External Evaluation of UN-HABITAT's Water and Sanitation Trust Fund - Part 1: Synthesis Report

8/12/2019 External Evaluation of UN-HABITAT's Water and Sanitation Trust Fund - Part 1: Synthesis Report

1/92

EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF

UN-HABITATS WATER AND

SANITATION TRUST FUNDPART 1: SYNTHESIS REPORT

2011


2/92

United Nations Human Settlements ProgrammeNairobi 2011

EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF

UN-HABITATS WATER AND

SANITATION TRUST FUND

PART 1: SYNTHESIS REPORT

Stein-Erik Kruse Anton Rijsdijk Zozan Kaya Hugo Roche


3/92

ii EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF UN-HABITATS WATER AND SANITATION TRUST FUND

External Evaluation of UN-HABITATs Water and Sanitation Trust Fund

First published in Nairobi in 2011 by UN-HABITAT.Copyright United Nations Human Settlements Programme 2011

All rights reservedUnited Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)P. O. Box 30030, 00100 Nairobi GPO KENYATel: 254-020-7623120 (Central Office)www.unhabitat.org

HS Number: HS/071/11EISBN Number (Volume): 978-92-1-132365-8

Disclaimer

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication donot imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of theUnited Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its

authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers of boundaries.

Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the United NationsHuman Settlements Programme, the United Nations, or its Member States.

Excerpts may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source isindicated.

Editors: Dominic OReilly and James OhayoDesign & Layout: Irene Juma

Photos UN-HABITAT


4/92

PART 1: SYNTHESIS REPORT iii

Acronyms

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AfDB African Development Bank

AMCOW African Ministers Council of Water

APMCHUD Asia Pacific Ministerial Conference on Housing and Human

Settlement

CA Cooperation Agreement

ENOF Enhanced Normative & Operational Framework

LVW Lake Victoria Water and Sanitation

MDG Millennium Development Goal

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

Microsan Micro credit for Sanitation

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MSF Multi Stakeholders Forum

MTSIP The Medium Term Strategic and Institutional Plan

NGO Non Governmental OrganizationOIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services

SEAMEO South-East Asia Ministers of Education Office

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNON United Nations Office in Nairobi

WAC Water for African Cities Programme

WAC The Water for Asian Cities Programme

WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

W & S Water and Sanitation

WSTF Water and Sanitation Trust Fund

WATSAN Water and Sanitation


5/92

iv EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF UN-HABITATS WATER AND SANITATION TRUST FUND


6/92

PART 1: SYNTHESIS REPORT v

Executive Summary

During the WSTFs Advisory Board meetingin 2010, the Government of Norwayannounced its intention to undertakean external evaluation of its supportto the Trust Fund. Subsequently, theGovernments of Norway, Spain andthe Netherlands, in collaboration withUN-HABITAT, decided to undertake theevaluation jointly.

The purpose is to to contributeto refinement, adjustments andimprovements in the Trust Fundsdirections and practices. The evaluationshould be formative and forward looking,strategically-focused, build on existinginformation and evaluations and recognizethe special situation for the Trust Fund as funding from 2011 has been severelyreduced and the Fund needs to reassessits role and make decisions about future

direction.

The report consists of four chaptersdiscussing to what extent WSTF hasfour characteristics which determine itsperformance:

The ability to articulate and maintainan identity reflecting the purposeand strategies of WSTF and thecomparative advantage of UN-HABITAT.

The ability to organize and establisheffective systems and proceduresand ensure that human and financialresources are adequate.

The ability to work effectively withand through partners.

The ability to deliver and achieveresults.

The final chapter presents the main

conclusions and recommendations.

The evaluation used four differentmethods to collect data and information:(a) review of documents, (b) interviewswith UN-HABITAT staff and keystakeholders, (c) visits to selected regionsand countries (Mekong, Lake Victoriaand India) and (d) a web-based surveyobtaining feedback from staff andpartners in all partner countries.

The team was requested to prepare ashort synthesis. Such a report will not do

justice to the broad and rich experienceof the Trust Fund. The synthesis seeks tofocus on issues of strategic importance.Hence, it is supplemented by regional andcountry studies providing more in-depthinformation and analysis. The studies canbe found in Part 2 of the report and asummary in Annex 6 in this synthesis.


7/92

vi EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF UN-HABITATS WATER AND SANITATION TRUST FUND

MAIN CONCLUSIONS

POLICY AND STRATEGY

The WSTF strategy and activities arehighly relevant by focusing on water andsanitation - fundamental prerequisitesin urban slum development, targetingthe vulnerable and often neglectedpopulations in small urban centers andpoverty pockets in larger cities, forging awide range of partnerships, focusing oninnovation, learning and replicable models

for dissemination and use and operatingat global, regional and country level withcombined operational and normativeinterventions.

WSTF was originally designed asa demonstration and pilot-testingprogramme but has spread its resourcesmore widely, making it difficult to achieveimpact in a few areas and in areas mostrelevant for learning and replication.

WSTF has prioritizEd the roles as modeltester and service provider at communityand municipal level in the Water for Citiesprogramme and the two replicable model-setting initiatives.

The programme has played other roles toa varying extent:

Gradually been involved at nationallevel in sector reform processes, butsporadically and not as part of a

strategic effort.Successfully supported regional andcountry network building using itsconvening power as a UN agency.

Been more involved in the applicationand testing of tools and methodsthan in applied research andgeneration of new knowledge.

Maintained a strong operational focusin country and regional programmes,

while the learning aspects have beenweaker and not sufficiently integrated

in the operational work.

Given the limited financial resources,WSTF currently revolves around toomany thematic areas and focus issomewhat blurred between normativeand operational activities, learning/documentation, software and hardware,global and regional/country programmes.

PROCESSES AND

RESOURCES

The Trust Fund has helped establish astrategic programmatic approach withagreed and simplified planning andreporting procedures.

The Trust Fund has secured significantcontributions from bilateral donors since2004 (approximately USD 120m million)and 75 per cent of the funds have beenprovided as un-earmarked resourcesproviding WSTF with important flexibility.

The expected budget for 2011 wasapprox. USD 15million, but has beenreduced with two thirds to USD 5million.

The withdrawal of support from theGovernment of Spain creates considerablereputational risks for the programme.WSTF has signed agreements which willeither have to be cancelled or drasticallyreduced.

The multi-donor support to the Trust Fund

has gradually been eroded as only theNorwegian Government provides currentlycore resources to the Fund.

WSTF is project- and activity-driven, partlyas a result of how the programme isfunded. Country strategies are missingand these would provide an overview ofwhat WSTF does, why, with whom, howand where.

WSTF does not have a strong global

monitoring and evaluation system which


8/92

PART 1: SYNTHESIS REPORT vii

would be learning tools to assess progressand performance on a regular basis in

order to analyse what works and whatdoesnt.

PARTNERSHIPS

WSTF has successfully established a broadrange of partnerships with governments,civil society, private sector, developmentbanks and other donors.

However:

There is scope for strengtheningWSTFs participation in developmentpartner coordination at country level.

WSTF could have played a strongerrole as strategic influencer atnational and sector level.

The partnerships between WSTFand the regional banks have been ofmutual benefit and importance but

more in programmatic than financialterms. The programme has helpedfast track loans and given them morepro-poor qualities.

WSTF should maintain its autonomyin all partnerships to analyse criticallywhat works and what doesnt andsupport innovative learning.

WSTF has, to a large extent,established its own presence incountries with Chief Technical

Advisors and kept only formalcommunication lines with RTCD andUN-HABITATs regional and countryoffices.

ACHIEVEMENTS AND

RESULTS

What UN-HABITAT can do is to facilitateand catalyse change. The contribution

of UN-HABITAT should, in many cases, be

measured by means other than numericalindicators and long-term MDG impact.

Major stakeholders rate WSTFsperformance as very high. A generalresponse is that projects are making asubstantial and direct impact from arelatively small investment. The projectsare considered good value for moneyand a leverage effect on follow-up andcomplementary investments.

The programme has supported severalglobal normative activities. Another type

of evaluation would have been requiredto measure results of global and regionaladvocacy activities and documenting theresults of capacity building.

WSTF has prioritized and achieved thebest results as a model tester and serviceprovider at community and municipallevel. The programme has achievedsignificant results at community andmunicipal level.

However:

There is no information on long-termimpact - mostly on outputs and outcomesat project level. It is not feasible tomeasure aggregate results at country,regional and country levels.

WSTF has supported a broad rangeof training events and prepared andintroduced technical tools and guidelines


9/92

viii EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF UN-HABITATS WATER AND SANITATION TRUST FUND

but with limited systematic informationabout impact.

The level of involvement in research andgeneration of new knowledge is relatively

limited, but with interesting examples.

The Lake Victoria Programme hassuccessfully continued in a new phasewith a new donor with replication in othertowns. However, there is no systematicinformation about model replicationin other programmes and countrieswhich would have been interesting in aprogramme with model replication as anexplicit objective.

RECOMMENDATIONS

TO WSTF SENIOR MANAGEMENT:

Prepare a paper to be discussed withthe Advisory Board assessing thecurrent status of the programme andpresenting alternative scenarios.

Consider the advantages and

disadvantages ofthree alternativesfuture directions:

A re-establishing approach *with the aim to identify new

donors and mobilise newresources in order to re-establishthe programme at the normallevel of funding. In this scenario,the current profile and balancebetween roles and interventionswill be maintained including thenumber of staff.

A status quo but lower level*approach - with the aim tocontinue with the same profile

and mix of programmes, butat a much lower level. Someactivities may be cancelled, butmost normative and operationalprogrammes will continue.

A re-focussing strategy with*the aim to identify a few coreprogrammes in which WSTFshould invest its resources whilea large number will be left out.

This evaluation recommends the thirdstrategy and advices WSTF to considerthe following options:

Reduce the number of*operational regional and countryprogrammes, in particular thesize of the capital investmentcomponents.

Regionalise and make the*operational programmesmore autonomous in close

consultation with the RegionalOffices.

Maintain the field testing and*real life laboratory functionin cooperation with researchinstitutes in a few selectedgeographic and thematic areas.

Reinforce efforts to establish a*system for global and nationalmonitoring of W&S indicatorsand achievement of MDGs.


10/92

PART 1: SYNTHESIS REPORT ix

Strengthen the learning and*documentation component of

the programme in cooperationwith universities and researchinstitutes.

Strengthen global advocacy,*networking and preparation ofguidelines and technical tools.If necessary, reduce the directinvolvement in capacity building.

Intensify engagement with other*UN partners in formulation ofprogrammes.

Strengthen the involvement in*national policy and sector reformprocesses.

Dont do what NGOs and*others can do better and moreefficiently.

Continue with capacity building*of local partners, preferablythrough long-term coaching

rather than short-term trainingsessions

Continue partnerships with*the regional banks, while

maintaining its independenceand integrity as a UNorganisation.

Review existing human resource*capacity and expertise based onthe requirements of the newstrategic priorities.

For UN-HABITAT and WSTF SeniorManagement

Review the existing organisational

and divisional structure and explorehow the Urban Water and SanitationBranch can maintain its strengths anddevelop stronger horizontal linkageswith other parts of the organisation.

Restate and if necessary rephrase theimportance of water and sanitationwithin the broader agenda forsustainable urban development.

Discuss the role and viability of

Trust Funds in general and WSTF inparticular.


11/92

x EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF UN-HABITATS WATER AND SANITATION TRUST FUND

For the WSTF Advisory Board

Ensure that WSTFs future role

in UN-HABITAT is discussed inthe Committee for PermanentRepresentatives and other appropriatefora.

Provide professional and financialsupport to ensure a smooth change/transition of the programme.

Continue funding (of particularimportance for the Government

of Norway) in order to protectinvestments and ongoing activities,reduce negative effects and allow arepositioning of the Trust Fund.

Discuss the future viability of theWater and Sanitation Trust Fund.


12/92

PART 1: SYNTHESIS REPORT xi

Table of Contents

Executive Summary v

Main Conclusions vi

Processes and Resources vi

Partnerships vii

Achievements and Results vii

Recommendations viii

CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1

1.1 Background and Purpose 11.2 Analytical Framework 1

1.3 Team and Methods 2

1.4 Limitations 3

CHAPTER 2: Policies and Strategies 4

2.1 Relevance of the Strategy 4

2.2 WSTF Roles 5

CHAPTER 3 : Processes and Resources 12

3.1 The Role of the Trust Fund 123.2 Institutional Structure 13

3.3 Planning and Reporting Systems 14

3.4 Financial Resources 15

CHAPTER 4: Partnerships 18

4.1 Partnerships with Governments and Donors 18

4.2 Partnership with Regional Development Banks and other UN Agencies 19

4.3 Partnerships with Private Sector and Universities 21

4.4 Internal Coordination 22

CHAPTER 5: Achievements and Results 24

5.1 Evidence of Results 24

5.2 Capturing UN-HABITATs Contribution to Change 31

5.3 Performance Indicators 32

CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations 33

6.1 Conclusions 33

6.2 Recommendations 36


13/92

xii EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF UN-HABITATS WATER AND SANITATION TRUST FUND

Annex 1: Terms of Reference 38

External Evaluation of the Operations of the Water and Sanitation Trust Fund 38

1.1 Introduction and background 38

1.2 Mid-term Review of the Water and Sanitation Trust Fund Activities 39

1.3 The Trust Fund Strategic Plan (2008-2012) 40

1.4 Impact Study of Trust Fund Activities 40

1.5 OIOS Audit of Trust Fund Activities 41

2. The Purpose of the Evaluation 41

4. Scope of the Evaluation 43

5. Evaluation Methodology 43

6. Evaluation Team Composition and selection 44

Policies The Ability to Maintain an Identity Reflecting the Purpose,

Comparative Advantage, Values and Strategies of the WSTF 45

Annex 2: Analytical Model 45

Processes The Ability to Organize and Establish Effective Systems and

Procedures and Ensure That Human and Financial Resources are Available 46

Partnership The Ability to Respond and Adapt to new Demands and Work

Effectively With and Through Partners 46

Products The Ability to Provide Services and Products. 47

Annex 3: Overview of Programme 48

Background 48Description of the Programme 48

Annex 4: Resource Materials and Conferences 54

Annex 5: Self Assessment Survey 59

Annex 6: Summary of Country Studies 72

Ethiopia and India 72

Lake Victoria (LVWatsan) 74

The Mekong Region Water and Sanitation Initiative 75The Latin America and Caribbean Region 77


14/92

PART 1: SYNTHESIS REPORT 1

Introduction1

1.1 BACKGROUND AND

PURPOSE

During the Water and Sanitation TrustFunds Advisory Board meeting in April2010, the Government of Norwayannounced its intention to undertakean external evaluation of its supportto the Trust Fund. Following this call,

the Governments of Norway, Spain andthe Netherlands, in collaboration withUN-HABITAT, decided to undertake theevaluation jointly.

According to the Terms of Reference1,the purpose of the evaluation is to tocontribute to refinement, adjustmentsand improvements in the Trust Fundsdirections and practices. It should alsoprovide UN-HABITAT, the Trust Funds

donors, recipient countries and otherstakeholders with recommendations forfuture action.

The assessment should encompass theentire Trust Fund activities from 2004-2010, including the global normativeactivities, the Lake Victoria Water andSanitation Initiative and Mekong RegionWater and Sanitation Initiative.

The evaluation should be:

Formative and forward looking synthesise and assess results andlessons learned until now, but alsosuggest changes in design, modeof implementation, governance andmanagement.

Strategically-focused - assess therelevance and effectiveness ofpolicies, processes, partnerships andresults and not specific interventions.Issues of financial managementshould not be discussed since an

1 Annex 1.

audit was carried out recently.

Building on existing information andevaluations in particular the Mid-Term Review, the more recent impactstudies and available progress reports.

Recognizing the special situation forthe Trust Fund as the funding from2011 has been severely reduced and

the programme needs to reassess itsrole and make decisions about futuredirection.

1.2 ANALYTICAL

FRAMEWORK

The team prepared a framework forstructuring the evaluation processsuggesting that the Water and Sanitation

Trust Fund needs four key abilities toachieve its overall objectives2:

The ability to articulate and maintainan identity reflecting the purposeand strategies of WSTF and thecomparative advantage of UN-HABITAT. It is essential that theprogramme articulates clearly whatit wants to achieve including itsadded value. The programmeshould be relevant, technically sound

and sufficiently focused with anappropriate balance between variousroles and activities.

The ability to organize and establisheffective systems and proceduresand ensure that human andfinancial resources are adequate.It is important that WSTF haseffective systems and procedures fortranslating objectives into activities.The programme must also have

access to sufficient financial resources

2 The framework is explained in more detail in Annex 3.


15/92

2 EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF UN-HABITATS WATER AND SANITATION TRUST FUND

and the right staff in order toeffectuate a pro-poor, gender and

rights-based programme.

The ability to work effectively withand through partners. With limitedresources, the Trust Fund needs abroad range of partners donorsfor providing financial resources,technical partners providing adviceand coordinating and implementingagencies. In order to succeed as acatalytic and innovative initiative, theselection of partners is crucial.

The ability to deliver and achieveresults. Good policies, processesand partners are necessary, but noguarantee for making a differenceat national and local levels. TheTrust Fund should be able to deliver,measure and document short- andlong term results.

1.3 TEAM AND METHODS

The evaluation has been carried out bya team of four international and tworegional consultants:

The Government of Norway selectedthe Principal Consultant (Stein-ErikKruse) responsible for the overallcoordination and preparation of thesynthesis report. He was supported byanother Norwegian evaluator (ZozanKaya).

The Government of the Netherlandsselected an international consultant(Anton Rijsdijk) responsible for LakeVictoria and the Mekong regionssupported by consultants in therespective regions (Susan Keyatta andDanh Soan).

The Government of Spain identifiedthe international consultantresponsible for Latin America and the

Caribbean (Hugo Roche).

A Steering Group commissioned theevaluation and has been responsible for

its oversight. The group consisted of theDirector of WSTF, representatives fromthe Governments of Norway (chair),the Netherlands and Spain. They havereviewed and accepted the InceptionReport, discussed and commented onthe draft report and approved the finalreport. The WSTF provided logistical andadministrative support to the evaluationteam.

The evaluation has used the following

methods for collecting data andinformation:

Review of documents before andduring the review.3

Interviews with UN-HABITAT staff andkey stakeholders.

Visits to selected countries andprogrammes4.

A web-based survey obtaining

feedback from staff and partners inall partner countries5.

The evaluation process started withreviewing relevant documents. The teamthen prepared an Inception Report presenting the consultants interpretationof its task, aiming to focus the assessmenton a set of strategic issues and questions.

The team then met in Nairobi to agreeon a common approach to the evaluation

and conduct the initial interviews with UN-HABITAT staff.

Four regional/country visits were carriedout:6

The Lake Victoria programme including visits to Kenya, Uganda andTanzania.

3 Annex 24 All the case studies are presented in Part II. A summary

can be found in Annex 6 of this report.5 A summary of the feedback of the survey can be found

in Annex 5.6 See case studies: Part 2


16/92


The Mekong programme includingvisits to Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia.

The Latin American programme including visits to Bolivia, Nicaraguaand Mexico7.

The India programme includingvisits to Delhi, Indore, Bhopal andGwalior.

Team members briefly visited Ghana and

Zanzibar and attended the African WaterWeek in Addis Ababa in November 2010.

The Principal Evaluator prepared the draftsynthesis report based on regional andcountry studies which was subsequentlyreviewed by all team members anddiscussed in the Steering Committee. Thefinal report was completed based on theircomments.

1.4 LIMITATIONS

The team has not visited all countriessupported by WSTF. Consequently, theanalysis, findings and conclusions may notbe applicable to all programme countries.The comprehensive web-based survey wassupposed to provide global feedback fromall programme countries and increase the

7 The regional report from Latin America is includedin Part 2, but was submitted too late to inform the

synthesis report.

external validity of the findings. However,the response rate was relatively low. Thefeedback is interesting, but there arelimitations in using self-assessments.

Several projects are still beingimplemented. Hence, it is premature toexpect long-term objectives to be achievedand that impact is fully documented.Impact is often the result of complex non-linear processes that require a longer time

to be properly assessed and understood.

The assessment of results depends to alarge extent on the availability and qualityof data and information. The short countryvisits were not sufficient to compensatefor gaps and weaknesses in existing data.However, the team sought to check andverify information through the countryvisits.

The team was requested to prepare a

short synthesis report. This will not dojustice to the broad and rich experienceof the Trust Fund. The synthesis seeks tofocus on issues of strategic importance.Hence, it is supplemented by regional andcountry reports providing more in-depthand specific information and analysis.

The evaluation has focused more onregional and country experiences thanthe global normative activities and therole of WSTF vis--visother internationalagencies in the W&S sector.


17/92


Policies and Strategies2

This chapter seeks to discuss to whatextent the policies and strategy for WSTare relevant, clear, well-balanced andfocused providing a solid basis forimplementation.

2.1 RELEVANCE OF THE

STRATEGYThe overall objective of the Water andSanitation Trust Fund is: To promote,facilitate and demonstrate an enablingenvironment for increased access toaffordable water and sanitation servicesand related infrastructure by the urbanpoor in partner countries.

The challenge has been to target problemsrelated to water and sanitation in new

urban areas and in peri-urban settlements,housing the urban poor. This is particularlypressing because estimates indicate that,by 2020, approximately 60 per cent of theworlds population will live in urban areas.Today, one billion urban residents in theworld live in slum conditions, and morethan 90 per cent of slums are in cities inthe developing world, where urbanizationhas become virtually synonymous withslum formation. Accordingly, a rapidly-growing number of medium to largecities are striving to meet the demands forwater from distant and degraded sourcesand finding new ways of responding torapid changes.

Pollution, lack of water supplies andmanagement are factors that contributefurther to the escalating urban watercrisis. In this context of changing urban/peri-urban and socio-economic challenges,the Trust Fund has prioritized the following

four areas:

Delivering sustainable services for thepoor.

Ensuring synergy between theartificial and natural environment.

Monitoring the MDGs and beyond.

Integrating infrastructure andhousing.

The Trust Fund was originally set up tocreate a symbiotic relationship betweenoperational and normative activities.The work of the Trust Fund followstwo approaches normative work(mainly applied research) leading to theidentification and development of newoperational activities and operationalprogrammes leading to the identificationand development of normative tools.In other words, the Trust Fund was

primarily conceived as a pilot testingand demonstration programme in orderto identify innovations in the water andsanitation sector, test and demonstratetheir viability in real life situations anddisseminate models with potentials forbroader replication.

The Strategic Plan has three outcomesfor defining success and measuringperformance:

Increased institutional capacity inpartner countries for advocating andimplementing pro-poor water andsanitation initiatives and policies withfocus of gender.

Increased flow of investment intowater and sanitation sector catalyzedby WSTF interventions.

Improved MDG monitoringmechanisms in place in partnercountries, with improvedbenchmarking of water andsanitation service providers.


18/92


The team finds the strategy highly relevantfor a number of reasons:

By focusing on water and sanitation,which are fundamental prerequisitesin urban slum development.

By targeting the vulnerable and oftenneglected populations in small poorurban centres and poverty pocketsin larger cities. Reaching the W&S-related MDG is a massive challenge insuch areas.

By promoting pro-poor governance

strategies and building models ofgood practice (such as community-based sanitation, water-demandmanagement, innovative waterand sanitation approaches andcapacity building of communities)for up scaling and replication bynational governments and regionaldevelopment banks.

By forging a wide range ofpartnerships with civil society,

municipalities and utilities, localand national governments anddevelopment partners.

By focusing on innovation, learningand software development addressingbarriers for reaching the poor withsustainable services for widespreaddissemination and use.

By operating at global, regionaland country level with combined

operational and normativeinterventions, like programmesupport, demonstration projects,capacity building, advocacy andresource mobilization.

The recent impact studies concluded thatthe WSTF mission is compelling and thescale of need is tremendous. Its focus onsolutions to improve sustainable WATSANservice development for the urban poor incities and towns and in improving gender

equality and sector information is widelyrecognized. WSTFs focus on solutions to

improve sustainable water and sanitationservice development for the urban poor in

cities and towns and in improving sectorinformation is widely recognized (MainReport Impact study 2010).

A similar conclusion can be drawn fromthe regional/country studies which wereconducted as part of this evaluation.Partners are unanimously satisfied withUN-HABITAT. They emphasize that theinternational clout by virtue of being aUN organization opens doors to othernetworks. UN- HABITAT has been able

to attract both technical and normativeexpertise which gives it a role asfacilitator, network builder and catalyst.Eighty per cent of all the respondents inthe stakeholder survey either agreed orstrongly agreed that WSTF has a strategywhich helps to clarify priorities andaddresses priority needs of the urban poor.

Despite these overall positive conclusions,there are dilemmas in the way thepurpose of the Trust Fund has beenoperationalized. More precisely, theprogramme has not focused sufficientlyon its original innovative model-buildingnature and drifted much further than itsoriginal objectives supporting useful, butnot essential activities for WSTF. Thesequestions will be discussed through ananalysis of roles which WSTF has sought toperform.

2.2 WSTF ROLESThe MTSIP Peer Review suggesteddefining what roles UN-HABITAT shouldplay and identify results in each of them recognizing the different criteria ofsuccess and helping UN-HABITAT to focuson results within its own special mandate.This evaluation selected five country leveland four global roles in order to discussthemost important roles for WSTF, where

it has invested most time and resources,and if the balance between roles has been


19/92


right and in line with what WSTF canand should do as a UN programme.

COUNTRY LEVEL ROLES:

Model builder or innovator,whereby WSTF becomes engagedin innovative and applied researchin order to identify and developnew social and technical models forpotential replication. This is not thesame as doing research, but ratherto initiate and fund, to follow closely

and receive the results from partnersand pilot schemes of an appliedresearch character.

Model tester , whereby WSTFidentifies promising technical andsocial models and brings themout for reality testing in specificcountry settings. The purpose isnot to deliver services, but learnfrom pilot experiences throughsystematic monitoring, evaluation and

documentation of experience.Policy influencer , whereby WSTFbecomes engaged in national policyand sector reform processes in orderto promote pro-poor policies andmodels that have proved themselvespromising.

Capacity builder, whereby WSTFbecomes involved in training

and strengthening of nationalinstitutions in order to prepare forimplementation of pro-poor policiesand replicable models.

Service provider , whereby WSTFprovides administrative capacitiesand/or financial support for theimplementation of projects in order toprovide and scale up W&S services.

GLOBAL ROLES:

Network builder , whereby WSTFstarts and initially convenes andcoordinates a regional and/or globalinitiative bringing together partners inthe area of water and sanitation forsharing of experiences and learning.

Advocacy is a role, whereby UN-HABITAT proactively tries to influencethe global agenda in water andsanitation and external partners.

Monitoring , whereby WSTF seeks toestablish and strengthen national andglobal mechanisms for monitoringMDG progress and achievements.

Resource mobilizer , whereby WSTFleverage catalyzes increased flowof investment into the water andsanitation sector.

Roles 1 2 3 4

Country Level:

Model builder x

Model tester X

Policy influencer x

Capacity builder X

Service provider x

Global:

Network builder X

Advocacy X

Monitoring x

Resource mobilization X


20/92


What roles have WSTF prioritized andwhere has it achieved most results? The

table summarizes the teams assessment(1= low 4= high):

FOCUS ON LOCAL LEVEL MODELTESTING AND OPERATIONALSERVICE DELIVERY

WSTF has prioritized the role as modeltester and service provider at communityand municipal level through the Water forCities programme and the two replicable

model setting initiatives. The emphasishas been down stream. The largestshare of resources has been invested atsub-national level in communities, smalltowns and cities. Sixty per cent of the totalbudget in 2009 was spent on country-leveloperations and 11 per cent on globalnormative work. There has also been afocus on delivering water and sanitationservices. In Lake Victoria, physicalimplementation has absorbed 86 per centof the budget but capacity building only 5per cent. In the Mekong region, the ratiois 84 per cent and 3 per cent.

Acknowledging regional and countryvariation, the impact studies comparedWSTFs work to that of a highly effectiveNGO, using its flexibility to seek outinteresting and relevant projects andfocusing on immediate impacts on theground, rather than proceeding from athought-out strategy and operating as the

governments lead partner in addressingthe medium- to longer-term challengesof the urban poor (Main Report ImpactStudy 2009).

This local-level community focus is,to a large extent, in line with therecommendations from the Mid Termreview which preceded the preparationof the new strategy. The reviewrecommended strongly the need tomaintain a very clear focus around the

key theme of good governance, withwater and sanitation projects acting as

entry points for a community-based andcommunity-led approach. Linked to this is

the importance of partnerships with localgovernment authorities, with NGOs andwith community groups themselves (Mid-Term Review 2007).

There is evidence that WSTF has graduallybeen more involved at national leveland in broader sector reform processes.There is also regional variation, but theupstream focus was a secondaryconcern both in the mid-term review andthe subsequent strategy. That key staff

has a strong programmatic interest andengineering background has also beenimportant in shaping the profile of theprogramme.

REGIONAL AND COUNTRYNETWORK BUILDING

WSTF has successfully supported regionaland country network building using itsconvening power as a UN agency. The

programme has initiated and coordinatedseveral regional and country conferencesand provided technical inputs in others.UN-HABITAT has established itself astheurban water and sanitation agency,also through the Global Water OperatorPartnership.

THE GLOBAL WATER OPERATORSPARTNERSHIP ALLIANCE (GWOPA)

The launch of the Global Water Operators

Examples of regional conferences

- 1st Meeting of East African Community Ministersof Water and the Development partners of the UN-

HABITAT Lake Victoria Region Water and SanitationInitiative, Nairobi, Kenya, 2008.

- Ministerial Conference on Scaling Up of the LakeVictoria Water and Sanitation Initiative Entebbe,Uganda, 22 23 April 2000.

- African Water Weeks (26-28 March 2008, Tunis,Tunisia; 09-13 November 2009, Johannesburg, SouthAfrica; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 22-26 November 2010.


21/92


Partnership Alliance (GWOPA) was amajor milestone. GWOPA provides an

international platform aimed at promotingand increasing the institutional capacityof urban water and sanitation utilities.The idea is that, through twinning, better-performing utilities can share their skillsand practices to other utilities in order toadequately serve their citizens.

The efforts in previous years to anchorWOPs platforms in the various regions,particularly Latin America and theCaribbean and Africa, have resulted

in a growing number of twinningarrangements. More specifically, in 2010,a total of 1,206individuals from 162utilities benefited directly from WOPs andtraining programmes implemented underthe WOPs umbrella.

In addition to the growing number ofactivities being implemented, WOPs,through GWOPAs, have a leveragingimpact. Accordingly, an increasing numberof partner organizations worldwide aresupporting or engaging in the WOPsapproach.UN-HABITATsbudget showsthat new allocations for GWOPA in2011 amounts to USD 194 95TOTALMAKES NO SENSE PLEASE CLARIFY,whereas the total budget allocation isUSD 1,213,707(UN-HABITAT Summary ofAllocations 2010-2011).

Forged strong partnerships withregional banks, civil society and

private sector WSTF has established partnerships

with all the regional banks andleveraged resources to nationaland regional programmes. This isdiscussed further in Chapter 4.2.

Capacity building and preparationof technical and normative tools

WSTF has organized and supporteda broad range of training events.

Several technical guidelines andnormative tools have also been

prepared and disseminated.

In the Lake Victoria region, the project

has made good progress towardscapacity building and developmentof stakeholders. This is particularlyevident regarding the capacitytraining of local partners such as WSP,municipalities and local NGOs/CBOs.For instance, as can be seen in theLake Victoria Study, the performanceof the WSP has incrementallyimproved, on operational levels aswell as on management capacity.

More specifically, the waterproduction has increased, the amountof non-revenue water has beenreduced and the income generated byselling water has increased. Indeed,the improvement in performanceby the WSPs is seen as one of themain assets of the UN-HABITATinitiative. In Mekong, the capacityand institutional development hasincluded a number of training coursesand workshops, targeting water

utilities, municipal authorities, CBOsand NGOs.

Examples of capacity building and tools

- Capacity Building Workshop on Partnerships forImproving the Performance of Water Utilities in theAfrica Region (2006).

- Regional Media Workshop from 2006 in New Delhi,India.

- South-South Collaboration for Training and Capacitybuilding on innovative Sanitation Technologies,collaboration with Sulabh International - November2006.

- Water Safety Plan Training in Morocco - 20-21 Jan.2010 (Rabat, Morocco).

- Rainwater Harvesting and Utilisation, Blue Drop Series.

- The World of Water - African Adventures of a WaterDrop (2005.)

- Navigating Gender in African Cities: Synthesis Reportof Rapid Gender and Pro-poor Assessments in 17African Cities (2006).

- Framework for Gender Mainstreaming in Water andSanitation for Cities (2006).

- Social Marketing of Sanitation (2006).


22/92


Support for innovation andresearch

The programme has supportedresearch but has not beensystematically involved in appliedresearch and the generation ofknowledge. WSTF has been moreinvolved in the application andtesting of existing models than inthe identification and formulation ofnew ideas. It is not UN-HABITATs roleto do research but the programmecan support this area and forge

partnership with researchers andresearch institutes in order to movethe frontier both in the social andthe technical fields and, not least, beperceived as a broker of new ideasand a knowledge-based programme.

The following are four examples ofinteresting research efforts:

LOW-COST MONITORING OF

BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY INEAST AFRICA

Low-cost, manageable systems formonitoring water quality have beenlacking due to the high cost, technicalcomplexity and time associated withavailable methods. This is a primary reasonfor the low awareness among healthworkers and communities of the linkagebetween water quality and disease.WSTF is involved in research on low-cost

methods for water testing in the EastAfrican region. Public health officers andvolunteers were trained and equippedto carry out town-wide water testing.The approach has strong potential forreplication in developing countries aroundthe world, particularly because it facilitatescommunity understanding of water qualitywhich will lead to a decrease in water-related diseases.

THE SANITATION MICROCREDITREVOLVING FUND

The Sanitation Microcredit RevolvingFund scheme is a strategy for bringingtransformation and improved deliverysystem for sanitation services in theurbanizing communities settled aroundLake Victoria and in the Mekong region.The overall objective of the scheme is toestablish a sustainable revolving sanitationcredit fund to meet the credit needs ofpoor female headed households to buildtheir improved sanitation.

The driving force for this strategy is socialmarketing that creates social demandfor services. Development of a revolvingfund for sanitation allows the targetbeneficiaries to come together and helpeach other to construct sanitation facilitieson credit that can be paid collectively. Thishas the effect of all members in a grouphaving the opportunity to access funds toput up sanitation facilities, as the cultureof merry-go-round is not new to thetargeted communities.

MULTI STAKEHOLDER FORUMS

This is a structure introduced by UN-HABITAT to engage all local stakeholderswith different backgrounds to participateactively in the design, planning,implementation and monitoring ofprogramme activities. Its main role is toensure that project plans are implemented

in an effective manner.

In Kenya, the forum brought togetherrepresentatives of the Lake VictoriaSouth Water Service Board, water andsanitation companies, community serviceproviders, water users association andhealth inspectors. It seems that the forumhas been very effective in running andmanaging water and sanitation initiativesmotivating members of the communityto make contributions such as provisionof labor and construction materials as


23/92


their initial contribution to the project.The forum has been involved in providing

advice to distribution of resources,involvement in the selection of locationsfor stand pipes, public and schools latrinesand assist in identifying vulnerable groupsto benefit from the project. However,the involvement of MSF in micro-creditschemes was rather low (Rijsdijk 2011).

H2.O MONITORING SERVICESTO INFORM AND EMPOWERINITIATIVE

One of the weaknesses in the WSSsector is the absence of reliable data forunderstanding level of service provisionfor the poor and providing informationto enable consumers, service providers,policy makers and donors to act moredecisively and to monitor the impact ofinterventions.

WSTF has been leading an initiative whichtests innovations in sector monitoring

in order to put in place powerful andeffective monitoring systems of theurban environment at a global scale. Thework builds on approaches developed byUN-HABITATs Monitoring and ResearchDivision and by WSIB in the Lake Victoriaregion by using tools and approachesdeveloped by Google for geo-referencingand in making this data universallyaccessible. Access to reliable, specific andwell-presented visual information on WSSservices can improve sector advocacy, andaccountability between service providersand consumers.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Some of the models are not new as suchwith examples being community leddevelopment, participatory multi sectorforums and micro-credit for women,but they may have been innovativein the water and sanitation sector in

the respective countries. In the LakeVictoria initiative, the approach to

the rehabilitation of the water supplysystems was found to be solid, but not

innovative. Most of the implementationwas based on well-known and establishedtechnologies. As such, there are elementsof applied research and innovation in theprogramme, but more dominant is theimplementation of well-established modelsand approaches.

Learning and documentation

There has been an operationalfocus in the country and regional

programmes. Capital investmentshave absorbed between 60 and 80per cent of total expenditure muchmore than required for a pilot andmodel building programme. Thelearning aspects the continuousmonitoring and assessmentof experience - have not beensufficiently integrated, not only ofinputs and outputs, but of outcomesand early impact. Systematic analysisand documentation of experience

and lessons learned should have beenmore prominent in a model buildingand testing programme. WSTFsargument is that service deliveryshould feed into the normative workand that normative work should bebased in practical field experience.However, the scale of the investmentsseems to be much higher thannecessary for a model and learning-based experiment.

The Victoria initiative (2 % of the budget for M&E) has afairly extensive list of indicators, both on input, objectiveand sustainability. This gives the programme an overviewof the progress and might be suitable for a conventionalproject. However, as a model, it should have had higherstandards on performance tracking, with clear definitionsof the indicators on each of the experimental components(for example, support to the WSP and microsan).Especially impact indicators could facilitate the lessonslearned and promote the model to third parties. The MEK-WATSAN initiative developed an impressing databasesystem for M&E, but as a model and learning exercisefor partner countries, standardizing of impact indicators

would be recommended (Rijsdijk, 2011).


24/92


Attention to policy and sectorreform work

The involvement in national policyand sector reform processes, likeparticipation in sector workinggroups, strategic advocacy andawareness raising has been uneven,but with an increasing numberof examples of WSTF as a policyinfluencer.

The impact study explains thatUN-HABITAT may not alwayshave achieved the right balancebetween normative and pilot projectimplementation work in Kenya.Given its relatively small capitalprogramme, it is suggested thatgreater weight be given to its roleas a strategic influencer and sourceof expert knowledge, rather thanan implementer of services. Manystakeholders expect UN-HABITAT toplay a leading role in helping guidethe development of ideas that might

work at scale.

In Nepal, it has been noted that UN-HABITAT is determined to shift thestyle of its operations from that of ahighly effective entrepreneurial NGOfocusing on immediate impact on theground to that of a strategic partnerand influencer of future directions inthe sector. UN-HABITATs approachto start the implementation of theWSTF operations with a few direct

interventions in selected poor urbancommunities, rather than embarkingon a high-flying and generic advocacyexercise, has been sound. By usingsuch a direct intervention approach,the country teams were able to testout and demonstrate a few pro-poorsupport principles. This providedvaluable experience on how totackle the challenge of serving theurban poor (Main Report ImpactStudy 2010). In other words, WSTFsvaluable downstream experience

has not been sufficiently used as abasis for upstream policy work.

Global Monitoring

The global monitoring efforts asexplained above were promising,but this important area of workfor UN-Habitat lost some of itsmomentum when the fundingfrom Google stopped last year.The project monitoring MDGs andimprove benchmarking of water andsanitation service providers was fully

funded by Google.org with a totalallocation of US$ 1.8 million. Thereis a possibility that the work cancontinue soon with another privatesector donor.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The critical questions are: to what extentthe balance between roles has beenright taking into account the availableresources and the original strategic

direction of WSTF and has there been anappropriate balance between normativeand operational, capital investments andlearning/documentation, software andhardware models, global and regional/country programmes? In hindsight,possibly not. We are not questioning theusefulness of WSTF activities in terms ofmeeting various country needs, but towhat extent the programme has selectedand supported the most relevant activities

for a UN programme.

It should also be kept in mind that whatwas the right mix of roles five years agomay not be optimal in the future. The lastchapter discusses what the changes infocus and roles could be. Fewer resourceswill reduce the ability to support capitalinvestments but will have much lesseffect on the software and normativecomponents of the programme.


25/92


This chapter seeks to discuss selectedinternal organisational issues whichare important determining factors ofperformance. However, the InceptionReport decided to give more attention toexternal and less to internal dimensions,so this organisational review is only partial.

3.1 THE ROLE OF THE

TRUST FUND

The question is to what extent the TrustFund mechanism has been effective andwill be viable for the future? The Waterand Sanitation Trust Fund was launchedon World Habitat Day in 2002 in order tofollow a well coordinated programmaticapproach with strategic impetus allowingdonors to improve their aid effectiveness

by contributing to a consolidated funddedicated to a clear set of objectives(Strategic Plan p. 32). The Trust Fundhas been supported with contributionsfrom various donor countries includingCanada, Sweden, Norway, Poland and theNetherlands.

The Trust Fund has helped establish astrategic programmatic approach withan agreed and simplified planning and

reporting procedure vis--vis the donorsfor activities within the Trust Fund. Ithas also provided long-term, relativelypredictable and generous funding.The Advisory Board has been a forumfor discussing important strategic andprogrammatic issues. However, notall the resources have been granted ascore resources. A significant amount hasbeen earmarked specific programmesand projects. As such, the Trust Fundsflexibility has been partial. It has, to a large

extent, been required to accommodateindividual donor preferences more or less

in line with the agreed strategy.

Is the Trust Fund arrangement still valid?The multi-donor base has been graduallyeroded (see chapter 3.4). At the momentit is only the Norwegian Government thatprovides core resources. This is partly theresult of changing donor preferences, butpossibly also due to limitations in the trust

fund model itself. A recent report from theUN points to an overall increase in numberof trust funds within the UN system, butalso to some of their weaknesses (OIOS,Posta&Terzi 2010).

The report mentions that there is nocommon definition of what Trust Fundsare, but they are set up to provide extra-budgetary resources to an organization onthe basis of specific agreements with thedonors for specific purposes, accounted

for and reported to the donors separately.

WSTF has provided UN-HABITAT withearmarked resources for water andsanitation, both core resources to theTrust Fund and targeted to programmeslike Mekong and Lake Victoria. Asmentioned, the Trust Fund has supporteda programmatic orientation, simplifiedplanning and reporting systems andpredictable resources to a priority area forUN-HABITAT. On the other hand, certainlimitations and weaknesses were identifiedduring the evaluation:

The strategic approach has beenlimited to the Trust Fund. Theexistence of a strong and wellresourced Trust Fund has distortedoverall organisational priorities withinUN-HABITAT.

The advisory board for WSTF has, tosome extent, established a parallel

governing structure within UN-

Processes and Resources3


26/92


HABITAT with strong donor influenceand few members from the South.

The relative abundance of resourceshas created a culture of autonomyand self-sufficiency within WSTF withweak incentives for coordinationand information sharing with otherdivisions and units.

The most recent and dramatic change forWSTF was the loss of its expected coresupport for 2011 from the Government ofSpain. When the new Executive Director

came to UN-HABITAT he was in need ofresources to support his five new strategicpriorities: urban mobility, urban planning,urban economy and urban legislation.Hence, he approached the Governmentof Spain with a request to derestrict itscontribution to the Water and SanitationTrust Fund and reallocate the sameresources to the new areas. Spain agreedto do so and WSTF lost USD 8 million ,representing two-thirds of its budget for2011.

It can be argued that the Trust Fund hasbeen a well-funded programme with alarge budget within a relatively small andresource constrained organisation (USD15 million) for WSTF compared to a USD20 million core budget for the entireorganisation in 2008). Such an internalimbalance has been perceived as unfairand not in line with corporate interests. Assuch, WSTF has been a victim of its ownsuccess in terms of mobilizing resources.More importantly, the reallocation isperceived as consistent with the MTSIPsaim of establishing a more integrated,priority-based planning approach for theentire organisation.

However, this evaluation has foundreputational risks for UN-HABITAT as aresult of the unexpected and sudden lossof resources. WSTF has signed agreementswith governments and partners which will

either have to be cancelled or significantlychanged in Latin America even before

the programme has started. Such achange in donor preferences may affect

the credibility of UN-HABITAT as a partner.The change could have been implementedmore incrementally and in consultationwith stakeholders and thus reduced thenegative effects.

The reallocation of resources from oneprogramme (water and sanitation) to otherstrategic priorities within UN-HABITAT isinconsistent with a more coordinated,priority-based planning approach. Thatwould have required an allocation of

resources based on decisions in governingbodies and been reflected in the biannualprogramme and budget. Otherwise, thepattern of earmarking remains, just toother priorities. The Peer Review of theMTSIP strongly recommended UN-HABITATto establish one unified planning andreporting system for decision making,resource mobilization and reportingto all donors and define clearly andtransparently in the biennial programme

and budget what UN-HABITAT policy andprogramme priorities are for the short-and long-term how scarce resources willbe allocated between competing prioritiesbetween and within focus areas (MTSIPPeer Review 2010).

3.2 INSTITUTIONAL

STRUCTURE

The Strategic Plan explains that theWater, Sanitation and InfrastructureBranch was transferred from GlobalDivision to the Human SettlementsFinance Division, together with the UrbanFinance Branch. The purpose was to bringincreased coherence to the organisationand the opportunity to integrateinfrastructure and slum upgrading tomore effectively contribute to the overallgoal of sustainable human settlementsdevelopment. The Director for the Waterand Sanitation and Infrastructure Branch


27/92


has been the Acting Director for the entireDivision.

Was it a sensible decision to establishsuch a Division? The MTSIP Peer Reviewdiscussed briefly if the Human SettlementFinance Division should include both theUrban Finance Branch and Water andSanitation under one umbrella. Or if itwould have been better to have them asseparate units since they perform verydifferent functions.

A final conclusion was not reached, but

the marriage between the two Brancheshas been perceived as arranged withoutclear benefits for either. Hence, thereis a need to find another home forthe Water, Sanitation and InfrastructureBranch taking into account the greaterattention to energy and transport. There isalso a perception that WSTF has pursueda too vertical approach focusing onspecific W&S interventions. Hence, itis important to explore new horizontallinkages within an overall urban planningframework, when a new organisationalstructure is decided based on the premisethat W&S is a core priority for UN-HABITAT.

3.3 PLANNING AND

REPORTING SYSTEMS

This section discusses two aspects of the

planning and monitoring/reporting system.The analysis would have been stronger if abroader perspective had been applied butthe limits of this report would also havebeen exceeded.

GLOBAL POLICIES AND MULTIPLECOUNTRY ACTIVITIES

WSTF has several global and regionalpolicy and strategy documents providingoverall direction. Such documents areimportant and easily available. There is

also information from a broad range ofactivities and projects at regional and

country level. The Annual Reports fromWSTF to the Advisory Board consist of arange of individual project achievements interesting examples of country progressand success. However, there is lessinformation at the intermediate levels aggregate impact from countries and/or from thematic areas - in particularquantitative progress indicators for theentire project portfolio.

WSTF is a programme, but to a large

extent project- and activity-driven. This ispartly the result of how the programme isfunded (by donors still supporting specificactivities). However, the programme couldhave prepared short and concise countrystrategies providing an overview ofwhat WSTF does, why, with whom, howand where not only for providing easierunderstanding and buy in from externalstakeholders, but also to explain howWater and Sanitation is part of and relates

to a broader urban planning agenda.

It could also have provided the basis for amore strategic selection of interventions.This is particularly important since WSTFis to some extent perceived as self-contained, with vertical activities notsufficiently linked to other sectors, andan integral part of an urban planningframework.

The Impact studies pointed to the need

for clearly articulated country strategies,developed and discussed with sectorstakeholders. In the case of Kenya,the WSTF projects take place undertwo different umbrellas (Lake VictoriaRegion Water and Sanitation Initiative(LVWATSAN)) and Water for African Cities(WAC), but no coherent country strategyhas been developed. In Nepal, the projectportfolio has until now contained a largenumber of small projects. However,the need for more coherence, stronger

coordination and the development of asector-wide approach is recognized.


28/92


It should also be mentioned that WSTFwould have benefited from a Project

Management Information System adata base with key data for all projectsand also monitoring information. Thecurrent database with Agreementsof Cooperation is not sufficient. Theagreements are more what to dodocument and do not provide the designinformation and basic baseline data whichis required to support a sound outcomeand impact assessment.

THE MONITORING ANDDOCUMENTATION SYSTEM

WSTF was, as mentioned, conceivedas a pilot and demonstration project testing the viability of innovative models,demonstrating their potential for largescale replication and disseminating thelessons learned.

As such, WSTF should have a strongmonitoring and evaluation system

learning tools to assess progress andperformance on a regular basis, analysewhat works and what doesnt andact on the basis of recommendations.This is to a large extent missing. In themicrocredit programme for constructinglatrines in Lake Victoria, for instance,there is no systematic data collectionfor tracking coverage, repayments anduser satisfaction in order to identify theweaknesses and issues pointed out in thecase study (Rijsdijk 2011). Most of themonitoring covers financial inputs andphysical outputs which are necessary butnot sufficient from a learning perspective.

A pilot and demonstration programmewould also need a solid system for

documenting lessons learned. The GlobalReports disseminate such experience,but there is a need to documentexperience also from individual projects.WSTF emphasizes the practical handson approach but the experience is notsufficiently systematized. It is difficult foroutsiders to fully grasp the substance andvalue of the innovations.

Some reports are well written, but manysuffer from convoluted UN language, such

as enhanced development practitionersfacilitation skills for the capacity-buildingof disadvantaged women. However,more important is the need for systemsand capacity within the programme tocollect relevant information, analyzefindings and present results in well-written and easily accessible reports.There are elements of such learning anddocumentation but considerable scope forimprovement.

3.4 FINANCIAL RESOURCES

The Trust Fund has received significantcontributions from several bilateral donorssince 2004. The totals amounts are (2004-2009) presented in the table below. Itconfirms that 75 per cent of the fundshave been given as general unearmarkedresources providing WSTF with flexibilityin the utilisation of funds. In addition,

the Government of the Netherlands hasprovided soft earmarked resources tothe two model setting initiatives in theLake Victoria and Mekong regions. WSTFhas also been supported with small, butimportant earmarked contributions fromprivate sector companies such as Coca-Cola, Google, Cadbury and BASF.

The historical overview of donors andtheir contributions becomes much lessfavorable when looking at trends (from

2004 to 2009) and assessing the currentfinancial situation.

The provision of onsite sanitation (construction oflatrines) to the poor shows a mixed result. The projecttargeted the poor informal areas of the towns and madesome impact on the MDGs, but the beneficiaries wereoften relatively well to do as the costs of latrines werebeyond the reach of the poorest, party by technical andregulatory reasons. However, the main problem was thefinance through the micro credit system as the pay back

rate was very poor (Rijsdijk, 2011).


29/92


The Governments of Canada,Sweden and Poland stopped theircontributions before 2008.

The Netherlands phased out all its

support to UN-HABITAT from 2008while WSTF was allowed to useremaining funds for the two regionalinitiatives in 2009 and 2010. Most ofthe funds are now depleted.

The Government of Spain decidedin 2010 to move all its generalcontributions to other strategicpriorities in UN-HABITAT (discussed inchapter 3.1.).

Google has phased out its support

and the Coca-Cola project in India isalso coming to an end.

The Government of Norway remainsas the only donor to WSTFs corebudget.

The funds received for 2009 were (inthousands? Millions? of USD):

Spain 13.323Norway 2.177

Opening balance 930Total 17.431

The Trust Fund has lost 75 per cent of itscore support. Its total operating budgetfor 2011 was expected to be in the rangeof USD 15 million, but is reduced toapproximately USD 5 million There are

some other pipeline contributions, butthe WSTF will have to cope with a seriousbudget deficit. An additional challenge isthat most of the resources are tied up tocover recurrent expenses (approximatelyUSD 3.6. million for project staff salariesalone) leaving marginal funds for anyactivities. Below is a summary of the2010 2011 allocations as at March2011.

There are some new donors in 2010 and2011 including The Catalan Agency forDevelopment Cooperation, allocating USD122,809 in 2010-2011, The EuropeanInvestment Bank (USD 60,846) and theGovernment of France, whose totalbudget allocation amounted to USD46,269. These are positive developments,however not sufficient to change thedownward trend.

General WSTF Amounts (Mill USD)

Spain 35.877

Norway 23.191

Canada 12.455

The Netherlands 11.760

Sweden 5.573

Poland 3

Sub-total general 88,862

Earmarked contributions:

Lake Victoria Initiative (Netherlands) 20.720

Mekong Initiative (Netherlands) 6.600

Private sector 2.558

Sub-total earmarked 2.558

GRAND TOTAL WSTF 118.740


30/92


General Trust FundSub-Allotment

2010Allocation

2010Expenditure

2010 Budgetbalance c/d to

2011

2011 NewAllocation

2011 Totalbudget

AllocationGlobal Normative 911 912 893 197 18 715 910 362 929 077

Water for African Cities 1 887 500 1 743 811 143 689 350 000 493 689

Water for Asian Cities 1 887 500 1 263 527 623 973 350 000 974 926

Water for Cities in LatinAmerica and Caribbean(W007)

2 000 000 1 753 121 246 879 350 000 596 879

Solid Waste ManagementProgramme (W007)

500 000 477 805 22 195 350 000 372 195

Urban Energy Section 150 000 28 196 121 804 - 121 804

Mekong Region Water and

Sanitation Initiative

500 000 499 046 954 150 000 150 000

Lake Victoria Water andSanitation Initiative

500 000 425 546 74 454 150 000 224 454

Transport Section (W007) 150 000 2 892 147 108 - 147 108

Global Water OperatorsPartnership Alliance (W007& W026)

2 339 934 1 321 183 1 018 751 194 956 1 213 707

Personnel W039 (incl. Interestallocation) for 2011

2 520 950 2 217 875 303 075 2 356 500 2 356 500

Personnel (W026) WOPS onlyfor 2011

- - - 690 000 690 000

Information, monitoring andevaluation (W002, W007,W028)

244 508 206 465 38 043 53 580 91 623

Administrative costs (W007) - - - 136 811 136 811

W005 (refunded to Sweden) - (10 726) 10 726 - -

Total General Trust Fund(W002, W007, W026, W028)

13 592 304 10 821 940 2 770 364 6 042 209 8 498 771


31/92


This chapter discusses the partnershipsbetween UN-HABITAT and externalorganizations, but also other divisionsand units of the organisation. One ofUN-HABITATs comparative advantages issaid to be the ability to build partnershipswith a broad range of stakeholders. Theorganisation can attract and collaboratewith development banks, universities,

governments, municipalities, civil societyand private sector. The question is towhat extent WSTF is able to use such anadvantage effectively.

4.1 PARTNERSHIPS WITH

GOVERNMENTS AND

DONORS

In recent years, there has been increasingemphasis on issues of developmenteffectiveness. Development partnersshould work more effectively together(harmonization) and in line with countrypriorities and procedures (alignment) inorder to create a more country ownedand country led development process andconsequently reduce the fragmentationof aid.

Within the UN, the One UN policy has

provided the basis for working towardsbetter country-level coordination oneprogramme, one budgetary frameworkand one set of management practices forall UN organizations to address the MDGsin a more coherent and effective way.

The question is: to what extent WSTF hasbecome involved in national sector anddonor coordination mechanisms includingthe One UN efforts? While issues ofharmonization and alignment hardly were

of much concern in the Mid Term review

(2007)8, they were discussed extensivelyin the recent impact studies. However,there is no systematic information fromall partner countries making an aggregateassessment possible.

It was found that WSTF in Kenya had overtime developed a stronger partnershipwith sector investors but, whilst the Lake

Victoria Region Water and SanitationInitiative (LVWATSAN) is well integratedwith national and local institutions, theproject portfolio does not consistentlysupport core national strategic sectorreform processes. The same applies to theMekong region. There is also scope tostrengthen UN-HABITATs participation inthe coordination between developmentpartners. The absence of a process todevelop a country strategy means thatKenyan institutions have not been fullyengaged in UN-HABITATs strategicchoices and UN-HABITAT may notalways be sufficiently harmonized withother stakeholders regarding countryprogramme design.

It was also pointed out that WSTFdoes not always have the accountablegovernment institutions as implementingpartners. WSTF seems to preferCooperation Agreements with NGOs.

Such a practice misses the opportunity tostrengthen the capacity of governmentinstitutions9.

The interventions in Nepal were foundto be well-integrated with relevantauthorities, institutions, and developmentpartners at national and municipality level.However, there is still too much focus on

8 Possibly because the review focused mostly on the localand community level aspects of development a changefrom below perspective and less on national policies and

systems.

9 Findings from other regions e.g. Mekong show adifferent pattern much closer cooperation with

government structures.

Partnerships4


32/92


individual pilot projects. It was said thatthat WSTF needs to give greater weight to

UN-HABITATs role as a strategic influencer,drawing from a clear vision about whatis needed to address the challenges ofpro-poor urban WATSAN reforms. Thiswill require increased engagement innational policy dialogue and involve keygovernment policy makers.

UN-HABITATis further advised to playa more central role in coordinatingdonors to the urban WATSAN sector,since the agency is well-positioned to

enhance donor harmonization as arespected adviser to the government inthe urban sector. Unfortunately, we lacksufficient information to assess the roleand reputation of WSTF among otherinternational W&S agencies.

In a thematic paper to the AdvisoryBoard (March 2009), issues of aidharmonization are discussed. There is along list of examples in which WSTF hassupported One-UN processes and signeddeclarations and MoUs in order to improveaid effectiveness. WSTF has clearly movedin such a direction. However, the paperpresents also some of WSTFs limitationsand reservations towards full integrationand harmonization:

UN-HABITAT is a non-resident UNagency facing capacity constraintswhen it comes to participationin national level coordination

mechanismsUN-HABITAT is primarily a technicalagency and is not able to make long-term financial commitments to sectorfunding

WSTF has been able to focus on theurban poor in informal settlements- often left out of sector investmentprogrammes

WSTF invests limited funds in

testing experimental innovativeapproaches. Such work benefits

from being independent from aheavy bureaucratic process even if

the long term aim is to incorporateand replicate proven models withinnational sector programmes.

In other words, WSTF could play astronger role as a strategic influencerin national reform processes as a credibleand neutral UN organisation, but avoidfull cooptation in such processes. WSTFwould benefit from maintaining certainautonomy in order to analyze criticallywhat works and what doesnt support

innovative learning.

4.2 PARTNERSHIP

WITH REGIONAL

DEVELOPMENT BANKS

AND OTHER UN

AGENCIES

WSTF has currently MoUs with theAfrican Development Bank, the AsianDevelopment Bank, the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank and the EuropeanInvestment Bank. The collaborationstarted with undertaking joint missionsto countries, followed by annualconsultations and support to assignmentsand studies carried out during the loanpre-investment phase.

The importance and contributions of WSTFhave been:

Speeding up project design andimplementation by providing criticalsupport in the pre-investment phase(support for completing businessdevelopment plans for water serviceproviders, baseline studies, impactmonitoring frameworks, capacitybuilding of utilities, participatorymethods involving the poor)

Taking part in project formulationmissions


33/92


Influencing bank policies andapproaches: supporting pro-

poor approaches in smaller urbansettlements and towns, promotingintegrated/holistic designs andgender by using WSTF assessmenttools and guidelines (water demandmanagement, urban catchmentmanagement, utility benchmarking,micro-finance, etc.)

WSTFs regional approach hasbeen of interest to the banks, e.g.UN- HABITATs ability to provide

cost effective capacity building ona regional basis and address cross-border issues, such as environmentalprotection and sustainability.

Assist the banks to work acrosssectors and involve civil society andother local actors

The Trust Fund claims to have leveraged(or catalyzed) USD 464 million (ProgressReport 2010) in matching grants and loans

to improve water and sanitation but it isuncertain how this figure is calculated andwhat it means.

The partnerships between WSTF andthe regional banks have been of mutualbenefit and of great importance possiblymore in programmatic than in financialterms. That UN-HABITAThas leveragedresources could mean that WSTF hassecured additional resources that wouldnot have been mobilized without UN-

HABITATs intervention. An alternative andequally important but less presumptuousinterpretation of leveraging, is thatWSTF has helped fast track loans andgiven them more pro-poor characteristics.According to a source in AfDB, UN-HABITATs pre-investment capacity buildingactivities in Kenya have helped to fasttrack approval of USD 71.5 million loanOR LOANS? provided by the AfDB andalso improved design by protecting theinterests of urban poor.

There are interesting questions pertainingto WSTFs future cooperation with the

development banks. So far, WSTF hasprovided free technical services tothe banks since funds for technicalassistance have been available from theLake Victoria and Mekong programmebudget. Such funds are not any longerthere. The questions are: to what extentWSTF will remain an interesting partnerfor the banks in the future and will thebanks be willing to pay for UN-HABITATinvolvement?

There is an ongoing negotiation betweenWSTF and the European DevelopmentBank about phase two of the LakeVictoria Programme in which WSTF maybe contracted to carry out the capacitybuilding and monitoring component10.From one perspective, this will ensureWSTFs continued involvement in theprogramme and replication of theprogramme in new towns. Institutionalmemory and experience will be utilized

and UN-HABITAT can access much neededresources.

However, UN-HABITAT needs to maintainits independence and integrity as aUN organization. With a contractualarrangement between WSTF and adevelopment bank, UN-HABITAT will beresponsible for implementing an agreedprogramme component on behalf ofanother organization and will become anoperator on a competitive consultancy

market and may lose its independence andpotential critical voice.

10 The recent progress report for 2010 states that: Theapproval of a USD 110 million grant by the AfricanDevelopment Bank in December 2010, for a second

phase of the Lake Victoria Region Water and SanitationInitiative, marked an important milestone in the scalingup of the Programme. The grant agreement includesan allocation of funds to enable UN-HABITAT to providetechnical assistance for the implementation of the

project in the 15 towns, new towns, and capacitybuilding and training to ensure the sustainability of theinvestments.


34/92


THE ADDED VALUE OF UN-HABITAT

What exactly are the potentially uniqueand distinct attributes of UN-HABITAT inthe water and sanitation field? There areother players as well within the sector,besides NGOs there are also UN agenciessupporting WATSAN programmes. UNICEF,for instance, works in more than 90countries around the world to improvewater supplies and sanitation facilities inschools and communities, while UN Waterworks with coordination and coherenceamong UN entities dealing with issuesrelated to all aspects of freshwater andsanitation. The latter is, however, not animplementing agency.

We have seen examples of overlap whereWSTF has supported activities more inline with UNICEFs mandate, but it hasnot been presented as a major problem.It could be argued that UN-HABITATsadded value is its mix of operational

and normative work, coupled with thefocus on the urbanization of poverty,and small and intermediate towns. Otherprogrammes include these categories, butdo not specialize on problems of smalltowns.

There are economic, social and politicalforces behind urban poverty, thus facingthe growing magnitude of the slumproblem which requires a multifacetedapproach. While UNICEF has had some

focus on basic urban services, such asin India, it has not yet initiated largeprogrammes in other countries (Mid TermReview, 2010, 24).

By linking normative and operationalwork, WSTF has created a certain niche.Whereas most other actors in the sector(World Bank, UNICEF, regional banks.etc.) mainly work to achieve immediatecontributions to coverage, the Trust Fundseeks to concentrate on models and

tools that may be replicated by various

actors engaged in pursuing long termachievement of the MDGs.

4.3 PARTNERSHIPS WITH

PRIVATE SECTOR AND

UNIVERSITIES

There are several examples of partnershipsbetween WSTF and private companies.Two of the most significant have beenCoca-Cola and Google.

COCA-COLA

UN-HABITAT and Coca-Cola India andSouth West Asia (Coca-Cola INSWABU)entered into a partnership and signedan agreement in 2007. This initiative isunique in the sense that it representsone of the first public private businesspartnerships for water and sanitation. UN-HABITAT and Coca-Cola INSWABU eachcommitted USD 150,000 over a period of

three years (2007-09) for implementingpilot demonstration projects in India andNepal, aiming at reaching more than onemillion people. The key objective of thispartnership was to provide access to safedrinking water and basic sanitation to theurban poor and slum dwellers. The projectwill benefit nearly 20,000 children directly,besides the communities around theseschools. The MEK-Watsan initiative ispreparing a partnership with Coca-Cola.

An important success factor is theripple effect , in which a projectstarting with two has expanded to 12partners, providing new investmentsand multi-dimensional partnerships invarious regions. The partners have beenactive in advocacy and awareness - amedia campaign where Coca-Cola Indiacooperated with other partners. Thecampaign focused on capacity building,promoting water conservation, sanitation

and hygiene education infrastructure inrural and semi urban schools.


35/92


36/92


37/92


Achievements and Results5

The last and most difficult questions areto what extent WSTF has produced itsexpected results and are they sustainable?The progress reports, impact studies andthe regional and country studies carriedout as part of this evaluation documentall a broad range of achievementsand results. They prove that most ofprogrammes and activities have been

implemented despite certain delays.There is also evidence of change.

It is not feasible in a short chapter tosummarize the aggregate results ofWSTF at global and country level. Neitheris sufficient data available to answerquestions about national and globalimpact. WSTF has not established a systemfor monitoring core process and outcomeindicators across countries and regionsto facilitate such type of reporting. There

is a lot of data on a project-by-projectbasis, but less for aggregate reporting andcomparative analysis, such as how manypeople have got access to improved waterand sanitation in various countries.

The chapter starts by presenting howstakeholders perceive WSTFs contributionto change and the main findings andconclusions from the regional/countryreports, the impact studies and otheravailable reports providing concrete

evidence of results.

5.1EVIDENCE OF RESULTS

STAKEHOLDERS PERCEPTIONS

WSTF stakeholders were asked to assessachievements and results and the overallresponse from the survey was positive andreflects what is found in other studies.This is that major stakeholders perceiveWSTF as a relevant programme and that

performance is rated highly. However,the responses are based on subjectiveperceptions from people involved in theprogramme and not neutral observers.

FINDINGS FROM THE CASE STUDIESAND PROGRESS REPORTS

A general finding from all the studies isthat institutional capacity has increased,however, at various levels. This has beenachieved through a mix of operationalprogrammes, coupled with training,capacity building and hands on technicalassistance targeting the urban water andsanitation and municipal councils. Underthe LVWATSAN, an estimated 64,000persons have been provided with accessto safe drinking water, while 75,000persons have benefited from access tobasic sanitation. Furthermore, during2010 solid waste management systemshave been operationalized in eight towns,

benefiting an estimated 160,000 persons(UN-HABITAT Progress Report 2010, 7).

Results areas % response

The programme has been innovative 90%

The programme has contributed to changes in national policy 61%

The programme has contributed to strengthening knowledge and capacity among partners 87%

The programme has strengthened national and international networks 84&

Normative tools have been utilized 79%

The programme has been replicated in other settings 66%

The programme has created visible results at the level of beneficiaries 83%

The programme has con

External Evaluation of UN-HABITAT's Water and Sanitation Trust Fund - Part 1: Synthesis Report

Documents