Reliable data and critical joint reflection are crucial for making decisions about where to invest, how to sustain and improve water and sanitation services, and for understanding, which policies and strategies work. And yet widespread lack of capacity for monitoring, inconsistent or fragmented gathering of data, and limited use of information management systems continues to impede effective decision-making in sector planning, resource allocation and policy development. Most developing countries, the need for M&E is initiated by outside institutions like multinational agencies, development banks and donors, to promote improved measurement, monitoring and management for result . In recent years there has been a growing push for developing government- or country-led M&E systems in developing countries . There are a number of advantages to this over donor led project-based M&E systems and in the contexts of WASH and CCA the need may be even more pertinent. Government-led monitoring is often favored because it is believed that if countries are in charge of M&E processes, findings will better reflect the information needs and values of country stakeholders rather than just those of donors. Monitoring and evaluation also helps “improve budgeting, decision making, inter-governmental fiscal control, enhance the quality of government policy and end corruption . In most developing countries, there is a move toward a Results-Based M&E system, as it “provides crucial information about public sector performance, a view over time on the status of a programe, promotes credibility and public confidence” . The movement towards public sector reforms was propelled by a growing trend towards democracy, accountability and transparency, which has placed substantial emphasis on the M&E of development and tracking of public resources .
Inappropriate design, poor quality of construction and a lack of follow up and maintenance arrangements were critical issues present in all countries without exception. These were often not only the perceived reasons for failure, but also a deterrent to participation in subsequent projects. Several countries in the region are prone to natural disasters like cyclones and floods, yet the toilets here are not often designed to withstand or survive such calamities; as a result, communities that had begun to use toilets are often forced to revert back to open defecation. Poor design and poor quality of construction are often a result of a lack of supervision during the construction and implementation phase. In other cases, although projects are designed and implemented well, they quickly become unclean and unusable due to poor or no maintenance, or a lack of water. In India, maintenance was perceived to be the primary reason for the failure of many projects, especially for community facilities like toilets. Communities also refused to use incomplete or damaged toilets. In Sri Lanka too, technical quality and inappropriate designs have plagued the sector. Projects in the Tsunami affected areas are the most glaring examples of poor quality work.
Country Overview of M&E
Country Overview of M&E
- Regional Perspective
- Data availability for decision-making in Sanitation
- Conclusion and Proposed Areas of Discussions
|Policy and strategy||National standard||Resource allocation||Status and quality of service delivery|
|✓Data available, analyzed and used for a majority of decisions × Data available but not sufficiently use for decision-making ◾ Only limited data collection and limited availability|
|Policy and strategy||Resource allocation||Status and quality of service delivery|
|✓Data available, analyzed, and use for a majority of decisions ◾Data available but not sufficiently used for decision-making ×Only limited data collection and limited availability|
Overall the member governments initiated to establish monitoring mechanism to track the progress on water and sanitation sector. However, India and Afghanistan have established management information system, which is accessible to every stakeholder to take inform decision. Other member countries need to establish nationally agreed and developed information systems. For innovation, the goal is to seek affordable, effective, and hygienic sanitation technology solutions that can improve the quality of sanitation services for the billions of people currently using non-piped sanitation systems. Further, South Asian countries have not utilized the technological options and innovation as integral component of its service delivery though adhoc examples exist.
- How to actively engage multi-stakeholder in reflection and learning processes that can transform monitoring information and sector experience into actionable lessons for the sector? How to demonstrate flexibility and openness to adjust policies, strategies and practices, based on sound evidence, good practices and innovations?
- What are the lessons learned and best practices? Are we able to align project planning with evidence-based researches? Is it linked with audits?
- What is project monitoring, how it has evolved in public sector? Are current systems of monitoring adding value to quality of services?
- How to develop result based monitoring framework and systems for WASH aligned with SDG targets.
- Do we have clarity on monitoring indicators to mainstream the gender, health and nutrition as one of the key gauge for social impacts of WASH programs?
- What role technology and private sector has to play for ‘safely managed’ in SDGs. What steps countries can take to promote innovations and technology choices (including from proactive solutions presented by private sector) for meeting the aspirations in SDGs?
- What technological options with low O&M costs are available for fecal sludge management? Do we have options for reuse of waste to generate energy?
- Are we working on appropriate sanitation solutions for flooded zones (e.g. communities that face seasonal flooding, high groundwater tables, riparian or tidal communities, floating communities, etc.? Technologies should improve upon or develop new sanitation technologies that cope with wet-environment conditions?
- Are there any lesson learned/best practices? Why pilot /small-scale model fails when scaled up? Why we have not been able to learn from each other? Our cross learning approach is limited to exposure visit?