular use 33% Female committee members
The Economic Approach Progressive levels of community self-sufficiency: Below Level 1: In most cases a committee is in place and community contributes
Rigorous tools… http://consortiumwashrdc.net/ressources/
… that require adaptation Katolo, Territory of Manono, Tanganyika
Economic Approach results Below Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Committees at end-line 32% 47% 18% 3% stage (=394) 68% Data based on 394 Water Management Committees
Financing mechanisms Below Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 HH contributions + AGR 21% 54% 22% 3% (=169) HH contributions only 35% 48% 12% 5% (=177) Data based on 394 Water Management Committees
Self-remuneration Below Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Committees self- 12% 60% 26% 2% remunerating (=43) Committees not self- 35% 45% 17% 3% remunerating (=351) Data based on 394 Water Management Committees
Households exemptions Below Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Communities offering 27% 52% 16% 4% exemptions (=291) Communities without 30% 46% 21% 2% exemptions (=56) Data based on 394 Water Management Committees
Women leaders in committees
Similar achievements in different communities Adult women Pregnant and lactating Children under 18 No trends found: Children under 5 the Economic Approach adapts to various Household size demographic profiles Women-led households Income sources Expenditure items
Behaviour change for WASH Water use practices Sanitation practices Hygiene practices Protecting access to the water Using household hygienic Handwashing with soap or ash point with a fence latrine at critical moments Storing kitchen utensils on a Well-cleaned water point with Monthly village cleaning drainage rack Weekly home cleaning Protecting access to the Properly cleaning water (sweeping, weeding, drains storage containers kitchen with a fence with cesspits, waste pits) Drains for evacuating Keeping water storage rainwater in the yards of Hanging clothes high containers covered houses
“PAFIs”
“PAFIs”
A snapshot of results Indicators Before: After: Handwashing station near latrine with soap or ash (5.2) 2% 52% Hygienic improved sanitation facility (5.1) 35% 71% Properly dispose of household waste (5.3) 27% 76% Transport and stock water in a hygienic manner (4.4) (not available) 76% Source: Sample of the baseline: Oct 2016 - June 2018. Results as of June 2018
Similar achievements for different communities Correct Presence of Presence of Hygienic Proportion in the Demographic group handwashing hygienic handwashing waste community demonstration toilet station disposal 81% 77% 67% Lowest Adult women 60% 64% 80% Highest 66% 69% Lowest Children under 5 78% 80% Highest Source: Project data Oct 2016 - Nov 2018
Key sector learning results International publications 7 7 9 2 Pilot projects and research reports Guidelines and manuals 4 3 80 Web articles 80 External Technical Reviews and reports 8
Sector learning and advocacy: the tools Research Manuals articles and and guidelines reports External Technical Factsheets Newsletter Reviews Social Website Website media articles articles
Sector learning and advocacy: the tools
The DRC Water Law: advocacy and learning • Advocacy for the Water Law 2015 • 4 th External Technical Review 2016 • Consultations with experts and ETDs • Launch of a pilot project supporting rural ETDs 2017 and institutional diagnostic • Training of ETDs and design of a financial 2018 planning tool
A nuanced approach to advocacy INFLUENCING THE DIRECT ACTIONS DEBATE Financial sustainability in 2015 joint initiative for the WASH promulgation of the Water Law Sharing lessons learned Campaigns on World and Improved WASH sector International Days on coordination WASH
What has changed? • Water Law promulgated but no implementing decrees • More debate in DRC around community financing but until now not included nor tested in the National Programme • Inclusion of Consortium-supported communities in the “Healthy villages” “Post - database but not in the certification” process
Contacts www.consortiumwashrdc.net DRC.WASHConsortium@concern.net
Recommend
More recommend
