Tracking Progress towards Outcomes WSLIC Project INDONESIA Presenters Djoko Wartono Nilanjana Mukherjee Zainal Nampira Water Week. Washington D.C. February 2004
Presentation Sequence 1. WSLIC project introduction 2. Monitoring for outcomes in WSLIC (sustainability and equity) 3. Lessons learned in institutionalization 4. Lessons learned about support for long-term sustainability.
1. WSLIC Project introduction
WSLIC PROJECT GOAL To improve the health status, productivity and quality of life of poor communities in under-served rural areas. Through: - Community and local institution capacity building. - Improving WSS infrastructure. - Improving community health-hygiene behavior. Approx. 2000 villages in 6 provinces East Java, West Nusa Tenggara, South Sulawesi, West Java, West Sumatra, South Sumatra. In districts with high poverty, low WSS coverage and high diarrheal incidence rates.
PROJECT STRATEGIES Targeting the economical disadvantaged and poverty alleviation. Community choice, demand and decision making drive interventions. At least 20% capital cost and 100% O&M cost of water services borne by users. environmental health promotion integrated with sanitation service improvement Gender and social equity in interventions and outcomes.
PROJECT COMPONENTS AND COSTS Community and Local Institutions capacity building- 32% Improving health-hygiene behavior and services - 13% Developing water infrastructure 50% Project management - 5%
2. Monitoring for outcomes in WSLIC
What Outcomes? 1. Sustainability of Services - Technically - Financially - Socially - Institutionally - Environmentally 2. Effective Use of Services Equity of access Hygienic use (improved hygiene practices) Environmentally sound use
Process and Outcome monitoring,and stakeholder actions in response, at 4 phases of the project 1. Baseline data - from situation analysis with interested communities. 2. Process monitoring data From Community Action Plans developed to seek funding. 3. Process monitoring data From verification of completed construction works with users. 4. Outcome monitoring data from outcome evaluation with users, 1 year after construction (and compared to baseline data from Phase 1).
Process and Outcome Monitoring built into Project Process for community empowerment 1. Local Governments publicize project rules and provisions to all villages. 2. Formal letter of interest from communities - shortlisting. 3. External facilitation support for situation analysis, informed choice, planning by communities (baseline data for project MIS). 4. Community Action Plans (CAPs) developed covering 5 components of sustainability: technical/ financial/institutional/social/ environmental.
Process and Outcome Monitoring built into Project Process for community empowerment 5. Pre-funding evaluation of adequacy of CAPs in terms of poverty-targeting, gender equity, sustainability and hygiene improvement (process monitoring data for project MIS). 6. Funds transferred to community account. 7. Community capacity building, as agreed in CAPs. 8. Participatory monitoring of CAP implementation with users (process monitoring data for project MIS). 9. Participatory evaluation after 1 year of construction (outcome monitoring data for project MIS).
FLOW OF INFORMATION MOH MOF WORLD BANK CENTRAL CPMU PROVINCE Province DISTRICT VILLAGE DPMU CFT VIT PMC PROCESS Communities
3. Lessons learned in institutionalization
Monitoring outcomes and processes imply major institutional changes Project design process has to include design of outcome monitoring framework and proposed mechanisms. Developing it after the project has begun implementation raises institutional resistances, since conventional input/output monitoring is already under way. Need buy-in for outcome monitoring from stakeholders and implementers at project launch. Devise appropriate selling strategy to clarify what s in it for me questions at the very start.
What makes process and outcome monitoring attractive to implementing agencies (local govt.)*? Understanding how it empowers them to control quality of project implementation, now that they have the authority. Actually seeing how the outcome and process monitoring MIS operates (data entry, sample reports and analysis possible at different stakeholders levels). Ease of reporting, communicating and discussing project progress quantitatively and qualitatively with user communities, local and central government, donors, civil society. *(As seen during pilots/training with DPMUs)
How effectively are the improved water services being sustained? 400 300 Skor 200 100 0 Village A Village B Village C Village D Village E Possible Maximum Score Minimum score indicating sustainability System Quality Effective Functioning Effective Financing Effective Management
Who has gained access to improved sanitation services? 100 % of population 50 0 Village C Village B Village D Village E Village A Upper Class Middle Class Lower Class
Designing an MIS for process & outcome monitoring far from business as usual MIS specialists involved need to be open to new learning, and to working in multidisciplinary teams with a range of technical specialists relevant to the project. Team members developing new information management systems and solutions together need shared belief in core values and principles underlying the project.
4. Lessons learned about long-term support to sustainability
Who should provide long-term support for sustaining WSS services? Long-term support needs not fully predictable and usually beyond scope of project designs. Government agencies not financially equipped, and lack sufficient stake in the matter. Those with most at stake user communities. They are owners, co-investors in construction and financiers of O&M. But, user communities may have limited financial capacity, information, expertise Then what?
The WSLIC experience is showing that when the project process: Did respond fully to user demand, Did benefit the whole community, Built social capital for O&M, Fostered community ownership, Unexpected community initiatives emerged when sustainability was threatened. Government agencies needed only to listen well,be ready to learn, and respond.
Initiatives seen in WSLIC 1. District-level forum of Village Water- Sanitation Management Committees. Meet monthly, share information/advice/skills, solve problems for each other (even deny payments to, blacklist and replace bad contractors!), train each other. Invite technical advice from relevant local government departments when needed. 2. VWSCs approach District legislators and Administrative Head and get additional training or funds from emergency relief operations, to repair system damage from natural disasters.
Initiatives seen in WSLIC contd. 3. VWSCs request local government departments for technical advice and feasibility checks for their plans for expansion of systems. 4. VWSCs calculate and set user fees to cover O&M costs, collect them regularly, revise them upwards at first sign of shortfall. Most have started building up savings 5. VWSC Forum select and plants trees to protect spring sources drying up due to illegal logging by outsiders (district administration only needed to recognize their right to do so) What is making all this possible?
Empowering processes of WSLIC are legitimized and reinforced by: A Supportive sector policy The new national policy for community-based WSES has redefined sector goals from coverage to sustainability and effective use. Redefined roles of user communities (decisionmakers, cofinanciers, owners of services) and government agencies (facilitators, capacity builders, policy setters). Made social and gender equity in WSES outcomes an essential sector strategy. Decentralization. Since 2001 this has vested district local governments and lawmakers with the powers to shape their own future.
Challenges ahead Scaling up institutional change ( changes of hearts, minds, long-standing culture of deference to higher authorities, rather than being accountable to user communities) Power struggles and gaps in understanding of sector issues, between legislative and executive bodies at district level. Development planning and budgeting procedures of the top-down, pre-cdd era. Achieving synergies and synchronization of best practices for community-managed WSS, between interventions by multi-sector and sector projects- WSS and other sectors.
Thank you!