rural water supply and environmental programme … · barcode: a long and careful farewell. table...

V

RURAL WATER SUPPLYAND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME (RWSEP)- AMHARA NATIONAL REGIONAL STATEq ETHIOPIA

A Long and Careful Farewell

Guidelinesfor Donor Disengagementand Programme Support Withdrawal

April 1998Alan R. Vigoda

Al Vigoda & Friends~~~

Innovations in Information, Education, Communication

14786 Thrift Avenue • WHITE ROCK • BC • Canada • V4B 2J5phone: 1-604-5413901 • fax: 1-604-5413901

email: vi~oda~web,net

824ET-16746

WhentheProgrammestops,we cancontinuewiththis work. We will needsomelittle supportwithmaintenance,butwewill follow ourplan. Thewaterpointswill continue. More latrineswill bebuilt. Ourcommitteeis strongandwe arehappyto havesafewater.

KCC Chairperson,EmashenkoroKebele

Abbreviations

ANRS AmharaNationalRegionalState PIS ParticipatoryInformationSystem

BoA Bureauof Agriculture PM ProgrammeManager

BoH Bureauof Health PRA ParticipatoryRuralAppraisal

BoPED Bureauof PlanningandEconomic RCC - RegionalCoordinatingCommitteeDevelopment

CSTC CommunitySkills Training Centre RRA RuralRoadsAuthority

GoE FederalDemocraticRepublicof RWSEP RuralWaterSupplyand

Ethiopia EnvironmentalProjectin AmharaRegion

GoF Republicof Finland SAERAR Commissionfor Sustainable

AgricultureandEnvironmental

Rehabilitationfor AmharaRegion

IEC lnfprmation,Education, SC SanitationCoordinator

Communication

KC KebeleCoordinator SWOL Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Limitations

KCC KebeleCoordinatingCommittee TBA TraditionalBirth Attendant

LLPPA Local Level ParticipatoryPlanning ToR Termsof Reference

Approach

M&E Monitoring andEvaluation WAO Women’sAffairs Office

NREPB NaturalResourceand WATSANCO WaterandSanitationCommitteeEnvironmentalProtectionBureau

O&M OperationandMaintenance WPC WoredaProgrammeCoordinator

OoA ~Officeof Agriculture WCC WoredaCoordinatingCommittee

OoE Office of EducationS WMERDB Water, MinesandEnergyResourceDevelopmentBureau

OoH Office of Health WMERDO Water,MinesandEnergyResourceDevelopmentOffice

PC ProgrammeCoordinator ZCC ZonaJCoordä~ngCornrnthee- - -~

LIBRARY IRCP0 Box 93190, 2509 AD THE HAGUE

Tel.: ÷3170 30 6C9 80Fax: +31 70 35 899 64

BARCODE:


Table of Contents

Abbreviations j

Table of Contents iiList of FiguresList of Tables .—~ iii

Summaryof Recommendations ivMonitoringandEvaluation ivDonorDisengagement ivProgrammeSupportWithdrawal v

1. Rural Water Supply and Environmental Programme 1

2. ScopeofMonitoring and Evaluation SystemDevelopmentConsultancy 3Priorities’ 4Activities andTimetable 4Constraints 5

3. TrackingProgress:TheMonitoring and Evaluation System 6TheCurrentSystem 6StreamliningReportingfor Automation 10ConnectingMonitoring andEvaluationOutputto Disengagementand Withdrawal 14

4. A Long and Careful Farewell: Draft Guidelinesfor Donor Disengagement 17PhilosophyandCoreValues 17StructureandOperation 21AgreernentsandUnderstanding 25SequencingDisengagement 26

5. Encouraging Community Independence:Programme Support Withdrawal 29Philosophyand CoreValues 29StructureandOperation 32AgreementsandUnderstanding 34WithdrawalSignals 36SequencingWithdrawal 36Institutionalizationofan EffectiveProcess:GovernmentCommitmentto Maintenance

andExpansion.of RWSEP 37

A Long and Careful Farewell II

Appendices 39Appendix A -~ Termsof Reference 40Appendix B -~ personsMet andInstitutionsVisited 44Appendix C -~ DocumentationReviewed 45AppendixD MissionBriefingNote for Coordinators’Meetings 46AppendixE Draft ReportForm for Woreda 47AppendixF -~ BudgetSharing/Transferof Responsibility-ThroughPhaseII 50AppendixG -~ InventoryofRWSEPSupport 59AppendixH -~ SupportWithdrawalIndicators 64AppendixI — PrimaryProgrammeSupportWithdrawalChecklist- KebeleLevel 7]AppendixJ — PrimaryProgrammeSupportWithdrawalChecklist- WoredaLevel 72

A Long and Careful Farew~ll III

List ofFigures

Figure 3.1 - Monitoring & EvaluationPortionof ParticipatoryInformationSystem 7Figure4.1 - PumpMaintenanceHierarchy 20Figure 4.2 - RWSEP~ntry andDevelopmentProcess 24Figure4.3 - Sequencingof TakeoverofRWSEPParticipatingWoredasPhaseII 28Figure5.1 — Stepsin theWithdrawalProcess 33

List of Tables

Table 2.1 - ConsultancySchedule 5Table3.2 — CurrentKebeleReportStructure 11Table3.3 -~ CurrentWoredaReportStructure 12Table3.4 -~ PreliminaryList pfCoreInformationNeeds 15Table 4.1 — RWSEPPersonnelResponsibilityPhaseII 22

A Long and Careful Farewell iv

S

Programme Support Withdrawal

• TheInformation,Edi~tcation,Communication(IEC) componentof theProgr~im~neshould, asapriority in its PhaseII implementation,encourageandsupportt~i~

withdrawalprocess.• Thewithdrawalof directProgrammeSupportshouldb~an agendastandingilem at all

committeeandothermeetingsat all levels.• RWSEPpartnersshoulddevelopapriority list ofsusta~habi1ityindicatorsto h~used

astriggersfor thewithdrawalof Programmesupporta~kebele,woredaandZo~iallevels.

• Programmesupportshouldbe withdrawnusingastagj~dapproachandmutualagreement,aswithdrawalindicatorsaretriggered. /

• TheWithdraw.Jof eachkebeleandworedashouldl~considereda uniqueeve,Iii, anda specificplanshouldbe developedby theProgram4iepartnersfor eachwith~awal.

• CertainProgrammefunctions,suchasMonitoring ~ndEvaluation,and suppo~ttci.

Maintenancefacilities shouldcontinueevenafterwithdrawalfrom specifick4bele~orworedas,asshouldtheregionalnetworkingactivItiesfor WoredaProgramme PI~I

Coordinators,IEC, GenderandSanitationGroi~6s.• As maintenancesupportto waterpointsis critVal to sustainability,clearrolesand

responsibilitiesfor kebele,woreda,Zoneand Regionshouldbe developed,so thatallpartnersagreeon who is responsiblefor whatlevel ofoperation,maintenanceandrepair.

• RWSEPshouldconsiderthedevelopmentoia trainingmoduleon WithdrawalforWPCsand KCCs,amongothers.

S The RWSEPImplementationManualshouli includeasectionon implementingWithdrawal.

S GoEshouldencourageandfacilitatethede~elopmentof micro-creditatthekebelelevel asaprioi~jty,astheprovisionof microcreditfacilities is critical for thesuccessof small scaleincomegeneratingactivities,whichwill be importantto maintaincommunity level contributionsto waterpohtmaintenance.


I

Summary of Recommendations‘7.

Motiitoring and Evaluation

• The Monitoring ar~dEvaluationSystemshouldbe rethoughton thebasisof ‘value-added’ informatio4. Thegoalshouldbe to ensurethat all participantshavethekindsand amountsof in~ormationneededto effectively mbvetheProgrammeforward,butno more:a minimi~edinformationsystem. - r

• Reportingforrpats~orkebeleandworeda level should be redevelopedusing narrative~/r (keywords),tick-b4/checklistandtabularelements.• An attemptshould8~madeto determinewhetherKebelelevel reportingcanbe raised

from straightreporti~to first level analysis,usinga decisiontreeor othermechanismsto identi~’variationsfrom reportingnorms.

(U Programmepartnerss~ouldagreeon a short list of coreinformationneedsat alllevels. \RWSEPshouldmount~onsultancyearlyin PhaseII to analysetheMonitoring andEvaluationSystem. Thet~ytaskof theconsultancyshouldbe to redesignthesystemto allow for automationan~to reducethe level of effort neededto manageandoperateit. Theconsultancyshouldbe stagedoverat leastthreemissionsto allow for stafftraining anddebuggingthesystemafterimplementation.

Donor Disengagement

• DonorDisengagementshoulcbe carriedout on amutuallyagreed,staged,basisthroughoutPhaseII.

S RWSEPshould be placedasin independentunit operatingwithin theBureauofPlanningandEconomicDevtlopment. TheUnit shouldrelateto all relevantBureaux,DepartmentsandOffices on ~nequalbasisandthereforeno counterpartBureaushouldbe named.

• TheGovernmentofEthiopiaGoE)shouldtakeon financial responsibilityformutuallyagreedactivitiesancsupportcostsonastagedbasisthroughoutPhaseII.This shouldincludej~ersonnecostsfor theRWSEPunit, andshouldbe scheduledsothat specificProgrammeelerrentsaretransferredin eachYear,to avoid‘disengagementshock’atthee~dofthePhase.

• GoEshouldcommit to, andR~WSEPensurethat, thethreefundamentalstrategiesforProgrammeimplementation(jarticipatoryapproaches,multi-sectoralityandgendersensitivity)will continueto uiderpinexpansionandreplicationof theProgrammethroughPhaseII andbeyond.

• As maintenancesupportto w~terpointsis critical to sustainability,GoEshouldestablishands~upportmainteninceandrepairfacilities at woreda,ZonalandRegionallevel to handleincreasinglev4sof repaircomplexity.

• GoEshouldencourageandfa~ilitatethedevelopmentofmicro-creditat thekebelelevel asapriority, astheprovsionof micro-creditfacilities is critical for thesuccessofsmall scaleincomegeneraingactivities.

A Long and Careful Farewell V

Streamlining Reporting for Automation

Format

Themost opportuneentrypoint for automatingtheM&E systemexistsat theworeda level.TheWPC hasthetaskofreviewing,analysingandcompilingu~to56 reportseachmonthinto his or her monthlyworedareport. This takesaminimum6f~five days,or one-quarteroftheWPC’s time. No woredaoffices havecomputers;few haveelectricity. Automationcannotreasonablybe implementedat this level. By creatingformsto facilitatethecompilationofdata,however,theworkloadof theWPC Ib~e~uced,allowing moretimefor supportto kebeles.

The forms, submittedto ZonesandRWSEP,will makethetaskofdataentrya lower leveltask,asmuchoftherequiredinformationcanbe input without furtheranalysis..At themoment,professionalexpertiseis neededto extractappropriateinformation. Dataentryshouldnot bedoneby managersor professionalstaff. It shouldbe asupportstafffunction.Given theleannatureoftheRWSEP(andindeedtheANRS) structure,usingprofessionaltime to analyseandinput reportdatais asignificantwasteofscarceresources.Professionalstaffshouldbe usedto examineprocesseddata,not to do theprocessing.While Zonesarenot computerequippedatpresent,this will probablychangein thenearfuture.

As mentionedabove,r~ieformatofreportingatthekebelelevel couldbe modified to stressvarianceanalysisratherthanroutineactivity. Theissueofcost/benefitis best left to theM&EComputerizationconsultancyscheduledfor earlyin PhaseII. Figure3.2, CurrentKebeleB~p~Structure,lists theareascurrentlycoveredin thefifteen day reportswhich aresubmittedto theworeda.

At theworeda level, thecreationof formsto facilitate thecompilationof kebeledatawillboth savetime for theWPC andreduceeffort athigherlevels. Figure3.3, CurrentWoredaReportStructure,list theareascoveredin themonthlyreportssubmittedby theWPC to ZoneandRWSEPoffices. Appendix E, Draft ReportForm for Woredasuggestsa draftformwhich mightTheusedby theWPCsin completingtheirmonthly reportingrequirements.

Timing

With someexceptions,reportsappearto be completedand submittedon time. Thereportingscheduleis onerous,v~ithkebelelevel.reports.being submittedeveryfifteen days,and .woredacompilationseac1~month. Meetingsaretimed to coincidewith thereportingperiod,to allowfor reviewand discussion.Quarterlyassessmentsaretimed to coincidewith thequarterlymeetingsofWPCsat theRegionallevel, andthesegatheringsareusedmainly to discussproblemsfacedandsolutionsfound. Theautomationof thesystemis not likely to disruptschedulingandcouldperhapsfacilitatequickerfeedbackandrecyclingofinformation.Increasingthespeedofinformationsharingdoesnot seemto be an issue,however. Quickerandmore efficient retrievalof information,especiallyattheRegionallevel, will haveapositive impacton Programmeadministration.RWSEPstaffis currentlystretchedbeyondreasonablecapacityin its ability to processandactupon information.

A Long and CarefulFarewell 10

I..

While aheavyburden,increasingthe lengthofthereportingperiodatthekebeleorworedalevel is likely to createmoreproblemsthanit solvesandcannotbe recommended.

Table 3.2 —. Current KebeleReport Structure

Topic Content

Coordination KCC functioningWATSANCOfunctioning

Community Participation ,~ at everywaterpoint~ in everyactivity• numbersdisaggregatedby gender

Gender Group . what committeeis doing• gendertraining/participationin activities• IncomeGeneratingactivities

what committeeis doingactivities suchasdrama,schoolactivities,etc.

Sanitation Group • what committeeis doing• activitiessuchaslatrine construction,etc.

Collection ofFunds • by site; collectedthisperiod;collectedthisyear

constructionofwaterpoints& stagereachedmaterialsusedin constructionproblemsand constraintsartisanactivitieslevel of participationby communitynumbersdisaggregatedby gender

Environmental Activities • LLPPA Programmesitereport• tabledescribingtypeofwork and activities

• numbersdisaggregatedby gender

Plan for Following Period • activitiesplannedfor nextperiod

• expectedprogressof activities

Problems& Solutions •. problemsfaced,solutionstried andresults

Requeststo RWSEP • what is neededfrom theProgrammeto supportupcomingactivities

IEC Group •

f

Technical Activities •

•,

•

S

S

A Long and Careful Farewell ~11

t

Distribution

Kebelereportsaresubmittedto theWPC every fifteendays.Th~WPCcompilesa woredareportoncea monthand submitsit to theZoneandto RWSEP. It is not clearwhat theZonedoeswith theserepor~,althoughit is expectedthattheyform thebasisfor discussionby theZCC. As theZonetakeson morebudgetauthority,its role will probablybecomemoremeaningful. RWSEPanalysestheworedareportsarid feedstheinformationbackto thekebelesthroughthequarterlynewsletterMikikir. Thereportsalsoform thebasisfordiscussionat quarterlymeetings,inform planningactivitiesandareextractedin thevariousreportsRWSEPsubmitsto GoEandGoF.

For themostpan,it appearsthat informationis reportedandrelayedin atimelymanner.Thereis probablymoreinform tion bein rocessedt 1s s.~atyjprthesmoothrunningof theProgrammcbut t i~is~bettert anthealternative,which is to not haveenoughinformation. Overtime,thekinds da~mdüi~tsof informationbeingreportedatvariouslevelsshouldbe decreased,asProgrammeparticipantsareableto focuson thepreciseinformationtheyneedto operateattheirlevel. Helpingto morecarefullydefinethoseneedsshouldbe amajortaskof theautomationconsultancyto be mountedearly in PhaseII.

Table 3.3 — Current WoredaReport Structure

Topic Content

Coordination.

s

•

KCC functioning,by kebeleWCC functioning

Community Participation •

s

•

by kebeleactionsundertakenatcommunity~-1evelnumbersdisaggregatedby gender

GenderGroup • what committeesaredoing (summary)

IEC Group • what committeesaredoing (summary)

Sanitation Group • what committeesaredoing (summary)

Collection of Funds • variationsfrom expectations

Technical Activities

..

•

•

summarytableincludes:kebele;gott; typeof work;participants(male/female/total);stageof workincludestechnical,environmental,otheractivities

Financeby Activity • summarytable

Plan for Following Period •

e

activitiesplannedfor nextperiodexpectedprogressofactivities

Problems& Solutions • problemsfaced,solutionstried and results


4 S

AutomationConsultancyTermsofReference

Thereis no questionthat informationmanagementis a heavyburdenat all levelsof theProgramme.It is unclearthatthecomputerizationof its reportingsystemwill, in theshortterm,easethat burd 1 Ad~i~ d~o ~ will notbe apanaceafordealingwith informationoverload. It simply addsa newdimensionof complexityto analreadycomplexsystem. Theadditionof six moreworedasduring~PhaseII will furtherstrainmanagementcapacityat theRegionallevelbut is not likely to totally overloadit. Automationat lower levelsis not going to be possiblein anycase. Thelearningcurvefor databasemanagementis extremelysteep,and in thefirst few monthsof operation,thesystemis likelyto haveenoughbugs,glitchesandotherproblemsthat efficiencywill be decreased,ratherthanotherwise. Any computerizationconsultancyshouldincludeat leasttwo return visitsoverthefirst yearto help iron out teethingproblemsanddealwith stafftraining in theoperationof thesystem. Staff training in generaldatabasemanagementwill alsobenecessary.

Looking towardsthefuture, anautomatedsystemis a necessity.Assumingthat theeventualgoal is to expandRWS.EPintoe.very7~one,woredaand kebeleinANRS (RWSEPPhaseX?),the monitoringof theProgrammewill be im.pos~iblewithoiIt theprocessingpowerof a welldesignedandwell managedinformationsystem. By thenautomationwill probablybe -

necessaryat theZoneaswell asat~e~iouiã[:le~1,with theoriginal Regionalautomationdevolvingto theZonesandanewsuperstructuresystembeingestablishedatRegionallevel.

Theconsultantmustbem~ asoftwaretechnician. lie or she(or they)musthaveconsiderableexperiencein therealworld ofdataprocessingandmustunderstandnon-formalcollection methodology.It would be advantageousto havehadon-the-groundexperienceindevelopingcountries,asconditionsof work, andthesophisticationof theusersofthesystemis different thanin the developedworld.

Thecoreactivities ofthis consultancyshouldinclude:

• amoreprecisedefinition of theinformationneedsat kebele,woreda,ZoneandRegion;

• designof formatsto moreefficiently gatherandreportthat information ateachlevel;• developmentofa datainput, collation andreportingapplicationat Regionallevel,

• basedon an appropriaterelationaldatabaseengine,suchasAccess,Paradox,or otherobjectorientedplatform;

• trainingof staffin operatingandmanagingthesystem,andpossiblyin generaldatabasemanagement,unlessthis canbe moreeffectively deliveredin a differentway.

Thecoreoutputsofthis consultancyshouldinclude:

• an agreed,streamlinedinformationlist for eachlevel;• reportingformatsfor kebeleandworeda;• a front-enddatainputlayerto enableRegionalstaffto easilyinput datafrom woreda

reports;• a flexibledata,hasestructurewhich will allow thecollation andretrievalof dataas

neededby all levels;

A Long and Careful Farewell 13

• acustomizedreportingsystemwhich will allow routinereportsto be automaticallycompiled,andspecializedreportsto be compiledwith a minimumof databaseprogrammingknowledge;

• stafftrainedin systemoperationandmaintenance.

ConnectingMonitoring and Evaluation Output to Disengagethentand Withdrawal

AutomationOutputand Utility

Thereis agreatdangerin flexibledatabasesystems. Theyallow tl~euserto compareanythingto anything,oftenresultingin hilarious,or dangerous,conclusions.Onemustbe very clearwhattheprioritiesare,otherwisethesystemis quitelikely to producevolumesofreportdataof marginalutility. Thepurposeof automatingthesystemis to reducetheamountofinformationbeingprocessedby Programmeparticipants,but an uncontrolledreportingsystemrunsthe risk ofswampingparticipantswith uselessinformation. It is for this reasonthat it issuggestedthat thecomputerizationconsultancyautomatetheroutinereports. Theconsultantwill haveto be guided,however,by theexpressedinformationneedsoftheProgrammepartners,asit is,not lii~.elythathe,sheor theywill haveaworkingknowledgeoftheProgramme.Beforetheconsultancy,theI~ro~ajmepartnerswilihave to agreeto ashort listofcoreinformatiQnzieedsatal1levels~Table3.4, PreliminaryList of CoreInformationNeeds,providesa startto this exercise.

QuantitativeandQualitativeConsiderations

It is commonlyassumedthat gathering,inputting,manipulatingandanalysingquantitativedatais theeasypart,andthestrugglewill be dealingwith themorequalitativeaspectsoftheM&E system. Numberscanbe quite dictatorial,and, evencarefullyandthoughtfullyarranged,cancreateamisleadingpicture. A well designedreportingsystemwill minimizetherisk, by ensuringthatpresentationsare atleaststatisticallysignificant,but it is importantto remembeLthat statisticalsignificancemeansonly that if you gatherthesamedatafrom thesamesourcesagain,you arelikely to getthesameresults. Thatis, the resultis not duetorandomfactors. This is differentthanrealworldsignificance.

Group 1 data,rawi~umberssimply tallied, arethemostreliable,andeasiestto interpret ThisGroup alsoprovides,in manyways,the leastusefulinformation. Gr.Q~p.2.data,which needsprocessingbeforeanalysis,canbecomeslantedthroughthat analysisandresultsmustbeconsideredwith this in mind duringinterpretation.Gro~~~ttais qualitative,andneedsanentirelydifferentapproachto input, collation andanalysis. -

Therearea numberofapproachesto processingqualitativeinformation. Therichest,andmostdifficult, developsdirect narrative;aseriesof storiesor vignettes. Casestudymethodologyusesthis approach.Forthepin-p ~ofth~ Programme,it wouldprobablybemore usefulto use~ key~ It is probablethat, with few exceptions,thenarrativereportsfrom woreda level dealwith lessthanfifty key ideas. Thereareperhapssixlevelsofactivity status,tenclassesof problemsfaced,asimilar numberof solutionsfound,andsoon. A one-halfhoursessionwith theWPCswould gen~ratea first draftof suchalist.Key wordscanbe Input much~jii~antitative data,andsimilarly manipulatedandcollated

A[ong and Careful Farewell 14

While not asrich ormulti-dimensionalasnarrativereporting,the ideasremain,andanalysisofthe datais simplified greatly.


Table3.4 — Preliminary Liso~~natiQLN~ds

Information Item Kebele Woreda Region

statuscfkebele O&M account number of Birk collected variation from norm large variation from norm

water point construction whenwill point be completed? stageof constructitin;materialsused; funds spent

asper plan?

•~.

water point O&M•S~

points guarded,clean, accessible,harmonious

•

as per plan? variation from norm

KCC functioning’ kebelecommittees(WATSANCO, Gender, LEC, Sanitation)funcuoning

cominitteemeèting,planning,making decisions,active

meetingsheld; decisionsmade;reports received

variationsfrom norm; deviationsfrom plan

WCC functioning;woredacommittees(Gender, IEC, Sanitation) functioning

committeesmeeting, planning,making decisions,active

meetingsheld; decisionsmade;reports received

variations from norm; deviationsfrom plan

participation numbersby gender variation/by gender ‘1~ëvariaiion/bygender

sanitationactivities going on as planned asper plan — variations; problems/solutions

envimnmentalactivities goingon as planned • -asper plan variations; problems/solutions

community plan implementation on track ~ on track variations

Monitoring& Evaluation is the communitydoing what itshould be?

reports submitted on time, completeand accurate

• inpiiITor-a~omation

— —

Problems/Solutions relevant extracts from other places compilation; lessonslearned lessonslearned; information sharing

Withdrawal how closeare we? which kebelesare ready? which kebeles,woredasare ready?

—-- ~


I)

Informatie~Provisionfor Depision-Making

Decision)ria~kingjn the Prog~ammeis decentralized.Informationprovisionis likewisedecentr4ized. Jt flows in all ~lirections,horizontallyandvertically, andimpacts RWSEPpartic~ipantsan4 non-participa~tsalike. Theanswerto the basicquestionof what informationis ne~dedat what level to effeo~velyandefficiently move theProgrammeforwardremainselus~ve.Through Phase I, the~~ogrammehasoperatedon a~o risk~informationphilqsophy: --a’

inar~inform~~his better Th~jpricethat is paid\for such a aecisionis a partnership heavily

/-~urdenedby informationproces~ing.In ~haseII, \hephilosophymust changeto ‘enou~h •/ / ~ informationis~noygh’ It is m1tl~epracticeof info~mationsharinganddecision-makingthat

‘the dehnitionof ‘enough’ will bei~omeclear. Thei~easin this chapterpointonly to startingpoints. As in all elsein RWSEP,flexibility andthewillingnessto changethingsasrealitybecomesclearwill be thekey to an effective,efficientandminimizedinformation system.

‘I.

.11’

~1’

‘7


1. Rural Water Supply and Environmental Programme

TheRuralWater SupplyandEnvironmentalProgrammein AmharaRegion(RWSEP)is aProgrammesupportedby financialandtechnicalinputsfrom theFederalDemocraticRepublicof Ethiopia(GoE)andtheRepublicof Finland(G0F). PhaseI of RWSEPbeganinSeptember1994andwill endin June1998. PhaseII will be acontinuationof theProgramme.It will be implementedbeginningin July 1998andendingin June2002. Amajorconsiderationof RWSEPhasbeensustainabilityand it is ex~3ectedthat PhaseII willincludea detailedstrategyfor Programmewithdrawalanddonordisengagement,withresponsibilityfor continuationof theProgrammeshiftingthroughthePhaseto GoE.

DuringPh~,seI, RWS~Phasbeenimplementedin twelveworedasin two Zones:SouthGondarandEastGojjam. Ip PhaseII,it is expectedthat six wo~2~dasin two newZones,WestGojjam andAwi, will beginimplei~entation.

RWSEPusesasits un~ibrellaframeworkthe AmharaNationalRegionalState(ANRS) FiveYearPlan. ThePlandetailstheobjectivesfor regionaleconomicandpolitical developmentto theendof 2000(EC 1992). Activities in theProgrammeoperatecongruentlywith thePlan. In respectto ruralwater. supply, thePlantargetis to achieve32%coverageby theendof thePlanperiod. This targetwill be achievedin theworedaswhich first participatedinRWSEPby theendofPhaseI. It appearsthat thesewill be theo~y, ç~1asin theRegion.1 -

which will haveachievedthis rateof coverageby 1998(EC 1990).

In PhaseII, RWSEPaimsto achieve -

• improvedtechnicaland operationalsustainability; S -~-

• improvedsocialsustainability; ~• improvedenvironmentalsustainability;• improvedinstitutional andfinancial’sustainability.

It should be notedthat while RWSEP_focu~son rural waters~pp!yasan entrypointto thecommunity, it is simplistic to view theProgrammeasa watersupplyproject. It would bemoreaccuratem describeit as~ ~ capacitybuildingproject. Theapproachesadoptedby theProgrammeasthecoreof its operationsinclude:

• substantiveparticipationatall levels; ~• gendersensitivity; ,, 5, -

• multi-sectoralprogramming; . /• flexible, processorientedmanagement. J

Planning,decision-makingandimplementationprocessesoperateon all levels,kebele,u’oreda,ZoneandRegion. Coordinationof implementationis also decentralizedandoperateson all levels. While rural watersupplyis the ‘window’ throughwhich RWSEPconnectswith its communitypartners,it is thecommunityplanningprocess,a variationofParticipatoryRuralAppraisa~(PRA),which ~riv~ ~ implementationofa varietyof

• S developmentalactivitiesatthekebei~level. Theseactivities aresupportedandcoordinatedby woredabasedpers~nnel,who turn to ZoneandRegionalpersonnelfor higherlevel supportas needed.


4S

Becauseof thedecentralizedandintegratednatureof theProgramme,a comprehensiveParticipatoryInformationSystem(PIS) hasbeendevelopedto shareinformation, ideasandprogressup, down,ar~iacrossthe institutionsandpersonsworking on Programmeactivities.To supportcapacitybuilding atvariouslevels,theProgrammehasprovidedtraining in anumberofareas,including:

• technical(waterpoint construction,pump installation,pumpmaintenance,nurserydevelopment,latrineconstruction,sanitationpromotion,);

• institutional(facilitatingcommunityplanning,Information,Education,Communication,financialandprojectmanagement,reportingandM&E);

• social(genderawareness,facilitating comm nity.planning,.sanitationpromotion,IEC,coniñiu~icationski11s)~

By effectiveuseof‘train thetrainer’ andpeertraining approaches,closeto t,~n tbQus~ndpeoplein theRegionhavedir~c~~~fitI~&fiio.n..Pxo.grammetraining. Well plannedandimplementedInformation,Education,Communication(IEC) activities, usingboth traditionalandmodernmediaandincluding regular‘experiencesharing’,facilitatea shift in attitudesatall levelsandprovides~solid informationto supporteffectiveproblemsolving and decisionmaking.

Theoverall objectiveof theProgrammeis “to achievesustainablehumanandphysicaldevelopmentfor thecommunitiesto takeresponsibilityfor theirowndevelopment”.

Thekey conceptis sustainability. By theend ofPhaseII, determinationofwhat is sustainablewithout furtherdonorsupportandwhat is sustainableatthekebeleandworeda levelswithoutfurtherProgrammesupportmustbe described,agreedby all stakeholders,measured,analysedand decisionson supportwithdrawaltaken. Forthis reason,a consultancywasdevelopedtoreviewandrecommendrevisionto theRWSEPMonitoring andEvaluationsystemandtodevelopa strategyfor both DonorDisengagementandtheWithdrawalof ProgrammeSupport.


2. Scopeof Monitoring and Evaluation SystemDevelopment Consultancy

Questionsto Support the Developmentof Guidelines

TheTermsof Referer~e(T0R) for theconsultancycanbe foundasAppendixA ofthisdocument. While most oftheactivitiesoutlinedin theToRrelateto theMonitoring andEvaluation(M&E) system,preliminarydiscussionsmadeclearthat thedevelopmentofguidelinesfor theDisengagementandWithdrawal Strategieswas thepriority. TheM&Esystemwill be critical to theaccuracyofdecisionsto be maderegardingdisengagementandwithdrawal,but havingguidelinesin placewasmoreimportantto keyplayersthanwasrevisingthesystem.

With this in mind,ashort list ofquestionswasdeveloped.It wasexpectedthat theanswersto thesequestionswould providethebasisfor guidelinesconcerningDisengagementandWithdrawal Strategies,aswell aspointing to thelevel, quality andcontentof the input whichtheM&E systemwill haveto provide. Thequestionsinclude:

Monitoring andEvaluation

• Whatir~formationdoeseachlevelneedfor effectiveplanning,implementation,followup andproblem-solving/decision-making?

• How can that informationbe gatheredanddistributedin themosteffectiveandefficientwayateachlevel, betweenandamonglevels?

Donor Disengagement

• Whatphilosophyorcore valuesshouldguide theshift of Programmefunding fromdonorto Government?

• Whatstructuresneedto be in place?

• Whatagreementsneedto be made,at what levels,involving which people,positionsandinstitutions?

• Wharsequenceor stepsshouldbe plannedfor thetakeoverand furtherdevelopmentof theProgrammeby theGovernmentofEthiopiaasthedonordisengages?

ProgrammeSupportWithdrawal

• Whatphilosophyor corevaluesshouldguidethewithdrawalofRWSEPsupport fromkebele,woreda,and Zone?

• Whatstructuresneedto be in place?

• Whatagreementsneedto be made,at what levels,involving which people,positionsandinstitutions?

• Whatindicators(technical,social, institutional,environmental,financial)shouldbeusedto signal ortriggerwithdrawalat variouslevels: kebele,woreda,Zone?


Priorities

A first draft of priority outputsfor theconsultancywasgeneratedearlyin theassignmentandwas notsignificantly modifiedastheassignmentprogressed.Discussionswith Programmestakeholdersat ~iariouslevelsindicatedthattherewasgeneralagreementon this matter.Priorities,in descendingorder,were:

1. WithdrawalStrategy:philosophy,corevalues,structureandmethodology;

2. Disengagemer~tStrategy:philosophy,core values,structureandmethodology;

53• WithdrawalStrategy:indicatorsfor withdrawalofProgrammesupportto kebele;

4. WithdrawalStrategy:indicatorsfor withdrawalof Programmesupportto woreda;

5. DisengagementStrategy:sequencingof donordisengagementandtakeover byGovernment;

6. WithdrawalStrategy:indicatorsfor withdrawalofProgrammesupportto Zone;

7. M&E System:needsanalysisandsuggestionsfor streamliningprocess,output,distribution;

8. ConnectivitybetweenM&E outputsandWithdrawal/DisengagementStrategy

9. M&E System:automation(orotherapproach)to consolidationanddistributionofinformationnecessaryto effectivelyplan, implement,monitor andproblemsolveateverylevel, AND to supportWithdrawal/DisengagementStrategy;

It wasagreedthat thegoaloftheconsultancywould be to addressthefirst five priorities.Outputconnectedto lOwer prioritieswould be useful for futuredevelopmentoftheM&Esystem,but theproductionof guidelinesfor Disengagementand Withdrawalwascritical forthe implementationof PhaseII.

Activities and Timetable

Theconsultancywascarriedout over a fc eek~p~~i~d,from March 27 throughApril 24,1998. Originally developedasa 1.5 monthassignment,theshortenedschedulewasmadenecessaryby a numberof factors,includingProgrammeresources,theconsultant’savailability andthe factthat an M&E computerizationconsultancy,whichcouldmorelogically takeresponsibilityfor systemanalysis,hadbeenplannedfor earlyin PhaseII.


S.

Table 2.1 - Consultancy Schedule

Theactivity set includedareviewofpertinentdocumentation,meetingswith a wide rangeofstakeholdersin the Programmeatkebele,woreda,andRegionallevels,andthegenerationofwritten materialsandreports. Appendix B containsa list of meetings,andAppendix C alisting of documentationreviewed.

Themissionwas scheduledto coincidewith thequarterlymeetingsof theRegionalIEC Teamand Woredaworking groups,including theIEC Coordinators,SanitationCoordinators,GenderCoordinatorsandthe WoredciProgrammeCoordinators.Having thesepeoplegatheredin oneplaceatone time madeit possibleto gathera largeamountof informationinarelativelyshort time~’To visit themin theiroffices,~preadacrosstwelveworedas,wouldhavetakensomeweeks.Also, thequalityof interacti~nwasincreaseddramaticallythroughgroupprocess,which would nothavebeenpossibleif meetingswereheldoneon one.AppendixD is a sampleoftheBriefingNoteprovidedto meetingparticipantsprior todiscussingthe issues.

Constraints

Time wasa majorconstraintin completingtheassignment,which is why significantprioritysettingwas necessary.Easterweekfell in the third weekof themission,furtherconstrainingan alreadyshort time frameby lesseningtheavailability ofProgrammeparticipants.

Dueto person-powerconstraintsattheRegionallevel, BoPEDwasunableto assignacounterpartthemission. Many RWSEPpartnerstook timeto assistin variousactivities,buttheinability to work cioselywith acounterpartto ensurecontinuity is agreatdisappointment.

It is apleasureto acknowledgethat RWSEPstaff, Focal Persons,Specialists,ExpertsandDevelopmentWorkersat all levels,aswell asmembersof thecommunitiesvisited during themission,wereall mostcooperativeandhelpful, taking time to assist,explain,presentanddiscuss,in spiteof heavyworkloadsandgreattime pressure.When thanked,mostsimplysaid“It’s for our Programme.OfcourseI will help.” This attitudegoesfurtherto explainthesuccessofRWSEPthanany setof sustainabilityindicatorspossiblycould.

Week0

Week 1

March 22 - March 28(arrivalMarch 27)

March 29 - April 4

arrive; hold preliminarymeetingswith Programmestaff;collectandreviewdocumentation

Week2 April 5 - April 11(TabaskiApril 6)

developmissionplan; generateinitial material;meetwith keyplayersin Programme;attendIEC Coordinators’Meeting

Week3 April 12 - April 18(Easterfrom April 17)

continuematerialgeneration;attendSanitation,Gender,WoredaProgrammeCoordinators’Meetings;preparefor fieldvisits

Week4 April 19 - April 25(departureApril 24)

conductfield visits; verify\informationandimpressions;draftStrategy

sharedraft Strategy,incor~oratereactionin revisions;presentfinal draft Strategy;depart


3. Tracking Progress: The Monitoring and Evaluation System

The Current System

Description

TheMonitoring and Evaluation(M&E) Systemis partof a largerParticipatoryInformationSystem(PIS) whichhasbeendesignedto ensureaconstantandregularflow of informationbetweenandamongProgrammeparticipantsat all levels. ThePIS emphasizestwo waydialogueandexperiencesharingamohgall partners.Thefoundationof theM&E processisthepreparationof fouryearcommu4typlans,atthekebelelevel, by thecommunityitself.This enablesM&E functions~obe u~ndertakenby thecommunityandresponsibilityfor M&Ereportingis centredon this level. Fi~ure3.1, Monitoring~4 EvaluationPortionofParticipatoryInformationSystem, ilkstratestheM&E System.

Evaluationat thekebelelevel is conductedthroughquarterlycommunitymeetingsorganizedby theKebelecoordinatingCommittee~(KCC). TheevaluationtakesastandardStrengthsIWeaknesses/ Opportunities/ Limitatic~nsapproachand aSWOL report is preparedby kebeleReporters,usuallya local teacherorD~velopmentAgent (DA). Thedecisionstakenat thequarterlymeetingsinform activitiesfor thefollowing quarter. The reportis submittedto theRWSEPRegionaloffice, whereacompilationis developedandsentbackto participatingcommunitiesasMikikkir, a low costnewsletter.Mikikkir allows communitiesto find outabouttheprogressofothercommunities,what problemsare beingfacedand howthesearebeingsolved. It is oneof anumberoftools~isedby theProgrammeto encourageand supportinformationsharingamongparticipants. • S

J4onitoringReportsarepreparedeveryfifte~n,daysby thekebeleReportersandaresubmittedto the WoredaProgrammeCoordinator(W1~C)TheWPC compilesthereports,“h1ch arediscussedby the WoredaCoordinatingCommittee(WCC). TheWCC includesIEC,Sanitationand Gendei~Coordinatorsaswell astheWPC. A monthly woreda level reportisapprovedby the WCC and is submittedto Ijioth theZoneand theRWSEPRegionalOffice. Aquarterlyassessmentis conductedat thewcfredalevel, which actsasabridgebetweenthemonitoringandevaluationfunctions. )At theRegionallevel, reportsarediscussedon a regularbasiswith theRWSEPRegionalFocal Persons(RFP). Theysharethis informationwith theirrespectiveBureauheads,whomakeup theRegionalCoordinatingCommittee(RCC) of theProgramme.

Twicea year,ameetingis heldatRegionallevel to discussProgrammeperformance,usingSWOL methodology.TheBi-annualm~etingsareattendedby WCC members,WPCs,ZCCs,Focal PersonsandRCC members,aswe~lasRWSEPstaff. Not only are thesemeetingsuseful planningvenues,theyalsoprovidetheopportunity for amoreencompassingview ofmonitoringandevaluation.As theProgrammeexpands,so doesmembershipin thesevenues,which currentlystandsat almost 120 persons.Programmesuccessin expansionhascreatedasignificantchallengeto theutility oftheM&E system:thechallengeof processingeverexpandingamountsolFinformation.


Figure 3.1 - Monitoring & Evaluation Portion ofParticipatory Information System

I

Strengths

Thesystemworks. Reportsarepreparedat all levelsin atimelymanner(SomeconcernoverthetimelinessoT~eportsto theZonehasbeennotedin otherProgrammedocuments)andfollow astandardfi~ormat.While thereis somedifficulty in easilyextractingmorequalitativeinformationfronI !the reports,progresson activitiesis noted,ptQ~b.lems(andtheir solution)identified,level 9fparticipationtallied, and,mostimportantly,plans.fo.r thenextperiodidentified. Kebe/elevel reportingis verified b~’routinefield visits by yvoredapersonnel.

At thekebeleleJ~el,thesystemallowsaconst~btcheckon progressandprovidestheopportunityto jelebratesuccesses.At theworedalevel, thesystemprovidesa meansoftrackingto be ~

1urethat workpla~sarebeingimplementeds expected,actsas‘earlywarning’of potentialproblemsa~ididentifiescommti~iitylevel solutionsto problemswhich canbesharedwith otherkebelesfacingsimilar isspes. At theZoneandRegionallevels,thesystemprovidesthe input nec~ssaryto plan higher/levelsupportandto identify trendswhich canimpact theProgMmme’sfuture,aswell astrackingworkplanprogress.

The system’sstartingtpointis thecomm1.~ty,and it hasbeendevelopedto encouragemaximumparticipati~nand controlof the systematthecommunitylevel. Ultimately, thecommunityitself isresponsiblefor its own monitoringand evaluation,apartofcommunityplanningprocesseswhich is oftenneglected.While kebelereportershavebeentrainedby theProgramme,andreceivea (very) sm~llhonorariumfor theirwork, thesystemshouldbe easilysustainableafterProgrammeSupportWithdrawalandDonorDisengagement.MonitoringandEvaluations apartofProgrammeoperati~swhich shouldNOT be withdrawnfromkebelesorworidas,evenafterall othersupporthasceased.

1/

Challeng’es /Thequarterl, monthly~andbi-4eeklyreports~prepatedatkebeleandcompiledatworedalevel arecr tedusinga SWOl4jrarnework,but therq is no form in use;thereportsarena~+ativein ature. Narrativestyle reportingis useful becausetherichnessofthereality canbe commu at~d,but it meansthatrelativelysophisticatedmeansmuchbe usedto extract,compile,a lyse and~‘ynthesiiethedata. It is a la un ten ~ andthosedoingthework must e quite sophisticatedin their.understanding~of theProgrammeandtherelative

~ importancef different kindsof information.

This createfewproblemsdi4ring thefirst pJ~~,.pfPhaseI, asonly ~ woredas,with alimited flu er ofkebejes,w,bre involved. As morewore~iasbecameactivelyinvolvedin theProgrammefinally totalling~welve,andadditionalkebeleswereaddedin each,handling,analysing,c mpiling andsii

1ipl~çstoringthereportshasbecomeaseriousissue. More and~ more Progr me.time ~ ~ 5everincreasingflow of information.

As Phas,ØII egins,andan,additioqalsix woredasin two newZonesbecomeinvolved in theprograr~1me,lus expansic~nto ne~’kebelesin alreadyparticipatingworedas,it is clearthatthe4stem ~jye topu 1ess~?ressureon Programmeparticipantsat all levels.

A( recentme ings ofWPCs,asw~lasat bi-annualmeetings,theemphasishasbeenonr~porting.prlemsand so~utio.ns~ratherthanrepo~ .~ç.tIyi~ies.This hasbeendonebecausereportingroiti~ewastakingmoreandn\ore time asnewworedasandkebeleswereaddedtotheProgramn . Thisis a goodtrendas~supportsinformationto supportProgramme

/ ~i~ng and C~reul Far~ell — 8

\ \~

progress,ratherthaninformationfor its own sake. ‘Value-added’informationshouldbe thegoalof reportingat all levels. Thefirst questionthat shouldbe askedwhenexaminingthereportingstructureis “how doesthis pieceof informationadd~~~to the activities of theProgramme?”.If the~nsweris not clear,or is unsatisfactory,that informationdoesnot needto be gatheredandreported.

Opportunitiesfor Improvement

The lackof aformulizedreportingsystemmakesautomationof thesystemdifficult andlabour intensive. Creationofa checklist~ndtick-box formatfor regularlyreportedoutputswijJ helpresolvethis, but shouldnotbe done in a mechanicalwaythat will losetherichnessof thenarrative. A hybrid ipgich would be best,combiningnarrativeto describequalitativemeasuresandche~~to reportquantitativeindicators.

A basicmodel for suchahybrid formatalreadyexists,in theda gath~xingsheet~ãevelopedto assistin thepreparationofthe PhaseI CompletionReport. Thesesheets,coveringsuchareasaswaterpoints, latrines,contactwomen,andsoon,canbe compiled,revisedandreformattedto allow thequicknotationofdataon critical indicatorsfor monitoring of bothProgrammeprogress~ndwithdrawal.

Oneadditionshouldcertainlybe madeto thereportingstructure.As well asthecurrentlyusedStrengths,Weaknesses,OpportunitiesandLimitations,Wi.t.hd~,~almustbe added. Thè~)creationof aSWOL~systemof reportingwill assistin trackingsignalsfor withdrawaland,justas important,wilI.1~e1pintegrate.theconceptof~ithdrawalasa naturalandnormalpartof

/ Programmethinking.

Kebele level reportingusesa formatwhich is followed closelyby all reporters.This v~illmakethe taskofformulizing thereportstructureeasier.Theintroductionof a form forreportingatthekebelelevelhasthepotentialfor confusionand could resultin theneedfortraining andfamiliarization,not to mentioncostsfor printing anddistribution oftheforms. Itis nqt clearthat thebenefits~pfintroducing.ajiewreportingform at atthekebelelevel

~ However,thereis an unquestionableneedto add asectionon progressto~yard withdrawal,so the format wi1~change.toadegreein anycase.

An argumentcanbe madethattheamountofinformationgatheredandreportedat eachlevelexceedsthat which is tieeded,with acumulativeburdenasinformationflows throughthesystem. Informationoverloadbeginsatthekebelelevel, whereraw numbersand activitiesarereportedwith no attemptmadeto providefront line analysis. Forthemostpart,kebelereportersareeducated,and areusually governmentfunctionaries. Communitymembershaveprovedthemselvescapableofquite sophisticatedanalysisofthecommunityreality.

It would be usefulto examinethepossibility of~ .to the.analyticallevel.This would meana small amountofadditionalwork for thekebelereporterbutwould easetheburdenat theworedaJevel.,andabove A deci~n~..tteecouldbe developedwhichwouldenablereportersto identify variationsfrom reportingnorms,which would be reportednarratively. Reg r activities, number~partici ~ts, fundsrais~ on, would beformulizedthroughch ck~b.oxes~and.t4bles~..Thesimplificationof thesystemat kebelelevelwould flow upwards,easingdatainput andanalysisat otherlevels,and streamliningreporting.


I,

4. A Long and Careful Farewell: Draft Guidelines for DonorDisengagement

Philosophyand Core Values

It is clearfrom theProgrammeDocumentationfor PhaseI that there~wasan expectationthatRWSEPwould continuepastits four yearimplementation.There jio reasonto call aperiod‘PhaseI’, if thereis not to be a ‘PhaseII’. Whatis lessclearfrom thedocumentationis whatthe rolesof donorandgo~’ernmentwould be in PhaseII and beyond.This is addressedtosomeextentin thePhase:II doçl.)mentation,but only in that a ‘strategyfor donordisengagement’would be deveIc~pedearlyin thePhase.Theintent,however,is clear. It isexpectedthattherewill be a ‘Phase1ff ofRWSEP. It is expectedthat therewill not be GoFinvolvement in that Pl~ase.This meansthat by theendof PhaseII, all RWSEPoperationswill betheresponsibilityof GoE.

The implicationsofthis statementare significant. RWSEPactivitiesarecomplex,multi-dimensionalandcu~acrosslevelsofgovernment,aswell asanumberof sectors.Whileviewed by someasawatersupplyproject,mostProgrammeactivitiesactuallyprecedeanydirect connectionwith waterpoint development.Concernshavebeenraisedthat therewill bethe temptationfor GoB to focuson theconcreteaspectsof theProgramme(i.e. waterpointconstruction)anhto pay lessattentionto themoreephemeralcommitmentsto communityparticipation,r3iulti-sectorality,intensiveinformationsharingandgendersensitivitythat havemadethePro~ramme~osuccessful.Theremustbe agreementthat all RWSEPoperationswill be ther~sponsibiiityof GoEby theendofPhaseII.

With this oyer-ridingprinciple in mind, thecorevaluesofdonordisengagementshouldinclude:

• Disengagementto be carriedout on amutuallyagreed,staged,basisthroughoutPhaseII;

• GoEto take on financial responsibilityfor mutuallyagreedactivitiesandsupportcostson a stagedbasisthroughoutPhaseII, includingpersonnelcostsfor theRWSEPunit;

• GoEwill commit to thecontinuationof thefundamentalstrategiesof RWSEPimplementation:substantiveparticipationin planning,implementation,monitoringandevaluationat all levels; gendersensitivity;multi-sectoralprogramming;flexible,processorientedmanagement;

• Cleardefinition of rolesandresponsibilitiesofall partners,andhowthesewill changeover PhaseII;

• Continuedbui~,dingof capacityatall levelsto assuresustainabilityofRWSEPandprovideexpertisefor otherdevelopmentactivities;

. Integrationof critical supportstructures,suchasmaintenanceandrepairandmonitoringand evaluationsystems,withoutwhich replicabilityand sustainabilitywillnot be possible.

StagedDisengagement

Thefour yearspanof PhaseII offersthe opportunityto graduallyshift responsibilityforProgrammefunctionsto GoE. At theoperationallevel, muchofthework is already


I

performedby governmentfunctionaries.As functions,andrelatedfinancialresponsibilityshifts, capacityandeffectivenesscanbe monitoredandtested. Small problemsandbottlenecks,whichareinevitable,canbe identifiedandresolved.Deficienciesin capacitycanbe supportedandrectified. Maintenanceofthecorevaluesof theProgrammeis madeeasier.SustainabilityoTiheProgrammeis morelikely.

Theplanto spendthefirst yearof PhaseII to consolidategainsmadein PhaseI createsanadditionalopportunityto testthemechanismsfor stagedwithdrawal,asGoBbeginsto takeonresponsibilityfor establishedworedaswhile RWSEPstaffandres~ourcesarenotyetconsumedwith thetasksof expansion.

FinancialResponsibility

Functionaland financialresponsibilitygo handin hand. Theargumentfor stagingfinancialresponsibilityis similar to that for functionalshifts. A slow andsteadyhandoverallows thetime to identify bottlenecksanddeficienciesandcorrectthembeforetheybecomeoverwhelming. Thepossibility of sustainabilityis improvedandthemaintenanceof coreProgrammevaluesis ensured.

Commitmentto R WSEPStrategies

TheAppraisalReport(February1998) focuseson RWSEPstrategiesasthemostimportant‘lessonslearned’ during PhaseI. It suggeststhat

• ‘ownership’ofi~WSEPactivities by Programmestakeholdersis adirect result oftheencouragementofparticipationat all levelsin planning,implementation,monitoringandevaluation;

• successfulcontinuationandreplicationof activitieswill dependboth on using thesestrategies,andensuringtheirintegrationin theotheractivitiesof Programmeparticipants;

• therei~sa direct andunbreakableconnectionbetweencommunityinvolvementincommunitylevel planningandthemulti-sectoralimplementationof thoseplans.Acommitmentto onedemandsan equalcommitmentto theother;

• RWSEPcorestrategies(participation...includingIEC, gendersensitivityandmulti-sectorality)arehighlyappropriate,butGoEcapacityto implementthemoverarangeofactivitieswill needto be furtherstrengthened.

Themessageis clear. The‘soft technologies’of multi-sectorality,participationandgendersensitivityarethedriversof RWSEPsuccess.Thecontinuationof thesestrategiesis essentialif sustainabilityis to h~achieved.

RolesandResponsibilities

As PhaseII progresses,therewill be shift in therolesandresponsibilitiesof theProgrammepartners.Thereappearsto be clear,if somewhatgeneral,agreementasto who is responsiblefor what aspectsofProgrammeimplementationasofthebeginningofthePhase.These


.1

agreementsneedto be furtherdefinedoverthefouryeartime frameofthePhase.Eachpartnermustbe fully awareof their rolesandresponsibilitiesfor eachyearof the Phase.

CapacityBuilding

TheProgrammeAppraisalReportsuggestsstronglythatthereis aneedfor continuedcapacitybuilding at all levels. Theauthorsof the reportemphasizecapacity.~buildingin the‘softtechnologies’,but therewill alsobe aneedfor support,trainingand exposureto harderskillsof management,logisticsandM&E analysis. As theProgrammemovestowardsSupportWithdrawal from thosekebelesandworedaswhichareready,additionalskills in thefacilitationof this delicateseriesof stepswill alsobe needed.TheProgrammebudgetemphasizestraining,a~well asexperiencesharing. This will be ainvestmentwith alargeandpositivereturn,as it is clearthat an understandingof theimportanceof developmentprocess,as opposedto developmentactivity, mustcontinueto growwithin the Region.

IntegrationofSupportStructures

Thereappearsto be total agreementthat theProgrammewill notbe sustainableunlessthereisan efficient and effectivemaintenanceand repairsystemto supportkebelewaterpoints. Italso appearsthat theRegionallevel maintenanceworkshophasbeendesignedto mainlysupporttheneedsof electrifiedbore holepumpingsystems. While this is importantanduseful, it doesnot addresstheneedsof thekebeles,whosewaterpoints areeithergravity fedfrom springsor utilize handpumpsmountedoverhanddug wells.

Theprovisionofa repairandreplacementsystemfor thesewaterpoints is essential.Thereshouldbe asparepartsstockatworeda level, and,if kebelelevelartisansarejudgednotqualified to undertake~certainkinds ofrepairs,artisanspossessingthesequalificationsshouldbe availableat woreda level. Thebasicprincipleof thesystemis thatrepairand/orreplacementshouldtakeplaceat aslow alevel aspossible.

As theultimategoal is for thekebeleto be responsiblefor the costsofO&M for theirwatersystems,thekebeleshould,in theory,paythecostsoftransport,newpartsandrepairs. It isnot clearthat therearemany, if any,kebelescurrentlyin a positionto coverthecostofanybut themostbasicrepairs. Therewill notbe a simplesolutionto this challengeand,for thetime being,theProgrammeis likely to haveto atleastsubsidizethecostsof repairandreplacementof moresophisticatedor expensiveparts. Figure4.1 outlinesa multi-levelmaintenance,repairandreplacementsystem.

The M&E systemis anotherongoingsupportfunctionwhich shouldnot ceaseafterDonorDisengagementor ProgrammeSupportWithdrawal. In fact, it shouldbe expanded,asandwhenpossible,to covertheentirewatersystemoftheRegion. This expansionis well beyondthescope,mandateor resourcesof theProgrammebut theGoB shouldseriouslystudy thepositive impactof participatoryMonitoringand Evaluationon theprovisionandmaintenanceofwatersupply, aswell ason otherdevelopmentinitiatives. After sucha study, it is likelythat


I,I

Figure 4.1 - PumpMaintenance Hierarchy

Spare Pails,Service &

Advice

Spare Parts,Service &Advice

Kebele LevelMaintenance~j

P Woreda LevelMaintenance

P Zonal Level[_Maintenance j

[~~tI1e maintenance,inclràding lubrication andtightlnirig parts

I replaclment of piston leather[~~,ac*ment of handle

Requests forAssistance



[~or pump repair. b,sicspare pails distribuf*on;training of kebete putt

[~~ndants

I)

[~~condary pump repair and,rebuliding; routine spareparts distribution; training of

woreda staff

[~or pump repair, rabutidingand/or replacement; major

I spare pails distribution[~~tre; major training facilit,

Spare Pails,Service &Advice

r Regional LevelMaintenance

theexpansionofsuchasystemwill be consideredan essentialpartof,atleastpublic healthserviceto andpossibly all developmentactivitieswith thepeopleofANRS. M&E playsanimportantrole in ProgrammeSupportWithdrawalbut, moreimportant,it connectsplanningwith implementation,and providesa frameworkfor avarietyof communityleveldevelopmentacti~i~ies.Supportto, an~expansionof, suchasystemwill haveimpactwellbeyondone prdject,Programme,or se~or.

Structure and Operation~

Thestructureswhich mani~gean~d~4mplementtheProgrammeare,exceptatthekebelelevel,governmentBureaux~Departm~tsandOffices attheRegional,Zonaland Woredalevelrespectively.Thesy~tem~‘iaswçrkedwell in Programmeimplementationand thereis littlereasonto makesignificantch

9~iges.At theRegionallevel, themajorquestionsarewhethertheRWSEPUnit shoi~ldcon~inue,and,if so,wherewithin thegovernmentalsystemit shouldbe located. At Zonal, Woredaand kebelelevels,themajorquestionappearsto be how theCoordinatingCommitteesshouldrelateto theDevelopmentCommitteesat eachlevel.

Regional 1

RWSEPoperateddiring PhaseI usinga ProjectImplementingUnit structure.EstablishedattheRegionalleve1,~twasponnectedfirst to theNaturalResourceandEnvironmentalProtectionBureaufNREPB)and, aftera restructuring,to theWater,Mines andEnergyResourceDevelop~flentBureau(WMERDB). Theunit includesonefull timeexpatriatecoordinator‘and a ~mallnationalstaff, including a ProgrammeManager,WaterExpert(TA),andAdm,~istrator~aswell assupportstaff. Theunit disbursesdonorfunds,handlesprograiyI~ne~tart-upandcontinuation,providescoordinationandcontinuity,andsupportsprogrammeplannil~g, implementationandmonitoring.

Therehasbe~n�eriou~in~ernationalcriticismof a PIU/PMU approachto developmentprojectmanagementDetractorspoint to thehigh costof runningsucha unit andthatlittle local levelcapacityis luilt by suchastructure. Further,becauseaPMU is dismantledat theend ofaproject, susainabilityis impossible. In thecaseofRWSEP,neitherof thefirst two criticismsseemto a~ly.Costof runningtheunit is relatively low, andwill decreasein PhaseII.Capacity~ndskill levelsof governmentpersonnelassignedfull time or aspart-dutyto theProgramf~ehasbeen,andis likely to continueto be, improved. Most important,at this timethecapCi~yof theBureauxis limited to thepoint that it is unlikely thatany of themcouldeffecti/elY takeon managementoftheProgramme.

Thessueis not oneofcompetencebutratherofperson-power.TheRegionalgovernmenttes a very leanstructure.Thephilosophyofoperatingwith theminimumnecessary

p~Snnel is agoodonebut governmentsystemshavenot keptpacewith decreasinghuman~so rces. This meansthatamuchsmallernumberof governmentfunctionariesare

/ atte ptingto copewith systemswhichweredesignedaroundamuchlargerbureaucracy./ Ref rn~sto governmentplanning,reportingandfinancialsystemsareunderway,but it will

be son’~time before rk’w systemsare in place,testedandpersonneltrainedin theiruse.Until// that tint; personnelat all levelsofgovernment,especiallyprofessionalstaff~will be

/A Long a Careful Farewell 22

I

significantly overworked.

It appearsthat for PhaseII, thebestoption is to continuemanagementof theProgrammethroughthis mechanism.In orderto ensuresustainability,GoEshould,overthePhase,takeresponsibilityfo; Unit personnelcosts. Table4.1, RWSEPPersonnelResponsibilityPhasell~suggestsa stagedapproachfor implementingthis.

Table 4.1 — RWSEP PersonnelResponsibilityPhaseII

Personnel Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Governmentof EthiopiaProjectManager

Water/O&M Expert

SanitationExpert

Administrator

Secretary

Drivers (2)

Drivers(2)

Government of Finland

Technical Assistance

ProgrammeCoordinator

WaterExpert

Operation&~MaintenanceExpert

SanitationExpert

Programme

Administrator

Secretary

Drivers(2)

Drivers(2)


Il

Bureauof Planning andEconomicDevelopment(BoPED)hasresponsibilityfor coordinationof developmentactivity in theRegion. BoPEDis also theonly multi-sectoralBureauin theRegion(otherBureauxareeithersectororientedor are,asthecaseof WAO, sector-neutral).Given themulti-sectoralapproachtakenby RWSEP,andBoPED’smandateto coordinatedevelopmentac’ti’~’ities,this Bureauis themostlogical placeto situateRWSEP. While thiscouldbe done in anumberof ways,themostsensibleapproachwould be to establishRWSEPasan independentunit of BoPED,with no counterpartBureau. Theunit shouldrelateequallyto a numberof Bureauxwhichhavebeeninvolved in Programmeplanningandimplementation,includingWMERDB, Bureauof Health,BureauofAgriculture,RegionalAdministrationandWomen’sAffairs Office.

Zoneand Woreda

Zoneshaveonly a. marginalrolein Programmeimplementationbut provideimportanttechnical,monitoringandfinancialsupportfunctions. Thesefunctionswill probablystrengthenin PhaseII, especiallybecauseoftheZone’s newbudgetaryresponsibilities.Zonalpersonnelare involved in all informationsharingandmanagementactivities andit is doubtfulthat changingRWSEPstructureat theZonal level will be necessary.

Woredasareintimately involved in thedayto day planning, implementingandmonitoringoftheProgramme,by supportingkehelelevelactivities. TherelationshipbetweentheWCC andtheWDC needsmoreclarity. As theWDC is thegovernmentstructureat woreda level whichis responsiblefor developmentactivities,amethodof connectingthetwo committeesisdesirablefor sustainability. It doesnot appearlogical to simply handover WCCresponsibilitiesto the WDC. Membershipof theWDC is broaderthantheWCC anditsmandateis equallybroad. In orderto rationalizestructure,however,it would makesensetorealigntheWCC asa sub-setor working committeeoftheWDC. This would ensureaninstitutional link at the woreda level betweenRWSEPandotherdevelopmentactivities.

ProgrammeActivities I

Most Programmepartnersat all levelsseemto haveagoodunderstandingof Programmephilosophyandactivity. This is very good,becausewithoutan understandingof theconnectionbetweenProgrammeprocessandProgrammeactivity, RWSEPcanbe viewedassimply a watersupplyproject. It is notclearthatattemptingto operatedRWSEPasa ‘waterproject’ will resultin long termsustainability.

Figure4.2, RWSEPEntry andDevelopmentProcess,outlinesProgrammeActivities. Thegraphicdoesnot dojusticeto thecomplexityoftheProgramme.To truly showthedepthandinter-connectednessof ProgrammeActivities, theFigurewould coverseveralpages,andwould beneithereasyto follow nor particularlyuseful. In the interestof simplicity, theprocessis describedlinearly: left to right; down; right to left; down; left to right andso on.An attemptto acknowledgethecyclic natureof theprocessis madeby endingthepagebyrepeatingthefirst steps. Themostimportantthing to notice is that waterpoint siteselectiondoesnot occuruntil tli~eighteenthstep.


I

Figure 4.2 - RWSEP Entry and DevelopmentProcess

Woreda repsattend

biannual

~ng

I Work Plan (toRWSEP, focal

~ta~s~d1 ~person~CC,Board)~


.& I”

To view RWSEPasa wat~rsupplyproject is simplistic,althoughits successin bringingsafewaterto ruralcommuniti~shasbeenmostimpressive.RWSEPis acapacitybuilding andinstitutionalstrei~gtheni(igproject,operatingata numberof levelsin societyandcuttingacrossandbetweensectors.A universalunderstandingof thenatureoftheProgrammeiscritical to its succés~fulreplication.

Agreementsand Unc~rstanding

To ensurecontinued~ordialrelationswithin theProgrammepartners,it is essentialthat therebe clear,writtenunq~rstandingson severalkey issues.Theseinclude

• howto dea~/withtheimpactof the newANRS Five Year Plan,expectedin 2000(EC1992),on programmetargetsin PhaseII;

• role andr/sponsibilitiesfor all Programmepartners. Who is responsiblefor what,who wiIl(providewhat andwhenmustbe clearandtransparentto all partners;

• theshiftJoffinancialresponsibilityfor Programmeimplementationfrom GoF to GoEands~’e~ficlist~gsof whichbody will pay for whatpartsoftheProgrammeovereach6’ea~r of PhaseII.

Plan/Targets ~

TFte umbrellaun/lerwhich RWSEPoperatesis theANRS Five Year Plan,whichsetsdevelopmenttar~etsthrough2000(BC 1992). A key targetwhich impactstheProgrammeis

‘~‘thatof providingsafewaterto 32%of the rural populationby theendof thePlanperiod.This targethasalreadybeenreachedin the first (pilot) woredasto becomeinvolved in the

Programme,andit is expectedthat middle andnewworedaswhich becameinvolved later inPhaseI will reachthat targetbeforetheendof PhaseII.

However,PhaseII of RWSEPwill run through2002,by which time anewFive Year Planwill havebeenintroducedby theRegion. It is probablethattargetsfor waterandsanitationwill be sethigherin thenewPlan. If this is thecase,theGoEshouldcommit to investingtheresourcesnecessaryto ~ing thoseworedaswhichhadachievedthe32% level up to thenewtarget. RWSEPProgrammefunds shouldnot be usedto do so.

RolesandResponsibilities

Thereis lessthantotal clarity concerningtherolesand responsibilitiesofthevariousProgrammepartners.Therehavebeenadvantagesin maintaininglooseareasof overlappingresponsibilityamongProgrammepartnersduring PhaseI, asthis allowedfor flexibility andenabledtheProgrammeto shift quickly to addresschallengeswith minimal debateastowhosejob aparticulartask shouldbe. This wasparticularlytrueduring theearlypartof thePhase,whenonly threeworedaswereactively involved. As theProgrammeentersPhaseII,therearetwelveworedas,andsix morewill be incorporatedover thePhase.TheProgrammestructureis becomingtoo complexto allow for individual negotiationof responsibility.Specifictermsof referencehavebeendevelopedfor theRWSEPunit, ZCC, WCC, woredalevel technicalcommitteesandkebelelevel technicalcommittees.Theseshouldbe reviewed


I, .1

andrevisedin light ofProgrammeSupportWithdrawalandDonorDisengagementstrategies.If it is decidedto assignacounterpartagencyto RWSEP,detailedandclearTerms ofReferencewill be needed,especiallyto definedecisionmakingroles,for BoPED,thecounterpartBureau,andRWSEPunit.

FinancialSupportto theProgramme

Donor andGoEshouldhavein placeat leastgeneralandhopefullyspecific lists of who willpay for what partsof theProgrammein eachyearofPhaseII. In general,GoE shouldtakeoneachyearat leastonemajoradditional financialresponsibility,includingmoreofthecost ofsupportingthe unit. AppendixF, BudgetSharing/Transferç~fResponsibilityThroj~~g~PhaseII, suggestsastagedapproachto the shift of financial responsibilityfrom GoF to GoE. Table4.1,RWSEPPersonnelResponsibilityPhaseH, is extractedfrom theAppendix, and detailsasuggestedarrangementfor GoEtakeoverof RWSEPpersonneloverthePhase.

Allocationof budgetby GoEfor RWSEPactivities canbe handledin anumberof ways. Tomaximizeflexibility, it would be bestto allocateasingleline item: RWSEP,within theBoPEDbudget,andallow disbursementaccordingto theRWSEPwork plan. This willfacilitatetheshifting ofresourcesto addressspecificneedsmoreeasilythanhavingadetailedgovernmentbudget. Theneedfor flexibility will be especiallyimportantasWithdrawalofProgrammeSupportbegins,assomecommunitiesarelikely to needsmallamountsofunplannedsupportto reachwithdrawallevels.

SequencingDisengagement

The timetablefor donordisengagementshouldbe flexible butrigorous. Delaysin handoversor in shiftsof financial orprogrammingresponsibilityshouldbe madeonly for substantivereasons.Agreementto delayahandoveror shift shouldbe madeby mutualconsentandfor aspecificperiodonly. TheAppraisalMission,conductedin February1998hassuggestedthatDonorresourcesbe usedfor expansionof theProgramme,while GoEtakeover all costsconnectedwith kebeleswhich becameinvolvedin PhaseI. This is an appropriateprinciple,but flexibility hasalwaysbeenahallmarkof the Programme,andthis should apply hereaswell. Thehandover/takeoverofPhaseI woredasshouldbe handledin a stagedmanner,overthefirst yearsof thePhase.Soonthereafter,beginningsshouldbe madeat handover/takeoverofthefirst PhaseII woredas. Theaim is to minimize ‘disengagementshock’,which is likelyto occurif a largeamountof newresponsibilityis ‘dumped’ by thedonorover a shortperiodof time.

AppendixG, Inventory~fRWSEPSupport,providesan inventoryofRWSEPsupportfunctions,alongwith theagentresponsiblefor delivery. This inventoryis importanttoreview,astheProgrammeis engagedin a largenumberof inter-relatedactivities,implementedby awide rangeof agenciesat variouslevels. While most oftheseactivities areimplementedby governmentagencies,mainly attheworeda level, initiation, coordinationandmanagementis doneby RWSEPat Regionallevel. As GoEtakeson moreandmoreresponsibilityfor RWSEPfunctions,theutility, andperhapsnecessityof aRegionalimplementationunit will becomemoreapparent,evenafterPhaseII closesout.


I’

AppendixF, BudgetSharing/TransferofResponsibilityThroughPhaseII, detailsfundingofProgrammefunctions,andsuggestsa stagedapproachfor GoEtakeoverofProgrammefinancing. In general,little changeis expectedin Year 1, asGoE funding for theyearisalreadyin place.~.Thoseareasthatrequirelittle direct investmentbesidespersonnel,whichOoE alreadysupports,shouldbe takenover. Theseincludeconstructionsite selectionandconfirmation,waterquality testing,andfuel.

In Years2 and3, arangeof mainlyoverlappingfundingarrangementsshouldbe put in place,as GoE takeson respon3ibilityfor PhaseI ‘pilot’, andthen‘middle’ woredas.By Year4, GoEshouldbe preparingto takeoverthe first PhaseII woredas,as well as the ‘new’ PhaseIworedas. GoFfunding will beginto taperoff in Year 3 andwill furtherdeclinein Year 4. Bythe endof the Phase,GoE will be expectedto shoulderthe entireburdenof continuingtheProgramme.

Figure4.3, SequencingofTakeoverQfRWSEPParticipatingWoredas,describessupportarrangementsandresponsibilitiesof GoEandGoF in respectto Programmeworedas.


Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Government of Ethiopia /Planning, /nsolidati7i,

akeove

Phase II ‘FirstWoredas~

Government of Finland

Phase I PiIot’

Phase‘SecondWoredas

L Phase II ‘FirstWoredas

L

Figure 4.3 - SequencingofTakeover of RWSEP Participating WoredasPhaseII

Phase II SecondWoredas

Phase I PilotWoredas

[ Phase I MiddleWoredas

Phase I NewWoredas

Woredas

A Long andCareful Farewell 29

‘I-~ *1

5. Encouraging Community Independence:Programme SupportWithdrawal

Philosophyand-Core Values

Thereis generalagreementamongProgrammeparticipantsthat withdrawalofprogrammesupportis necessary,inevitableanddoable. At the kebelelevel, withdrawalwill encouragecommunityparticipatiopandcontrol. At theworeda level, withdrawalwill allow for greaterindependentdecision-making.Theover-ridingprincipleofProgrammeSupportWithdrawalmustbe celebration. Withdrawalshouldbe positionedassomethingto strive for: anachievementto be proudof.

With this over-ridingprinciple in mind, thecorevaluesof programmesupportwithdrawalshouldinclude:

• ProgrammeSupportWithdrawalmustbecomepartof thevocabularyof theProgramme,ashavegender,IEC andparticipation. It shouldbe astandingitem foreverycommitteemeeting,everytraining event,everyinteractionamongProgrammepartners;

• SupportWithdrawalwill be accomplishedin astagedandconsensualmanner;• Thedecisionto withdrawfrom a particularkebeleor woredawill be basedupon the

achievementof key indicatorswhichwill be monitoredat variouslevelsof theProgramme.Initiation ofdiscussionsconcerningwithdrawalcanbe madeby anylevel;

• in general,it is expectedthat the first kebelesto be involved in theProgrammewill bethe first to havesupportwithdrawn. Likewiseworedas. Therewill probablybeexceptions,however;

• afterwithdrawal,supportandinputwill continueto be neededfor periodicassessments(M&E), high levelor majormaintenanceand,possiblyothermatters;

• thecoordinators’networks(IEC, Gender,Sanitation,etc) atworedaandkebelelevelMUSTcontinue

• thedevelopmentandimplementationofmicro credit facilities is essentialto continueddevelopmentatthekebele. A comprehensiverural micro-creditfacility, not directlyconnectedto RWSEPor any otherProgramme,shouldbe establishedassoonaspossible.

WithdrawalasCelebration

Withdrawal mustnot bf~seenasapunishmentfor being successful,or for participatingin theProgrammefor too long. It shouldbe positionedasa rewardfor taking responsibilityfor thedevelopmentof thecommunity. Kebeles,andworedasshouldstrivefor withdrawalandshouldactivelyseekto be independentofRWSEPsupport.

This attitudewill not spring into being overnight. A majortask oftheRWSEPIEC PlanforPhaseII will relateto Withdrawal. Theconceptandmethodologyfor withdrawalmustbediscussedby all Programmepartnerson a continualbasis. By Year 3, everyProgrammedecisionshouldbe automaticallyfiltered throughthe lensof withdrawal.

A Long and Careful FareweU 30

a,I

This approachto withdrawalcanbe supportedby making thefirst withdrawalsamatterofconsiderable,positivepublic attention. A ceremony,muchlike thosemountedto ‘officially’handoverwaterpointsto acommunity,might be organizedto raisepublic interestin thewithdrawalprocess~.

IntegrationofWithdrawalasa Core RWSEPFunction

WhentheProgrammebegan,therewaslittle attentionpaid to suchissuesasgendersensitivityor sectoralintegrationin what wasthenRegionThree. IEC wasunheardof. Therewas,infact, considerableresistanceto someof theseconcepts.In thepastfour years,multi-sectorality,genderissuesandJEC ascoreelementsof developmentprocesshavebecomeaccepted,naturalelementsof developmentwork in theRegion. Withdrawalmustbecomeasingrainedin developmentthinking andpracticein theRegionastheseotherconcepts.

TheProgrammehasexpendedconsiderableresourcesto raiseawarenessat all levelsaboutIEC, genderandtheneedfor sectoralintegration. To effectivelypositionWithdrawalasacore elementof theProgramme,resourcesmustbe allocatedto activitiesdesignedto do so.Thiscould include short training modulesfor WPCsandKCCs. TheProgrammeImplementationManual,currentlyunderdevelopment,shouldincludeasectiononimplementingWithdrawal.

StagedWithdrawalby Consensus

The Programmesupportsawide varietyof activitiesandprocessesatworeda andkebelelevel, Someofthesehavebeenlabelledasprimary,orTier I activities,andothersassecondary,orTier 2. As DonorDisengagementis beingconsideredasaslow, stagedprocess,so Withdrawalis morelikely to successfullybe carriedout in a slow, stagedmanner. Bystarting by withdrawingmarginalsupportfrom Tier 2 activitiesand,over time, movingtowardwithdjawal for Tier 1, monitoring ofcontinuedprogresscanoccur,andinterventions,if necessary,canbe arranged.

A consensualapproachto decidinguponwithdrawalis themost likely to be successful.Pleasenotethat ‘consensus’,contraryto popularusage,doesNOT meanthat everyoneagrees100%with thedecision. It meansthat everyonehashadan opportunityto expresshis or herpoint of view, and is satisfiedthat this point of view hasbeenrespectedand consideredinarrivingat adecision. All participantsmustagreethattheprocessof decisionmakingwasagoodone,not that thedecisionarrivedat is perfect. No decisionsatisfieseveryone.

DevelopmentandMonitoring ofKeyIndicators

At thekebelelevel, the~earecertainkey indicatorsthat point to thepotential for successfulwithdrawal. Themostbasicofthese,suchasthefunctioning ofkebelecommittees,participationin kebeleactivities,fundsavailablein theO&M account,canbe evaluatedquiteeasily,usingachecklistapproach.If indicationsarepositive,morein-depthquantitativeandqualitativemeasuresshouldbe takento confirm readinessfor withdrawal. At thesametime,discussionsshouldbegin amongtheProgrammepartnersleadingto decisionsconcerning


.t ‘I

supportWithdrawal.

SupportWithdrawqlby TimeofEntry

Therewill be considerablepressureon thosekebelesandworedasthat havebeeninvolved intheProgrammefor the longesttime to movequickly towardsWithdrawal. As ageneralprinciple,this is sensible.However,Withdrawaldecisionsshouldbe~basedon thepotentialshownby thekebele,andultimately the woreda,to continueactivitiesanddevelopmentwithout Programmesupport. TheWithdrawalprocesswill involve a numberof activities,including measurementof specjfjc indicators,consultations,and stagedplanning. Thelengthof timea particularplacehasbeeninvolved in theProgrammeshouldbe secondaryto theability oftheplaceto continueactivitiesand assuresustainability.

OngoingSupportAfter Withdrawal

ThereareseveralProgrammefunctionsthatmustcontinueafterWithdrawalfrom aparticularkebeleor woreda.‘TheseincludeMonitoring andEvaluation,andmaintenance/sparepartssupport. Thefirst will supportthecommunity’scontinuingneedfor information,and theProgramme’sneedto monitor ongoingprogressatthecommunitylevel. Thesecondwillensurethat waterpointscontinueto function.

Supportto theCoordinators’Networks

TheCoordinators’networks(Ger~der,Sanitation,IEC) shouldcontinue. Theon-goingsharingofexperiencewill be critical to si.istainabiiity,andtheexperiencedcoordinatorsfrom long-standingProgrammecommunitieswill be helpful to thosejustbecominginvolved in theProgramme.Thecost~f sustainingthenetworkis minimal comparedto thebenefitsgainedby all participants.

Micro-CreditDevelopment

Availability of small amountsof moneyto coverstartup costsfor kebelelevel incomegenerationactivities is critical to thesupportof entrepreneurshipat the local level.Communitiesin theRegionare,,for themostpart, cashdeprived. This makesit difficult tosustainany activity in which theremustbe at leastsomecashcontributionby communitymembers.As theultimategoalof therural watersupplystrategyis to havecommunitiestakeon theentirecostofdevelopingandrunningtheirsystems,it makesconsiderablesensetosupportthedevelopmentof incoinegeneratingactivities atlocal level.


Structure and Operation

Planningfor Withdrawal

BeforeimplementingtheWithdrawalStrategy,certainpreliminarystepsmustbe taken.Thesefirst stepsset thestagefor a fair andagreeableprocess:.Theyhavebeendiscussedabove,andinclude:

• fEC activitiesto raiseawarenessandunderstandingoftheProgrammeSupportWithdrawalprocess,andto positionit asachallengeto strive for andarewardforexcellentperformance;

• The integrationof ProgrammeSupportWithdrawalinto all RWSEPactivities,meetingsand gatheringsat all levels.

Oncethesepreliminarystepshavebeenput in place, theWithdrawalStrategysequenceitselfcanbe implemented:

• PrimaryMeasur~mentprocessis initiatedatkebelelevel, andsuggestspotentialforWithdrawal;

• SecondaryinvestigationbeginsAND discussionsamongProgrammepartnerscommence.Consensusis reachedto beginWithdrawal;

• SitespecificWithdrawal Planis developed,includingassessmentcriteriaforsustainability;

• First Stage(Tier 2) Withdrawaloccurs,includinga sustainabilityassessment;• SecondStage(Tier 1) Withdrawaloccurs,includinga sustainabilityassessment;

Throughouttheprocess,a monitoringfunctionshouldbe in placefor consistentandeffectivefollow-up to ensuresustainability,and to dealwith any challengesthat occurin specificWithdrawalprocesses.

TheWithdrawalofeachkebeleandworedashouldbe consideredauniqueevent,andaspecificplanshouldbe developedby theProgrammepartnersfor eachwithdrawal. Whileeachplanwill containcommonelements,thesequence,timing andfurther interventionsnecessaryshoulddependupontheuniquecircumstancesbeingfacedin eachplace.

Figure5.1, Stepsin theWithdrawalProcess,outlinesthesteps.

Thestepsin aparticularwithdrawalprocess,aswell asthesequence,shouldbe determinedthroughconsultationwith Kebeleand WoredaCoordinators,otherappropriatedevelopmentgroupsatkebele,woreda,zoneandRegion,and, mostimportantly,communitymembersthemselves.For atleastthefirst few Withdrawalprocesses,thereshouldalsobe direct andcentralinvolvementby RWSEPRegionallevel staff

Decision-Making

Thereis a strongandwidely expressedpoint of view that thecommunitiesthemselvesshoulddecidewhenWithdrawalshouldtakeplace. While thereis no questionthat communitiesshouldbe intimately involvedin thedecision-makingprocess,theyshouldnot be theonlyplayersinvolved. RWSEPis committedto wide rangingparticipationat all levels,andwithdrawaldecisionsshouldhavesimilarly wide-ranginginput.


Figure 5.1 — Stepsin the Withdrawal Process

Withdrawal conceptsintegrated Into all RWSEPmeetings and activities at

lmptentation of SiteSpecific WithdrawalPlan Tier 2 (Or first

stage) Activities

lEG activities tosupport Withdrawal

Process

EdraEE~b~n

AssesSmentof

Sustainability

Assessment ‘tof

Sustai

Monitoring of -[ Withdrawal Process

(I’


I,, ~

Theinitiation of theWithdrawalprocesscouldbedoneat any level, baseduponmeasurementofpreviouslyagreedkey indicators. Discussionsconcerningthereadinessofa particularkebeleor woredato beginwithdrawalshouldbe held, movingtowardsconsensusasto atimetableanda sequenç~for Withdrawal’. It maybe that specific furtherinterventionsarenecessarybefore\Vithdrawal canbegin,or be concluded.If so,theseshouldbe includedintheWithdrawal Plan,or addedto it if theyarenot identified until after Withdrawalhasbegun.Flexibility, andthewillingnessto work in partnershipshouldinform Withdrawalasmuchas

in all otherProgrammeactivities. -

Agreementsand Understanding

RolesandResponsibilit/es

OperationandMaintenance

EstablishingMicro Credit

Thereis an assumption,oftenunspoken,that after)~rogrammeSupportWithdrawalthecommunitywill be expectedtO maintainall activi~esandprovideall supportneededtosustaingainsmadeovertheProgramme’sinvolve~nentin thecommunity. This is a valuableandnobleassumption.It is alsoquite unrealistic.rlWhethercontinuationof Monitoring andEvaluation,someaspectsofwhich thecommunit~ycancertainlysustain,or thereplacementofan entirewell-head,which it just ascertainlycankiot, therewill continueto be the needforProgrammeor Governmentinterventionto supp~rtcommunityefforts. Theremustberealisticclarityaboutwhat thecommunitycan r~hsonablyprovide.

Thiscan bestbe accomplishedby thedevelopm~ntofclear definitionsofthecommunity’srole andthe government’srole, andhow interac~ionwill occurthroughandaftertheWithdrawalprocess J

‘IAn integratedO&M systemfor waterpoint~/doesnot currentlyexist, Suchasystemmustbeestablishedto ensuresustainability. Worksf~iopsand/ortechnicalpersonnelatworeda,ZoneandRegionallevel shouldsupplementandpupportkebelelevel artisansto provideservicefor

more complexrepairproblems. ,Figure4./~WaterSupplyMaintenanceHierarchy,showstherelationshipamongfacijities atvariouslefvels for providingOperationsandMaintenancesupport. It shouldbe notedthat this syst~mshouldnot just supportRWSEPwaterpoints,butall waterpointsin theRegion. /

Therehavebeenplansin placefor ~icro-creditschemesin theRegionfor sometime. To anextent,theAmharaCredit andSav~gsInstitution hasattemptedto provide sucha service,butit sufferssignificantlimitations an~afull scale,rural basedmicro credit facility hasnot yetbeenimplementedin theRegion. While RWSEPhasdevelopeda CommunityFundwhichhastakenon someoftherolesot~acredit facility, this is a temporaryandultimatelyinefficient approachto theprovisionof communitylevel credit. EthiopiahasbecomeamemberoftheAfrican RegionáFMicro-Credit organizationandtheRegionshouldmove

A Long and Careful Farewe~ 35

at

quickly to establishstrongfacilities in this area. Thecredit facility shouldnot be tied toRWSEP,or any otherspecificdevelopmentproject. It shouldbe astand-alone,umbrellafacility ableto offer supportacrossprogrammes,projectsandotherinitiatives.

Much literatureha4sbeendistributedconcerningmicro-creditandthereareanumberofmodelswhich havebeensuccessfullyimplemented,including theGrameenBankmodel inBangladesh,andtheWomen’sInitiative Fundin Ghana. Experiencehasshownthat micro-credit operatesmoreeffectivelyif thefollowing guidelinesareused:

Lendto Groups -‘

Loansaremadeto small self-sur~ortgroupsratherthanto individuals,althoughoften it is anindividual whousesthemoneyto startan activityh Thegroupguaranteestheloan,andisresponsiblefor payingit back. Grouppressureca4 thereforebe usedto ensur~ethat anindividual paysbackhis or her loan, asan individ~aldefaultwill meanthat tF~egroupcannotreceivefurtherloans. In someplaces,traditionalts~~lfhelp’ groupsare already1inexistence,andthesehavebeentappedasthesourceof lending groups. In others,small ‘self-selected’groupswereformedspecifically to accesscredit. ]I~ierehasbeenless successin ‘addingon’credit functionsto groupsformed for otherreasons,lsuchasimprovedseedclubs,or inworkingwith groupsof morethanaboutfifty peopl~.

FurtherLoans~p~nd on Timely Repayment

After the first loans are made to a group, it cannotre~ivemoreloansuntil thefirst arep~idback.Someschemesallow further loansafteracertai percentage,say75%, hasbeenrepaid.

GenderLending ~‘

Loansmadeto womentendto havebetterrepaymentrat~sthanloansmadeto men. In somecases,the differencehasbeenso greatthatthecreditfaci~4tyhasstoppedmaking loansto menentirely. As well, incoi~’egeneratedby womentendsto b~investedin thefamily...in food,clothing,school feesfor childrenandso on, while income\~eneratedby mentendsto beinvestmentin men’sactivities. Women’s income,therefore\impactsmoredirectly oncommunitydevelopmentandimprovementin thequality o, ife.

LendWherethePeopleAre

Micro-creditfacilitators havethemostsuccessin lendingfund~aswell ashigherrepaymentrates,whentheyoperateatthecommunitylevel. Programmes~iich dependupongroupscoming to an office in town to receiveloansandmakepayments\endto be remotefrompeople’slivesand do not farewell in the longrun.

Withdrawal Signals

Themeasurementof signalsor triggersfor initiating theWithdrawal~rocesswould bestbe


•

doneon two levels. Thefirst level would measurebasicindicators,suchascommltteefunctioning,waterpoint operations,andimplementationofotheractivities,usingasimple,checklistformat. Thekebelereportercould takeon thetaskof routinemeasuremetitat th~kebelelevel, with thesupportoftheWPC. At theworeda level, theWPCwould perform ~ietask. in consultationwith Zonaland Regionalpersonnel. ‘

Thesecondlevel would be implementedwhenfirst level measurementindicatedtha\Withdrawalcouldbe begun. This would involve a moresophisticatedanalysisof committeefunctioningand progresson activitiesandwould taketheform of a ‘mini-consultancy’,\combiningon-the-groundinvestigationwith desl~work comparingthesite to establishet3,,normsfor Withdrawal. Appendix H, ~pport WfthdrawalIndicators,providesa \comprehensivelist of indicators,the level eachwould be measuredon, and theGroup (l.)tor3) identifying thecomplexityof the measurement.

At the sametime, discussionswould be initiatedamongthevariousProgrammepartnerstodevelopa consensusconcerningWithdrawalfrom thesiteandthe timing andsequenceoft eWithdrawal steps. Any further interventionsneededbefore,or during, Withdrawalwouldhopefully be identified at this time.

AppendicesI, PrimaryprogrammeSupportWithdrawaiCheckjJ~t= kebelelevel, andJ,PrimarySupport WithdrawalCheck t- woreda ye)~,aredraftswhich canhe usedtodevelopframeworksfor level onemeasurement.

SequencingWithdrawal

Figure 5.1, Stepsin theWithdrawalProcess,outlinestheprocessof withdrawal. Whilewithdrawalfrom eachkebeleandworedashouldbe dealtwith asauniqueeventandshouldbe undertakenusingaplandevelopedspecificallyfor that site, therewill be anumberofcommonelementsin eachplanandit is probablethat in mo~tcasesa similar sequenceofeventswill occur.

In a few cases~theKCC might taketheinitiative, andRWSEP\night aswell, but theWoredaProgrammeCoordinatoris themostlikely sourceof initiation ft?r withdrawalat thekehelelevel. Oneareaof discussionshouldfocuson thoseareasof supportwhich canbe withdrawnin the first stage. Usuaiiy, thefirst areato havesupportwithdrawnwill be small scaleirrigation,asRWSEPsupportsonly theprovisionofhandtools in this area,a onetime cost.This would be followed by withdrawal from othersoil and waterconservationactivities. Thisis tokenwithdrawalbut is a significantfirst step. Small successesar~important,astheybuildconfidenceat the communitylevel, both in theirability to conductadtivitieswithout financialsupportandin thewithdrawalprocessitself.

Thenextareato havesupportwithdrawnwill usually be nurserydevelopment.Again,Programmesupportis limited in this area,althoughmoresignificantthanfor small scaleirrigation, and sowithdrawal from supportingtheseactivitiesshouldnot havetoo greatanimpact.

If thekebelehasachievedtheANRS targetof 32%watercoverage,supportto waterpointconstructionwill havealreadyceased.If not,efforts shouldbe madeto attainthat target. Ifthis is not feasible,anagreementshouldbe reachedto withdraw supportto this areaanyway.


‘a ~

Wit~drawalof supportto sanitationactivitieswould coincidewith this.

Withdra~alof ~upportthroughtheCommunity Fundshouldnot be doneuntil thereis aviable credit facility to takeits place.

Supp$~tto animalhealthis anewinitiative for RWSEP,in cooperationwith BoA. Theconyfructionof ruralro~~dsis anothernewventure. Both oftheseelementshavebeeng~eratedout ofcommunityplansandare likely tq havesignificantimpact on rural quality oflife, aswell as supportingIncomeGenerationactivitiesandotherProgrammeinitiatives. It is

~nclearw/~at thestatusof theseinitiatives are,andhow withdrawalmight impactthese\~ct~vitie~’As in all SupportWithdrawaldecisio4s,thecircumstancesof a particularcase

shaild l~�takeninto accountbeforewithdrawal~xoceeds.

/1 / H/Institjctionalization of an Effective Process~Government Commitment to Maintenance

and ~xpansion of RWSEPJ / An e~aminationof Figure4.2, RWSEPEntry Process,showsa complexandmulti-facetedset

of interactions,mostof which seemto haveonly a marginalconnectionwith theprovision ofrural watersupply. Thesuccessof theProgrammeshouldunderlinethefact that theseinteractionsarea necessarypartof successfullyimplementingwatersupply,or any otherdevelopmentactivity at thecommunitylevel. This is justastrue in urbansettingsasin ruralones.

It is expectedthat theGovernmentof Et~iopia,AmharaNationalRegionalState,willcontinueto maintainandto expandRW~EPthroughandbeyondPhaseII. In orderfor this tooccur,GoEwill needto internalizeandjinstitutionalizea developmentprocessbaseduponwide andfull participationat all levels~gendersensitivity,andmulti-sectorality.

In theAppraisalReport,Drs Vainio-frlattila andHarrispoint out that atRegionallevel onlyWAO, and to a lesserdegreeBoH,hasbeensystematicin integratingRWSEPplanning intotheirregionalplans. In spiteof rl~toricto thecontrary,thereappearsto be little evidenceofmulti-sectora~’cooperationoutsic~eofRWSEP,and little interestby theBureauwhich ismandatedto providewatersupply in thevery successfulRWSEPprocess.Thesefactorsmitigateagainstthecontinuationof theProgramme.

Thereare balancingpositive factors,however. Therearea numberofprofessionalstaff invariousBureauxwho b~liev~in theProgrammeand in theeffectivenessof theapproach.TheAppraisalReportrecommendsthat RWSEPmakesignificantefforts to familiarizeseniormanagementin theRegionjwiththeutility andeffectivenessof participation,gendersensitivityand multi-sectorality.This will hopefullybe done,with positiveeffect. BoPED,beingmulti-sectoralby mandate,canplay an effectiverole in facilitatingacquiesenceto atleastinter-sectoralcooperation,if notmulti-sectoralplanningandimplementation. It alsoappearscommittedto doing so.

At woreda level, thesituationis lesspolarized. Theprofessionalcadreis small, resourcesarescarce,andsharingis astandardpractice. Woredafunctionaries,however,dependupondirection,aswell asbudget,from ZoneandRegion.If that directiondoesnot supportparticipation,gendersensitivityandmulti-sectorality,it becomesextremelydifficult to followthrough.

A Long arid Careful Farewell 38

Commitmentis thekey word. If GoEis willing andable,atall levels,to commit to thecontinuationof aprocesswhichhasbeenprovento work, theProgrammewill continue,expandandreplicate. If not,theProgrammewill fadeaway.


rural water supply and environmental programme … · barcode: a long and careful farewell. table...

Documents