Almost half of the 102 WASH evaluation reports were not reviewed for quality by the UNICEF global evaluation report oversight system (GEROS) that was only introduced in 2010. Among the ones that have been quality rated, a third were rated “highly satisfactory” (one report rated “outstanding”). Almost half were rated “mostly satisfactory” and a fifth “unsatisfactory”. This distribution is similar to the distribution of non-WASH evaluations.
Since reports rated unsatisfactory have been excluded from the meta-analysis while sustainability check reports – not submitted to the GEROS – have been included, the share of each category in the evidence base reviewed is slightly different. Unrated evaluations represent 43% of the sample reviewed (less than in the complete set of all reports), mostly satisfactory ones 31% (higher share), highly satisfactory and outstanding one 26% (higher share as well), and unsatisfactory evaluations 0%. A more detailed qualitative assessment of the treatment of equity, scalability and sustainability in the reports is developed in the corresponding sections below.
4.Equity in UNICEF-supported WASH programmes: findings
This section presents findings on equity: treatment of related issues in UNICEF WASH evaluations reports; overall performance of WASH programming based on evaluation reports; findings by stage in the programme cycle; findings by type of WASH intervention (water supply interventions, sanitation and hygiene, WASH in schools and health centres); and specific findings by population groups. Each sub-section includes a summary of both positive and negative findings, as well as references to the individual evaluation reports listed in annex 10.1, and references to informative case studies presented in section 9.1.
4.1.Treatment of equity issues in evaluation reports -
Almost 90% of the reports selected for this meta-analysis address equity issues to some extent (65 reports from 36 countries, plus the global and regional evaluations).
-
Most evaluation reports, especially recent reports, address equity issues in a dedicated section or as an answer to specific evaluation questions included under other evaluation criteria. A clear trend towards more equity-focussed WASH evaluations has been observed since 2010 with most findings being found in these reports.
-
However, none of the evaluation reports reviewed evaluated equity in a systematic or complete way. Evaluations do not analyse the situation of all vulnerable population groups, and the analyses do not cover all successive stages of the programme cycle.
-
Most evaluation findings discuss equity in programme design and implementation. The targeting strategy and the actual reduction in equities is not well documented. The greatest information gap is how UNICEF identifies the most vulnerable populations and what monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are place to track them.
-
Most equity related findings relate to the poor and most deprived (65%); only 15% of findings focus on women and girls. Remote populations, the aged and disabled, populations at risk of climate change, or ethnic and religious minorities etc. are even more rarely discussed.
-
Equity is most often discussed in relation to sanitation and hygiene interventions, and to a less extent in relation to water supply interventions. Equity issues are rarely addressed when it comes to WASH interventions in schools and health centres.
-
This suggests a lack of strong equity focus in both WASH programming and WASH evaluations, as further substantiated in the below sections.
4.2.Overall programmes’ performance -
There is a balance of positive, negative and mixed/inconclusive findings in the evidence base, for all population categories and all type of WASH intervention.
-
Overall, the meta-analysis found that UNICEF WASH programmes often benefit the deprived, the vulnerable, and women in their chosen areas of intervention. This is because these groups often suffer the most with lack of access to WASH services, therefore any improvements reach these groups in particular. Moreover, communities tend to put internal solidarity measures in place that benefit the poorest and most vulnerable households.
-
However, the analysis of evaluations suggests that UNICEF WASH programming does not support these ‘automatic benefits’ with sufficient and adequate equity-focussed approaches related to the following: geographical and intra-community targeting, technical guidelines, financial and non-financial instruments, empowerment measures, and monitoring and evaluation systems.
-
Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) interventions appear to be the most equity-sensitive among all types of WASH interventions.
4.3.Findings by stage in the programme cycle -
Equity issues can be addressed at each stage of the programme cycle: situation analysis identifying equity issues; geographical targeting of the intervention with an equity lens; equity-sensitive programme design and implementation; equity-lensed monitoring and evaluation system; results/performance in actually reducing pre-identified inequities. Evaluation reports do not systematically discuss performance of UNICEF WASH programming at each of these stages. Evaluation evidence are particularly missing on situation analysis and M&E systems: they together make up only 15% of all evaluation findings related to equity.
-
With regards to situation analysis, only two evaluations mention that an equity study was conducted in order to better understand the needs of and obstacles faced by those who have difficulty accessing WASH services (Kenya 2013 and Pakistan 2014). Based on evaluation reports, equity doesn’t seem to be included in most situation analyses. Equity might still be taken into account in WASH programme planning and design, but this process may not documented in evaluations or may be based on standard guidelines or general ‘good practices’. Therefore, specific needs of and obstacles faced by vulnerable groups locally may not be well known.
-
Evaluations found that WASH programmes in general adequately address the needs of the most vulnerable populations as both economic poverty and social vulnerability and exclusion are associated with limited access to both water and sanitation. Improved access to water is not only a need, it is also one of the top priorities of these population groups as reported by most evaluation reports. Improved sanitation is usually less of a priority before awareness raising activities start.
-
Among the 36 WASH country programmes whose targeting strategy was examined, nine (25%) are reported to have used a well-thought out, equity-focussed geographical targeting strategy to identify and reach the most in need (Burkina Faso 2009, Ghana 2009 and 2012, Malawi 2011, Sudan 2012, Ethiopia 2012, Burundi 2013, Bosnia-Herzegovina 2013, Indonesia 2013 and 2014, Pakistan 2013 and 2014). In Sudan, the programme targeted scattered and remote areas with poor WASH conditions as identified by national surveys, and areas with high number of internally displaced people. Within these areas, it used criteria for the selection of intervention sites. In Ethiopia, within each targeted zone, the selection of beneficiary villages and schools was done at district level by taking the WASH conditions into account as well as the economics status of the community and the internal WASH budget or revenue of the school. In Kenya, UNICEF targeted arid and semi-arid lands as well as flood prone areas. Individual projects submitted to Water Service Boards for funding were prioritised for areas of high Deprivation Index. In Pakistan, programme areas demonstrated greater deprivation in terms of poverty, insecurity and sanitation coverage and were also prioritised based on UNICEF-Pakistan’s Child- Wellbeing Index.
-
Among the other 27 WASH programmes (three quarters of those evaluated), some did not clearly demonstrated a well-designed targeting strategy while others have targeted relatively better-off areas in terms of income poverty or WASH conditions (Nepal 2009, DRC 2011, Kenya 2012, Burkina Faso 2012, Nigeria 2014, Bangladesh 2014, etc.). The latter case occurred notably when other factors were taken into account such as coordination with other health, nutrition, education or humanitarian interventions; complementarity with other donors; priority to past intervention areas; or easy access (remote areas being hard to reach in many countries for logistical and security reasons). Equity criteria are particularly difficult to realise where the decision ultimately lies in the government that may have its own policy or political agenda.
-
Several evaluations highlight the fact that remote populations are more difficult and expensive to reach because of logistical issues and transportation costs, because of the lack of local capacity and because of the lack of private drilling or construction companies ready to go there. Peri-urban settlements are also challenging because of land tenure issues. (India 2008, Malawi 2009, Egypt 2010, Mauritania 2013, Nigeria 2014, global CATS evaluation report 2014)
-
More than half of the programmes are reported as having ensured the participation of beneficiaries including the poor, vulnerable and women. However the extent of this participation and its influence in programme design, planning and implementation modalities is not well documented. Based on evaluation evidence, actual participation seem to happen at a later stage in the programme implementation process. Participation of beneficiaries in design and planning is difficult to organise especially in the case of large-scale programmes. Their involvement in the technology choice is not always ensured as programme managers tend to favour other financial, technical, hydrogeological or policy-related factors.
-
Financial contribution is at the basis of the CLTS approach but much less common in other types of WASH interventions because beneficiaries are considered too poor to contribute or because it is difficult to manage properly at a large scale.
-
Lack of equity studies and limited participation of vulnerable groups do not mean that their needs and interests are totally overlooked by UNICEF WASH interventions. The majority of WASH programmes were reported to include some equity dimensions in their design and implementation, notably in the technical drawings of WASH infrastructure and in their management modalities. However these tend to be generic/standardised and rarely specifically tailored/adapted to the local context.
-
Evidence on the results or success of these equity measures is rare, primarily because of the lack of an equity-lensed M&E system: although a few reports evoked the collection of some sex-disaggregated data on a routine basis, only three mentioned data sensitivity to other equity parameters such as wealth, age, disability, HIV status, vulnerability without family support etc. (Bosnia-Herzegovina 2013, Pakistan 2014, Zimbabwe 2011). This can be due to the complexity and/or resource-intensive process required to collect these data.
-
Where evidence of results of equity measures exists, it is mixed: Obvious inadequacies in the conception or realisation of WASH facilities are often documented. Inclusion of vulnerable groups in behaviour change and training activities or their involvement in management bodies have had some positive results in terms of self-empowerment – when actual participation happened – but did not lead to a change in patterns of inequity, in intra-household and community decision-making dynamics, and in the underlying determinants of inequalities according to the 12 evaluations that investigated this question in Sub Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America: Cambodia 2009, Malawi 2009, Bolivia 2011, Zimbabwe 2011, Mozambique 2012, Sudan 2012, DRC 2012, Pakistan 2013, Burundi 2013, Kenya 2013, Madagascar 2014, and Timor Leste 2015. Several of these reports mention traditional, socio-cultural values as an obstacle for an actual involvement of vulnerable people in the decision-making process for site selection, management and accounting arrangements and tariff setting, as well as for a fair distribution of programme benefits, including training opportunities and income-generating activities.
Using the colour coding previously described, performance related to equity by stage in the programme cycle can be summarized as follows:
Situation analysis
|
Geographical targeting
|
Programme design & implementation
|
M&E system
|
Results in actually reducing inequities
|
The below section develops the analysis by population group.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
