Sustainability Check 2015

Transcription

1 Sustainability Check 05 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique OCTOBER 06 WE Consult Av. Kwame Nkrumah 03 º direito C.P. 348, Maputo Mozambique mozambique@we-consult.info Tel: Fax: Mobile:

2 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique i

3 Sustainability Check 05 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique OCTOBER 06 Client: UNICEF - Mozambique Prepared by: WR Quality Control: IvH Av. Kwame Nkrumah 03 º direito C.P. 348, Maputo Mozambique mozambique@we-consult.info Tel: Fax: Mobile: Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique ii

4 Sustainability Check 05 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique iii

5 Sustainability Check 05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HEADLINES CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY RESULTS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique iv

6 Sustainability Check 05 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique v

7 Table of Contents Sustainability Check 05 Executive Summary... iv Headlines... iv Context and Objectives... iv Methodology... iv Results... iv Conclusions... iv Recommendations... iv Context... Objectives of the Evaluation... 3 Methodology Inception Phase Updating of Tools Indicator Matrix Sampling Methodology Changes to the sample from the original sample list Training Field Work Team set-up Water point survey ODF-Check & Household survey District Focus group discussion Quality Control Processing of Data Principal Limitations Results Program Sustainability 008 to Sustainability of Water Points Institutional sustainability Social sustainability Technical sustainability Financial sustainability Comparison Sustainability vs. Functionality of Water Points Sustainability of Sanitation Institutional sustainability of Sanitation Zero defecation Quality of latrines Hygiene Sanitation classifications Conclusions Recommendations... 3 List of figures Figure 5 Districts surveyed during the 04 Sustainability Check... 4 Figure 6 Distribution of sample per year of construction (water points)... 5 Figure 7 Distribution of year of ODF status in total list and sample... 5 Figure 8 Overall sustainability of the OMI programme Figure 9 Water point sustainability... Figure 0 Sustainability of water points over the years... Figure Institutional sustainability of water points... 3 Figure Institutional sustainability over the years... 3 Figure 3 Social sustainability of Water Committee... 4 Figure 4 sustainability of water committees over time... 4 Figure 5 Social sustainability of water point maintenance groups... 5 Figure 6 Sustainability of maintenance group (0-05)... 5 Figure 7 Sustainability of external support of water committees... 6 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique vi

8 Sustainability Check 05 Figure 8 Sustainability of external support Figure 9 Technical sustainability Quality of water services... 7 Figure 0 Quality of services Figure Technical sustainability regarding spare parts... 8 Figure Sustainability regarding spare parts Figure 3 Financial sustainability of water points... 0 Figure 4 Financial sustainability of water points 03 to Figure 5 Functionality of OMI water points versus sustainability score of water points... Figure 6 Sanitation sustainability... Figure 7 Sustainability score of sanitation component over the years... Figure 8 Institutional sustainability of sanitation... 3 Figure 9 Institutional sustainability of sanitation Figure 30 Zero defecation... 4 Figure 3 Sustainability of latrine quality... 5 Figure 3 Sustainability of Latrine quality Figure 33 Sustainability of Hygiene... 6 Figure 34 Sustainability of Hygiene Figure 35 Open Defecation free (LIFECA)... 7 Figure 36 Safe sanitation... 8 List of tables Table Scoring per category... 3 Table 3 Division of sample per district... 3 Table 4 Sustainability per province and district per year... Table 5 Overview of Water sustainability... Table 6 Number of users... 7 Table 7 Details of functionality... 7 Table 8 Duration of last breakdown... 7 Table 9 Overview of Sanitation sustainability... Table 0Points awarded per type of latrine... 4 Table Types of latrines... 5 Table Households that adopt criteria for ODF... 7 Table 3 Negative changes in sustainability scores Table 4 Indicators with positive changes from Table 5 Water Points in Sample... Table 6 ODF-Communities in Sample... Annexes Annex : Lists of Sampled Water Points and ODF-Communities Annex : Indicator Matrix Annex 3: Sustainability score per indicator and per district Annex 4: Questionnaires Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique vii

9 Sustainability Check 05 Acronym EP EPC GPS HH LIFECA ODF PEC SDPI UNICEF WASH WC Definition Escola primaria- Primary school Escola complete- Complete primary school Global Positioning System Households Livre de faecalisme au céu aberto free of open defecation Open Defecation Free Participação e Educação Comunitário - Community Participation and Education Serviços Distrital de Planeamento e Infraestruturas- District office for planning and infrastructure United Nations Children Fund Water Sanitation and Hygiene Water Committee Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique viii

10 Sustainability Check 05 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique ix

11 Sustainability Check 05 CONTEXT The Government of the Netherlands has provided a total of $53. million for implementation of Government/UNICEF water, sanitation and hygiene projects in the three Eastern and Southern Africa countries: Comoros, Malawi and Mozambique. In the case of Mozambique, the programme (007-03) received $34.3 million and the programme was expected to result in (i) one million new users, living in poor rural areas, with access to safe and sustainable drinking water sources; (ii) 00,000 new users of rehabilitated safe and sustainable drinking water sources; (iii) 40,000 children, in 400 primary schools, using new safe water and sanitation facilities and adopting appropriate hygiene practices in schools and at home; and (iv) one million new users of safe and hygienic sanitation facilities. Except for school WASH, all expected results have been achieved or surpassed by December 03. A key feature of this partnership is an emphasis on the sustainability of programme outcomes. The programme is designed in such a way that the continued operation and use of the water supply and sanitation facilities constructed during its course will be a key determina nt of the overall success of the programme. To assess this, an annual Sustainability Check is incorporated as a conditionality of the programme design by the Dutch Government. It is conducted on an annual basis and the results of the Sustainability Check will be used as secondary data to support the findings of the base- midand end line assessments carried out in the context of the monitoring and eva luation plan. The Checks continued two years post-programme (04-05) to monitor sustainability of results. In November 008, the first Sustainability Check was undertaken. The assessment focused on water points that had been rehabilitated (i.e. hand pump repaired or hand pump platform repaired) during 007 and 008. The results of the assessment indicated a poor level of sustainability between 50% and 75% in the water points assessed. On the basis of the recommendations from the 008 Sustainability Check, the One Million Initiative Programme undertook a round of intensive seminars on sustainability in all target districts. The seminars were held at the district and posto administrativo level and involved community leaders, key district and sub-district government officials and the private sector (artisan groups and spare parts traders). Targets for sustainability were established for the districts to achieve a minimum of 70% sustainability based on the statistical sample. The 009 Sustainability Check identified substantive changes in sustainability, with medium to satisfactory levels of sustainability of between 75% and 90% in all the water points assessed. This Sustainability Check also included sustainability assessment of the Open Defecation Free (ODF) communities achieved under the Programme in late 008. Recommendations drawn from the Sustainability Check were again communicated to the Programme partners and local governments for their action. The 00 Sustainability Check of water points and ODF communities identified a modest reduction in sustainability in all provinces compared to 009. In 0 this improved and in 0 the levels of sustainability were leveling. Each time, the key variables of concern were used for programme adjustment through informing programme partners and programme response. In 04, one year after the conclusion of the One Million Initiative, the overall sustainability of the programme was medium (7%). The advancing age of the interventions led to a decline of 9% in sustainability in 04, after three years of stable scores around 80% from 0 to 03. This Sustainability Check builds on the experience of the previous five checks, though contains improvements in methodology, database and analyses framework. Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique

12 Sustainability Check 05 OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION The overall objective of the Sustainability Check 05 is to assess the change in sustainability of both () the new and rehabilitated water facilities (which may be loca ted in communities, schools, or health posts) and () sanitation infrastructure (in ODF communities) constructed under the programme in 0 (out of 8) districts of Manica, Tete and Sofala provinces and, by doing so, recommend any necessary actions to improve sustainability outcomes. The specific objectives of the consultancy were to: Select a representative sample of water points from the list of water points in schools and communities and a total of 08 Open Defecation Free communities and schools within the 0 target districts and schools. Using the data collection tool developed by UNICEF, conduct a data collection exercise for the 05 annual Sustainability Check in the 0 selected districts as listed in Table ; Present a concise report with sustainability levels in 05, comparing levels to results from the previous Sustainability Checks; Provide clear, feasible and doable recommendations to local and provincial government on how to improve sustainability of WASH infrastructure in select ed districts beyond programme implementation. 3 METHODOLOGY 3. INCEPTION PHASE 3.. UPDATING OF TOOLS During the inception phase, the tools used for the Sustainability Check 05 were updated. While the key questions were kept equal to previous years to facilitate comparability between the different years, some questions were discarded and the lay out was updated. The survey used six different questionnaires. A questionnaire filled in during a focus group discussion with SDPI members involved in WASH was used to collect data for the institutional sustainability categories for water points and sanitation. For the sustainability of water points a questionnaire for water points was used, to be conducted with members of the water committee. This questionnaire included questions on institutional, social, technical and financial sustainability. In ODF communities, two different tools were used. One questionnaire involved checking whether the community was still ODF by checking for faeces in the open in and ar ound the community and asked random community members whether they had practiced or had seen open defecation in the past three days. The last questionnaire involved a check of the presence and quality of latrines and handwashing systems in 0% of the households of the community with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 30 households. In schools, two different questionnaires were used. One questionnaire involved checking whether the schools was ODF and collected data on types and numbers of latrines. The other q uestionnaire focused on the water point at the schools. Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique

13 Sustainability Check INDICATOR MATRIX The indicator matrix used to calculate the overall sustainability scores is included in Annex. The indicator list includes 5 indicators in the following categories: Table Scoring per category Water Points Sanitation Category Points Institutional 0 Social 40 Technical 30 Financial 0 Institutional ODF-status.5 Latrines & Hand washing systems 7.5 Total 00 The overall sustainability at program level was calculated by combining the points of all indicators which leads to a maximum score of 00%. The indicators related to water points add up to a maximum of 90 points (scaled to 00 for separate WP analysis), while the sanitation component comprises of a maximum of 00 points (for separate sanitation analysis), which are rescaled to represent 0 points in the overall sustainability score. The indicators and scoring method were kept unchanged to be able to compare results from previous sustainability checks SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 05 The water point and ODF-community sample for the Sustainability Check 05 was drawn from the list of all water points constructed and rehabilitated and all communities declared Open Defecation Free under the One Million Initiative Program between 007 and 0 5. Table Division of sample per district Province District Nº water points Nº ODF communities Manica 3 Manica Mossurize 8 7 Machaze 5 8 Changara 8 Tete Marávia 6 0 Zumbo 6 6 Dondo 6 4 Sofala Chemba 5 5 Maringue 6 6 Total Communities Angonia 8 Schools Changara 6 Manica 4 Total Schools 8 Total 08 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 3

14 Sustainability Check 05 Figure Districts surveyed during the 04 Sustainability Check To draw the sample a random number between 0 and was assigned to each water point and community in the total list using the Microsoft Excel random number generator. After this the highest of these numbers (up to the needed sample for each district) were tak en as the sample for the study. As in previous years, the random sample was checked to be representative of the total list with rega rds to year of construction/rehabilitation for water points and year of ODF -declaration for ODF communities. The sample for water points showed a distribution over the years which is in line with the total list (Figure ). Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 4

15 Sustainability Check 05 30% Distribution of Sample per Year of Construction (Water Points) 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% Total Sample Figure Distribution of sample per year of construction (water points) The sample for ODF communities derived from the random numbers list was slightly s kewed to include too many communities declared ODF in 00 and 009. In order to achieve a more representative sample 3 communities which reached ODF status in 00 and 3 communities which reached ODF in 009 were substituted with 0 communities next in the list of highest random number within the same districts. This resulted in the distribution as seen in Figure 3. Year of ODF status in total list and sample 40% 35% 30% 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% Total Sample Figure 3 Distribution of year of ODF status in total list and sample The data regarding schools which was received from the client did not include data on the year of intervention, so there was no possibility of checking the distribution of the sample. The lis t of water points, ODF communities and school included in the sample can be found in Annex Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 5

16 Sustainability Check CHANGES TO THE SAMPLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE LIST Several changes to the original sample were made during the field work. Reasons for changes to the original sample included: The security situation several Posto Administrativos did not allow for data collection Water points did not exist Selected ODF communities were never declared ODF Whenever it was not possible to conduct a survey on a seleted waterpoint of ODF community, the fieldteam leader would communicate with the office in Maputo, and the next water point or ODF community on the list would be selected to replace the original selected water point of community. 3. TRAINING A training of two days was held in Chimoio for the team leaders and enumerators. The training took place on the 9th and 0th of November. During the training phase, team leaders and field staff were trained in the following:. Context of the survey. Interviewing techniques 3. Explanation of the questionnaire 4. Latrine quality 5. Explanation of selection of houses 6. Logistics 7. Work plan 8. Use of GPS Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 6

17 Sustainability Check FIELD WORK 3.3. TEAM SET-UP The enumerators were organized in three teams of two persons, with one designated as Team Leader. The teams were organized based on their knowledge of the local languages of the various areas. Each of the three teams had one 4x4 vehicle and was equipped with tents and all other necessary camping equipment to allow them to set up base in the communities in which the surveys were conducted WATER POINT SURVEY The inception phase resulted in a list of 93 randomly selected water points and 8 schools (Annex ). Based on the logistics and languages, the work was divided and sequenced as follows: Team Tete: Zumbo, Maravia, Changara Team Sofala: Dondo, Nhamatanda, Buzi Team Manica: Manica, Sussundenga, Gondola The Team Leader was responsible for conducting the water point surveys while the two enumerators conducted the household surveys and ODF check. The questionnaire for the water point survey can be found in Annex ODF-CHECK & HOUSEHOLD SURVEY In 90 communities and 8 schools, an ODF-check and household surveys were conducted. Each team was able to conduct this within a day. The social consultants (contracted by DPOPHs on year contracts to mobilize and support communities) helped the teams with finding the communities and introduced the teams. During the ODF-check, the surroundings of the community or school were checked for human faeces out in the open and randomly nine people were asked if they defecated in the open air or saw anyone defecate in the open air in the last 3 days. The household survey was conducted in 0% of the households of the community with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 30 households. During the household survey the enumerator check ed the existence and state/quality of the latrines in the sampled households. The indicators used are following the concept of safe sanitation as is in use by the Government of Mozambique. The questionnaire used for the household survey can be found in Annex DISTRICT FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION The District Focus Group Discussion played an important role in obtaining in-depth information on the history and functioning of the project within the district. In addition, it has been an important source for recommendations from the field. In order to ensure the desired quality, the Focus Group Discussions were conducted by the Team Leaders. The questionnaire used during the Focus Group Discussion can be found in Annex 3. Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 7

18 Sustainability Check QUALITY CONTROL Quality and quality control is integrated at several levels during data collection, data entry and data analysis. During the fieldwork, all completed questionnaires were checked by the Team Leader on a daily basis. In case of errors or doubts, the Team Leader would discuss these with the responsible enumerator and make the necessary changes. Data was sent to the head office in Maputo after each completed district. All completed questionnaires were checked by the project leader, before entry into the data base. Any errors or doubts were discussed with the team. The data entry was done by key staff in Maputo and validations and controls were present throughout all forms and data entry sheets. 3.5 PROCESSING OF DATA An advanced data entry structure was set up using Microsoft Excel by the Consultant for the Sustainability Check 04. This same database was used again for the 05 Sustainability Check The database has been made available in digital format to the client. The database includes all data as collected in the field, and the calculations are available and can be verified. The measure of sustainability of the programme is composed of four components, focusing on i) Technological, ii) Financial, iii) Socio-economical and iv) Institutional aspects of sustainability. After weighing, the sustainability matrix was applied identifying the following categories: <50% sustainability = unsatisfactory in terms of sustainability. 5%-75% sustainability = medium in terms of sustainability; 76%-90% sustainability = satisfactory in terms of sustainability >90% sustainability = good in terms of sustainability 3.6 PRINCIPAL LIMITATIONS Within the design, implementation and analyses of the survey, the following assumptions and limitations have been identified and recognized: Even though the sample is only taken from 0 of the 8 districts where the programme is implemented, it is taken to be representative for the programme. In districts where the sample is small (for example, 4 WPs in Buzi), individual water points have a large impact on the sustainability score of a whole district. The same is true for ODF communities. As the same sampling method has been the same since 007, the results of the years can be compared. The consultant implementing the surveys has been different over the years, though under the guidance of UNICEF, the methodology has remained the same and comparison over the years is possible. Recent political unrest in Mozambique can have some influence on the sustainability of the programme, but to which level and length cannot be assessed at the moment. The changes made in districts to be sampled (four different districts compared to previous years) could be one of the reasons for differences in sustainability scores when comparing to previous years. Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 8

19 Sustainability Check 05 The sampling has been based on the programme intervention and as such is not representative for any further tier of analyses. Some results have been presented per district or province and these should be considered indicative and not as representative. Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 9

20 Sustainability Check 05 4 RESULTS 4. PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY 008 TO 05 The analysis of 05 followed the same principles as 04 and 03, with 90% of the scoring allocated to water and 0% to sanitation. Using this methodology, the overall sustainability of 04 is determined to be 60%. In Figure 4 this is presented in comparison with the previous five sustainability checks. While the sustainability has been stable around the satisfactory level of 80% from 0 to 03, in 04 (7%) and now, in 05, a drop in sustainability was measured. Overall sustainability of the programme, average over the years 75% Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 00% 75% 50% 5% 57% 84% 8% 80% 80% 68% 7% 0% Figure 4 Overall sustainability of the OMI programme Though the results are only statistically valid at programme level, it is still interesting to look at Province-District trends. When scores are disaggregated per district ( Table 3 ), we can observe that, as last year, Dondo district scores best (68%), followed by Nhamatanda (68%) and Changara (63%). The high scores in these districts are a result of intense cooperation between UNICEF, SDPI and the PEC activists in the districts. During the district focus group discussions, it became apparent that the social consultants are very important in keeping the water committees running well, thus ensuring the sustainability of the water points. In these 3 districts, it was clear that the social consultants did better work than in the other district. This effect is still seen this year, although the program has stopped. The Districts with the least performance is Buzi (3%). The low scores for this district are related to the functioning of the water committees and the availability of spare parts, during the district focus group discussion it was mentioned that the social consultant did not work well. Note that sanitation was only included from 0 onwards. Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 0

21 Sustainability Check 05 When looking into the details per Provinces (Table 4), all Provinces have seen a drop in sustainability levels. The Province of Manica has seen the largest decline and slipped to an average sustainability level of 60%. The decline seen in the Province of Sofala is mostly due to Buzi District, whic h entered into the Sustainability Check for the first time this year and receives a poor score of 3%. The Province of Tete has seen a small decline, and is now the best performing Province with 6% on average. Table 3 Sustainability per province and district per year Province districts Prov. Manica 6% 88% 84% 8% 77% 86% 7% 60% Prov. Tete 56% 84% 57% 77% 74% 7% 63% 6% Prov. Sofala 53% 78% 65% 84% 87% 8% 78% 59% Prov. Manica Prov. Sofala Prov. Tete Machaze 58% 79% 86% 77% 80% 77% 60% substituted Mossurize 57% 9% 80% 87% 80% 79% 66% substituted Manica 69% 94% 83% 85% 78% 90% 75% 60% Sussundenga only conducted in 05 as substitute 53% Gondola only conducted in 05 as substitute 50% Nhamatanda only conducted in 03 & 05 as substitute 78% 68% Chemba 53% 7% 73% 89% 85% substituted 68% substituted Dondo 54% 98% 63% 90% 87% 84% 8% 68% Maringue 5% 7% 59% 70% 87% substituted 77% substituted Buzi only conducted in 05 as substitute 3% Maravia 55% 84% 6% 83% 84% 78% 60% 59% Zumbu 55% 83% 45% 83% 80% 8% 66% 59% Changara 57% 85% 63% 73% 68% 67% 63% 63% Key: Poor Medium Satisfactory Good Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique

22 Sustainability Check SUSTAINABILITY OF WATER POINTS The overall sustainability of the water points is depicted in Figure 5 and Table 4. It consists of 35 variables and results in an overall medium outcome of 65%. The institutional component has the highest sustainability score, followed by technical sustainability. Of the various sub-categories, institutional sustainability has the highest sustainability score, followed by quality of service and social sustainability of external support. The social sustainability of the maintenance group is the most problematic. The water point sustainability was constantly satisfactory up to 03. In 04 and 05 a negative trend can be seen (Figure 6). The following chapters discuss all indicators separately. Table 4 Overview of Water sustainability Category % Total Score obtained Max score possible Nº variables Institutional sustainability of water points 70% Social sustainability Water committee 59% Social sustainability maintenance group 5% Social Sustainability of external support 79% Technical sustainability Quality of service 60% Technical sustainability Spare parts 7% Financial sustainability 55% TOTAL 65% % Water point sustainability 65% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 75% 50% 5% 7% 6% 54% 65% 76% 55% 53% 0% Institutional sustainability of water points Social sustainability Water committee Social sustainability Social Sustainability maintenance group of external support Technical sustainability Quality of service Technical sustainability Spare parts Financial sustainability Figure 5 Water point sustainability 00% Sustainability of the water pointsprogramme Average over the years 75% Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 75% 50% 5% 8% 8% 7% 65% 0% Figure 6 Sustainability of water points over the years Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique

23 Sustainability Check INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY Institutional sustainability of water points 7% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 00% 75% 50% 5% 0% 78% 00% 56% 44% 50% Manual database for water points exists The water point database is operational and in use at the district level Frequency of update There is a staff person in charge of the water point database Communication system of the community to report water point functionality Figure 7 Institutional sustainability of water points The sustainability of the institutional infrastructure related to water points at district level (SDPI) showed steady, high levels from 0 to 04 (Figure 8). In 05, most indicators show a sharp decline. Although the districts still have a staff member who is responsible for the water point database, the (manual) databases in the districts are no longer in existence or are no longer operational and in use. Besides this, the communication between the districts and the communities in case of breakdowns of water points has also deteriorated. Institutional sustainability of water points % 75% 50% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 56% 44% 00% 86% 75% 78% 58% 00% 00% 00% 00% 97% 86% 7% 50% 5% 0% Manual database for water points exists The water point database is operational and in use at the district level Frequency of update There is a staff person in charge of the water point database Communication system of the community to report water point functionality Figure 8 Institutional sustainability over the years Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 3

24 Sustainability Check SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Social sustainability Water committee 6% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 00% 75% 50% 5% 6% 73% 6% 5% 68% 0% Water committee composition (positions of water committee members) Training and capacity of water committee management group (number of members who have received training) Clarity of roles in the management group of the water committee Regularity of water committee meetings (number of water committee meetings in the last months) Gender-balanced management group: % of women in management group Figure 9 Social sustainability of Water Committee The score for the social sustainability (6 indicators, sub indicators see Annex ) comprises of 3 broad groups: WC management group, WC maintenance group and link to mechanic. Most indicators in this category show a consistent decline since 0 (Figure 0). In 05, an increase was seen in the number of member who had received training, and the gender balance of the water committees. These small improvements could not prevent the overall decline in social sustainability scores in 05. Social Sustainability of water committee % 75% 50% 94% 9% 6% 95% 87% 83% 79% 80% 78% 73% 67% 6% 84% 75% 73% 68% 6% 56% 59% 5% 5% 0% Water committee composition (positions of water committee members) Training and capacity of water committee management group (number of members who have received training) Clarity of roles in the management group of the water committee Regularity of water committee meetings (number of water committee meetings in the last months) Gender-balanced management group: % of women in management group Figure 0 sustainability of water committees over time Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 4

25 Sustainability Check 05 Social sustainability maintenance group 54% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 00% 75% 50% 5% 70% 76% 4% 39% 0% Gender-balanced maintenance group: % of women in the maintenance group Water committee routine operation and maintenance (O&M) capacity Training and capacity of maintenance group (% of maintenance group who have received training) Clarity and understanding of roles in maintenance group (out of list of 4) Figure Social sustainability of water point maintenance groups Social sustainability of the maintenance groups of water committees shows a medium score ( 54%) overall. The clarity and understanding of roles in maintenance groups is satisfactory at 76%, but the gender balance is poor at 4% and the percentage of maintenance group who received training also shows a poor score (39%). Women in water committees are more involved in tariff collection and hygiene promotion and are less often part of the maintenance groups. This has not changed over the years. It is clear to see that, as the years progress and no new trainings are being held for existing water committees, new members in the committees are cause for a decline in the percentage of trained member. Social Sustainability of maintenance group % 75% 50% 44% 4% 33% 96% 90% 73% 70% 7% 73% 78% 76% 70% 60% 64% 39% 5% 34% 0% Gender-balanced maintenance group: % of women in the maintenance group Water committee routine operation and maintenance (O&M) capacity Training and capacity of maintenance group (% of maintenance group who have received training) Clarity and understanding of roles in maintenance group (out of list of 4) Figure Sustainability of maintenance group (0-05) Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 5

26 Sustainability Check 05 Social Sustainability of external support 65% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 00% 75% 50% 5% 54% 70% 74% 0% WC has relationship with existing competent mechanic for major repairs Relationship with mechanic WC knows where to go in case of breakdown Figure 3 Sustainability of external support of water committees The sustainability level regarding external support of water committees wa s found to be medium at 65%. Within this category the highest score is related to water committees knowing where to go in case of a breakdown of the water point (74%). Although most water committees have some kind of agreement with mechanics in case of major repairs (70%), the type of agreement the water committees have with the mechanics receives a medium score (54%). Written agreements between water committees and mechanics are still not common and most water committees only have a verbal agreement, or only contact the mechanic in case of a breakdown. Sustainability of external support % 75% 50% 88% 74% 54% 60% 58% 70% 96% 95% 74% 5% 0% WC has relationship with existing competent mechanic for major repairs Relationship with mechanic WC knows where to go in case of breakdown Figure 4 Sustainability of external support Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 6

27 Sustainability Check TECHNICAL SUSTAINABILITY Technical sustainability (7 indicators, 0 sub-indicators) comprises of quality of service and spare parts. 00% 75% Technical sustainability Quality of service 76% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 50% 5% 0% 85% 84% 7% 63% 7% 8% Number of users of the water point Current functionality Water point yield or of water point flow Duration of the repairs (number of days to repair water point at last breakdown) Total number of days the water point has been out of use in the last months Frequency of breakdowns in last month (count) Figure 5 Technical sustainability Quality of water services The quality of service is defined by six indicators as can be seen in Figure 5. Overall, the quality is satisfactory at 76%. 7% of the water points in the sample were operational at the time of the visit and the yield of the water points is generally satisfactory (score of 8 4%). The main challenge to the sustainability of service of the water points was found in the indicator relating to numbers of days in which the water points were out of service during the last months, which received a sustainability score of 63%. Table 5 Number of users Nº users % >000 users 5% users 8% users % 500 users 63% 300 users 37% Until 0, the national guideline was that each water point should serve a maximum of 500 people, and as can be seen in Table 5, 63% of the water points provide this level of service, yet 35% are under higher usage pressure as they serve more than 500 people. The new planning standard is 300 people per water point and only 37% of the water points have such levels. The details on functionality (Table 6) show that 6 water points had completely failed (8%) with broken tubing or base or other problems. Sixteen (7%) were operating with minor problems. Table 7 Duration of last breakdown Duration of last breakdown % day or never 49% - days 0% 3-5 days 6% 6-7 days % More than 7 days 3% Table 6 Details of functionality Functional % n No problem 54% 50 With minor problems 7% 6 Not working 8% 6 The duration of last breakdown for the sampled water points shows that half of the water points have not yet suffered a major breakdown (49%). However, when breakdowns do occur, the disruption of service is usually more than 7 days (3%). This leads to the conclusion that water committees face difficulties in rapidly resolving breakdowns. Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 7

28 Sustainability Check 05 Technical sustainability Quality of service % 75% 89% 93% 88% 83% 85% 89% 86% 85% 84% 84% 7% 74% 73% 73% 63% 9% 8% 80% 7% 50% 93% 5% 0% Number of users of the water point Current functionality of water point Water point yield or flow Duration of the repairs (number of days to repair water point at last breakdown) Total number of days the water point has been out of use in the last months Figure 6 Quality of services 0-04 The sustainability score for the quality of services shows only slight variations over the last 4 years. Three indicators show a decrease from 04, the largest being current functionality of the water point. The scores for the number of users of the water point and the yield have been stable since 03. Technical sustainability Spare parts 55% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 00% 75% 50% 5% 0% 63% Water committee knows where to acquire spare parts 57% 55% 3% Water committee knows the cost of spare parts Presence of spare parts for small or routine repairs Distance to the closest point of spare parts sale Figure 7 Technical sustainability regarding spare parts Figure 7 shows the sustainability score regarding spare parts for water points (4 indicators). The overall score is medium with 55%, Water committees are rarely in possession of the maintenance kits which should have been handed out to all water committees at the handing over of the water point. Some water committees state they never received a maintenance kit, while others have used them but were not able to replace them. The overall score for this indicator is poor at 3%. Distance to the nearest point of sales of spare parts receives a score of 55%. Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 8

29 Sustainability Check 05 When looking at the technical sustainability related to spare parts over the past 3 years, there is a downward trend visible. All indicators show a steady decline since 0, the largest being the presence of spare parts for small or routine repairs and water committees knowing the cost of spare parts (9% in 3 years). Technical sustainability Spare parts % 75% 50% 94% 85% 63% 88% 65% 57% 54% 34% 3% 7% 63% 55% 5% 0% Water committee knows where to acquire spare parts Water committee knows the cost of spare parts Presence of spare parts for small or routine repairs Distance to the closest point of spare parts sale Figure 8 Sustainability regarding spare parts 0-05 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 9

30 Sustainability Check FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 00% Financial sustainability 53% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 75% 50% 5% 7% 68% 67% 00% 39% 43% 38% 36% 0% Update frequency of financial records (time since last update) Quality of financial records Existence of designated tariff collector System or mechanism to collect the funds is functional Funds kept in a secure location or manner % of users that contributed in the last months Regularity of household contributions Income is superior or equal to expenses Figure 9 Financial sustainability of water points The financial component of the sustainability score (3 areas, 8 indicators) is medium in 0 5 with 53%. Figure 9 shows that the system for collection of contributions from users exists for most water points. This is clear from the high scores regarding regularity of household contributions (0 0%) and the existence of a designated tariff collector (7%). All other indicators show large declines over the last two years. It must be said that the score for regularity of household contributions is based on the payment system (monthly payment, payment per bucket, etc.). This does not mean that the payments are actually done. From the poor score for % of users paying during the last months, it can be concluded that many households do not actually pay. The frequency of update and the quality of financial records receive lower scores compared to 04. The indicators related to the collection are also lower in % 75% Financial sustainability % 97% 00% 00% 88% 8% 84% 7% 7% 68% 75% 67% 63% 66% 68% 68% 60% 6% 50% 39% 43% 38% 36% 5% 0% Update frequency of financial records (time since last update) Quality of financial records Existence of designated tariff collector System or mechanism to collect the funds is functional Funds kept in a secure location or manner % of users that contributed in the last months Regularity of household contributions Income is superior or equal to expenses Figure 0 Financial sustainability of water points 03 to 05 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 0

31 Sustainability Check COMPARISON SUSTAINABILITY VS. FUNCTIONALITY OF WATER POINTS As in previous years, a comparison is made between the percentage of functioning water points installed during the OMI and the sustainability score. This is needed to understand to what extent the sustainability score of water points can be a proxy for functionality. When comparing the functionality of water points with the sustainability score received during the previous 4 years it is notable that the percentage of water points functioning at the time of inspection decreased in 04 for the first time. In 05 both the percentage of functioning water points, as well as the sustainability score is notably lower than before. Although there is no clear correlation between sustainability scores and functionality rates, the graphs seems to show that higher sustainability scores lead a higher percentage of functional water points. Functionality versus sustainability 00% 80% 60% 40% 0% > 90% Good 75-90% satisfactory < 50-75% medium < 50% bad 0% % functional waterpoints 80% 88% 93% 89% 7% % water point sustainability 8% 8% 8% 7% 65% Figure Functionality of OMI water points versus sustainability score of water points Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique

32 Sustainability Check SUSTAINABILITY OF SANITATION As in previous years (Figure 3), the sustainability score for the sanitation component (Table 8 & Figure ) of the Rural WASH Programme is lower than that of water points. At 40% overall, the score is poor. The greatest challenge lies in the sustainability related to hygiene, which has declined to very poor (7%). Other categories have also declined considerably since the previous sustainability check. Table 8 Overview of Sanitation sustainability Category % Total Score obtained Max Score possible Nº variables Institutional sustainability of sanitation 59% Zero Defecation 6% Quality of the latrine 57% Sustainability of hygiene 7% TOTAL 40% Sanitation sustainability 40% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 00% 75% 50% 5% 0% 59% 57% Institutional sustainability of sanitation 6% Zero Defecation Quality of the latrine Sustainability of hygiene 7% Figure Sanitation sustainability 00% Sustainability of Sanitation Average over the years 7% Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 75% 50% 5% 80% 69% 7% 63% 0% Figure 3 Sustainability score of sanitation component over the years Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique

33 Sustainability Check INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY OF SANITATION Institutional sustainability of sanitation at program level is medium (59%). All indicators show significant decrease. Although in most cases there is still a database of ODF communities in use (78%), only just over half the districts have a person in charge of updated the database, which has led to a poor score of 48% regarding the updates to the database. Institutional sustainability of sanitation 59% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 00% 75% 50% 5% 78% 56% 56% 48% 0% Manual database for ODF communities exists The ODF database is operational and in use at the district level There is a staff person in charge of ODF database The ODF database has been updated in all previous years Figure 4 Institutional sustainability of sanitation Looking at the history of institutional sustainability of sanitation, all indicators show a large decrease, the worst being those linked to the ODF database. Institutional sustainability of sanitation % 75% 50% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 96% 78% 78% 67% 56% 56% 48% 5% 0% Manual database for ODF communities exists The ODF database is operational and in use at the district level There is a staff person in charge of ODF database The ODF database has been updated in all previous years Figure 5 Institutional sustainability of sanitation 0-05 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 3

34 Sustainability Check ZERO DEFECATION 00% 75% Zero Defecation 6% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 50% 5% 67% 4% 38% 0% Presence of feces (Observation) Have you defecated in the open in the last 3 days in the village? (asked of 9 subjects) Have you seen someone defecating in the open in the last 3 days in the village? (asked of 9 subjects) Figure 6 Zero defecation An important outcome of the programme has been the declaration of ODF communities. This zero defecation indicator evaluates what percentage of the communities can still be regarded as ODF and resulted in a poor score of 6% for 05, This means that, out of the 89 communities surveyed, only 3 did not have any faeces in the open and its inhabitants did not practice open defecation in the previous three days. This indicator includes the statements of residents of the community about having practiced open defecation or having seen someone defecation in the open in the last 3 days and observed presence of human faeces in the community. In 30 of the surveyed communities faeces was observed by the enumerators. The return of open defecation could be caused by new families arriving in the communities. These new families did not receive the training given in the communities as part of the program and are hence more likely to practice open defecation. Another reason could be that latrines are not replaced when they fill up, or become out of order. Community leaders and hygiene promoters could play an important role in the upkeep of the ODF status of these communities over the years QUALITY OF LATRINES The quality of latrines consists of seven indicators (Figure 7). In the visited ODF communities, 70% of households did have a latrine, which appeared to be in use in almost all cases (97%). Regarding the quality of latrines, the largest improvements could be made by having lids on latrines (as 68% did not have one or it did not cover the hole). Having improved latrines instead of traditional or traditional improved latrines could improve the score for types of latrines. The number of points per type of latrine (maximum.5) is shown in Table 9. Type of latrine Table 9 Points awarded per type of latrine Points Concrete slab (improved).5 Plastic slab (improved).5 Slab of wood (improved).5 Clay with concrete slab (traditional improved) Clay without cement slab (traditional improved) Other easy to clean (traditional improved) Other difficult to clean (traditional) 0.5 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 4

35 Sustainability Check 05 Quality of the latrine 57% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 00% 75% 50% 5% 0% 70% 68% 69% 63% 3% 39% 4% Household has a latrine Latrine in use: Latrine has a lid Observed (latrine appears in use) Improved latrine (with slab) Latrine has Latrine has roof walls (improved (improved or or traditional traditional improved) improved) Latrine provides privacy with door or curve Figure 7 Sustainability of latrine quality Looking at the types of latrines encountered in the sampled communities, the traditional improved latrine is most used, followed by the traditional latrine. The improved latrine (55%) was only found in 8% of the households. These numbers exclude the 6% of households that do not have a latrine. Table 0 Types of latrines Type of Latrine % Improved 8 Traditional Improved 55 Traditional 6 Compared to 04, all indicators show a decline in 05. In 05 the percentage of households in the sampled communities which actually had a latrine is % lower than in 04. The largest differences with previous years are related to latrines having a lid, a roof and privacy, with declines of more than 0% (Figure 8). Quality of the latrine % 75% 50% 94% 00% 93% 8% 8% 70% 68% 96% 73% 75% 57% 3% 70% 66% 69% 48% 97% 9% 8% 63% 79% 80% 79% 74% 69% 6% 39% 4% 5% 0% Household has a latrine Latrine in use: Observed (latrine appears in use) Latrine has a lid Improved latrine (with slab) Latrine has walls (improved or traditional improved) Latrine has roof (improved or traditional improved) Latrine provides privacy with door or curve Figure 8 Sustainability scores of Latrine quality 0-05 Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 5

36 Sustainability Check HYGIENE 00% Sustainability of hygiene 7% Total Poor Satisfactory Medium Good 75% 50% 5% 0% 9% 5% 7% There is a handwashing system There is soap or ash There is water to wash hands Figure 9 Sustainability of Hygiene The largest challenges within sustainability of the whole programme ar e related to hygiene. Only in 9% of households within ODF communities a handwashing system was present on the premises (7% in 04). A positive note is that when households do have such a system, in most cases they also have water and soap or ash available. The overall score for this indicator is very poor at 7%. This score is a serious cause for concern, even more so when looking at the historical trend presented in Figure 30. All indicators of hygiene have shown an annual decrease of nearly 0% per year. Sustainability of hygiene % 75% 50% 5% 0% 53% 57% 48% 45% 39% 74% 7% 6% 8% 9% 5% 7% There is a handwashing system There is soap or ash There is water to wash hands Figure 30 Sustainability of Hygiene SANITATION CLASSIFICATIONS For a community to be considered Open Defecation Free (ODF) the following criteria are used according to Government of Mozambique (03 national ODF evaluation sheet) : No (human) faeces in the open in or around the community All households should have a latrine The latrines should have a lid which closes off the hole All households should have a hand washing system with water and soap or ash available The 89 communities which were sampled received an average score of 6% regarding these ODF indicators. A decrease in scores is observed in all indicators since 05. It seems that after the intervention in these communities by the program and the subsequent appointment of ODF status, households within the communities do not manage to uphold all the necessary measures. The large Rural WASH Programme - Mozambique 6