Erik Harvey

UNC, 29 October 2018

PROGRAMMING GUIDANCE

PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON PROGRAMMING FOR

RURAL SANITATION AND HYGIENE

How did this come about

Research / Evidence

Learning / Conferences

MDG / SDG progress

Approach / acronym graveyard

Adapting / Testing approaches

COLLECTIVE STOP AND THINK:• Collaborate• Guidance

(How & $)• Try

SDG target 6.2: Sanitation and hygiene

By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations.

SDG sanitation and hygiene target 6.2

UNIVERSAL ACCESS =

END OPEN DEFECATION =

PROGRESSIVE REDUCTIONOF INEQUALITIES =

ODF

SDG sanitation and hygiene target 6.2

SAFELY NEW PIT LATRINES?

MANAGED = QUALITY OF FACILITIES?

SERVICES?

MONITORING?

Programming implications?

Scale = aim to reach everyone by 2030!

Equity = inclusive and targeted approaches?

Sustainability = sustained services & outcomes

• Partnerships: work with government; coordinate; alliances

• Area-wide: Use area-wide approaches; strengthen local systems; tackle difficult areas & hard-to-reach populations

• Context & evidence-based: what works in context; formative research where required

• Flexible & adaptive: Use adaptive management; learn what works, encourage course correction

Collaborative & consultative approach

Big & complex subject; mixed evidence; weak

consensus (in some areas) … therefore:

• Build on existing work

• Link to good evidence & good resources

• Consult & involve sector leaders & practitioners

• Develop consensus … where possible?

Process

• Desk reviews: literature, evidence and existing

guidance

• Mapping: experience, innovations and lessons learned

(from large-scale rural programmes)

• Consultation: interviews, review workshops, feedback

from strategic & user reference groups

• October 2018: final draft for UNC presentation

• Next steps: testing + website + training modules ?

Findings (why things work)?

Context critical, but more than just context?

• Enabling Environment / Governance / systems = major factors?

• Implementation quality / capacity / experience

• Markets / roads / costs / transport? …. Etc

• Good use of monitoring, evaluation & learning

Need to consider these factors (and more)!

No detailed guidance possible = provide a process/framework for programming

Guidance

• Avoid prescription = provide framework

• Context-based: implementation strategies(mix of approaches favourable to setting)

• Guidance on core components & approaches (to allow adaptive management)

• Detailed guidance in Annexes (key findings; links to materials; updateable)

Two stage design:

1. National analysis & design

2. Area analysis & design

NATIONAL ANALYSIS: 6 STEPS

1. SITUATION ANALYSIS

2. LESSONS LEARNED

3. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT

4. CAPACITY APPRAISAL

5. PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES

& STRATEGY

Analysis of key data: sanitation & hygiene; WS;

health; poverty; gender & equity.

Program area selection; setting objectives & targets

6. PROGRAMME EVALUATION

Review of lessons learned; drivers & barriers;

sustainability & equity issues.

Policy & strategy; institutional arrangements; finance;

planning & monitoring; capacity development

Implementation capacity & capacity gaps;

programme management.

AREA ANALYSIS: STEPS

LOCAL ANALYSIS

PHYSICAL & ECONOMIC

CONTEXT

Analysis of local: sanitation & hygiene; inequalities;

drivers & barriers; sustainability data

Population & density, road access, livelihoods,

market reach; product affordability; finance.

4. Difficult contexts (hard-to-reach populations and places)

AREA ANALYSIS: 5 STEPS

1. AREA ANALYSIS

2. AREA E ENV ASSESSMENT

3. AREA CAPACITY MAPPING

4. AREA PROGRAMME

DESIGN

Analysis of local: sanitation & hygiene; physical &

economic context

5. PROGRAMME COST

1. Community-based behaviour change.

2. Tech support / market-based sanitation

3. Support / sanitation finance

MAIN IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS AND STRATEGIES

1 RURAL REMOTE

E1 CLTSE2 Community-based

F1 Non-market technicalF3 Low-cost marketing

G2 Support to disadvantaged

2 RURAL ON-ROAD

E1 CLTSE2 Community-based

F1 Non-market technicalF2 Market-based sanitation

G1 Sanitation financeG2 Support to disadvantaged

3 RURAL MIXED

E2 Community-based

F2 Market based sanitation

G1 Sanitation financeG2 Support to disadvantagedG3 Support to shared sanitation

4 DIFFICULT

CONTEXTS

X1 Conflict-affected or insecure areas

X2 Remote or physically challenging areas

X3 Non-responsive or hard-to-reach communities

X4 Non-responsive or hard-to-reach groups within communities

CORE COMPONENTS

A Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning

B Enabling Environment Strengthening

C Cost Assessment

D Programme Management & Capacity Development

CORE THEMES

H Equity & non-discrimination

I Gender equality

J Sustainability support

CORE APPROACHES

K Hygiene behaviour change communication

L Environmental sanitation

M Nutrition sensitive WASH

Cost Assessment

Second aspect of the work

• Rural costing guidance developed

• Encourage more reliable & comparable tracking

of costs (including indirect costs)

• Based on consultation & lessons learned (e.g.

good frameworks exist, but not used)

• Not yet tested …

So is this really different

• A lot of the same steps we all say we do

• KEY differences when we look at ourselves:

– Building government led systems both nationally &

locally

– Investment in formative stages (both national and

area based)

– Real attempt to mix & match implementation

appraoches to each sub-context

– Invest in MEL and adaptation

– To name a few

Systematic programming

3 Key SDG themes: equity, sustainability & scale

4 Main principles: partnerships; area-wide; context and

evidence based; flexible + adaptive

Encourage systematic analysis + strategy + MEL

Process: ongoing consultation (refine/buy-in)

Website = managed/updated?

Online course?

Piloting through partner organisations?

A work in progress: we look forward to comments!

Group discussions

• What difference could it make?

• What would be the practical challenges

and opportunities in applying the g?

• What would it take to ensure uptake of the

guidance in practice (ideas for

dissemination / capacity building)?

Erik HarveyUNC, 29 October 2018

PROGRAMMING GUIDANCEPRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON PROGRAMMING FOR

RURAL SANITATION AND HYGIENE

How did this come aboutResearch / Evidence

Learning / Conferences

MDG / SDG progress

Approach / acronym graveyard

Adapting / Testing approaches

COLLECTIVE STOP AND THINK:• Collaborate• Guidance

(How & $)• Try

SDG target 6.2: Sanitation and hygiene

By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations.

SDG sanitation and hygiene target 6.2

UNIVERSAL ACCESS =

END OPEN DEFECATION =

PROGRESSIVE REDUCTIONOF INEQUALITIES =

ODF

SDG sanitation and hygiene target 6.2

SAFELY NEW PIT LATRINES?MANAGED = QUALITY OF FACILITIES?

SERVICES?MONITORING?

Programming implications?Scale = aim to reach everyone by 2030!Equity = inclusive and targeted approaches?Sustainability = sustained services & outcomes

• Partnerships: work with government; coordinate; alliances

• Area-wide: Use area-wide approaches; strengthen local systems; tackle difficult areas & hard-to-reach populations

• Context & evidence-based: what works in context; formative research where required

• Flexible & adaptive: Use adaptive management; learn what works, encourage course correction

Collaborative & consultative approach

Big & complex subject; mixed evidence; weakconsensus (in some areas) … therefore:• Build on existing work• Link to good evidence & good resources• Consult & involve sector leaders & practitioners• Develop consensus … where possible?

Process• Desk reviews: literature, evidence and existing

guidance• Mapping: experience, innovations and lessons learned

(from large-scale rural programmes)• Consultation: interviews, review workshops, feedback

from strategic & user reference groups• October 2018: final draft for UNC presentation• Next steps: testing + website + training modules ?

Findings (why things work)?Context critical, but more than just context?• Enabling Environment / Governance / systems =

major factors?• Implementation quality / capacity / experience• Markets / roads / costs / transport? …. Etc• Good use of monitoring, evaluation & learning

Need to consider these factors (and more)!No detailed guidance possible = provide a process/framework for programming

Guidance• Avoid prescription = provide framework• Context-based: implementation strategies

(mix of approaches favourable to setting)• Guidance on core components & approaches (to

allow adaptive management)• Detailed guidance in Annexes

(key findings; links to materials; updateable)

Two stage design: 1. National analysis & design2. Area analysis & design

NATIONAL ANALYSIS: 6 STEPS1. SITUATION ANALYSIS

2. LESSONS LEARNED

3. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT

4. CAPACITY APPRAISAL

5. PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES & STRATEGY

Analysis of key data: sanitation & hygiene; WS; health; poverty; gender & equity.

Program area selection; setting objectives & targets

6. PROGRAMME EVALUATION

Review of lessons learned; drivers & barriers; sustainability & equity issues.

Policy & strategy; institutional arrangements; finance; planning & monitoring; capacity development

Implementation capacity & capacity gaps; programme management.

AREA ANALYSIS: STEPSLOCAL ANALYSIS

PHYSICAL & ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Analysis of local: sanitation & hygiene; inequalities; drivers & barriers; sustainability data

Population & density, road access, livelihoods, market reach; product affordability; finance.

4. Difficult contexts (hard-to-reach populations and places)

Figure 1 Three types of rural context

Rural On-road

(close to urban)

Rural Remote

(far from urban)

Rural Mixed

(peri-urban)

AREA ANALYSIS: 5 STEPS1. AREA ANALYSIS

2. AREA E ENV ASSESSMENT

3. AREA CAPACITY MAPPING

4. AREA PROGRAMME DESIGN

Analysis of local: sanitation & hygiene; physical & economic context

5. PROGRAMME COST

1. Community-based behaviour change.2. Tech support / market-based sanitation3. Support / sanitation finance

MAIN IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS AND STRATEGIES

1 RURAL REMOTEE1 CLTSE2 Community-basedF1 Non-market technicalF3 Low-cost marketingG2 Support to disadvantaged

2 RURAL ON-ROADE1 CLTSE2 Community-basedF1 Non-market technicalF2 Market-based sanitationG1 Sanitation financeG2 Support to disadvantaged

3 RURAL MIXEDE2 Community-basedF2 Market based sanitationG1 Sanitation financeG2 Support to disadvantagedG3 Support to shared sanitation

4 DIFFICULT CONTEXTSX1 Conflict-affected or insecure areasX2 Remote or physically challenging areasX3 Non-responsive or hard-to-reach communitiesX4 Non-responsive or hard-to-reach groups within communities

CORE COMPONENTSA Monitoring, Evaluation & LearningB Enabling Environment StrengtheningC Cost AssessmentD Programme Management & Capacity Development

CORE THEMESH Equity & non-discriminationI Gender equalityJ Sustainability support

CORE APPROACHESK Hygiene behaviour change communicationL Environmental sanitationM Nutrition sensitive WASH

Cost Assessment

Second aspect of the work• Rural costing guidance developed• Encourage more reliable & comparable tracking

of costs (including indirect costs)• Based on consultation & lessons learned (e.g.

good frameworks exist, but not used)• Not yet tested …

So is this really different• A lot of the same steps we all say we do• KEY differences when we look at ourselves:

– Building government led systems both nationally & locally

– Investment in formative stages (both national and area based)

– Real attempt to mix & match implementationappraoches to each sub-context

– Invest in MEL and adaptation– To name a few

Systematic programming3 Key SDG themes: equity, sustainability & scale4 Main principles: partnerships; area-wide; context and evidence based; flexible + adaptiveEncourage systematic analysis + strategy + MEL

Process: ongoing consultation (refine/buy-in) Website = managed/updated? Online course? Piloting through partner organisations?

A work in progress: we look forward to comments!

Group discussions• What difference could it make?

• What would be the practical challenges and opportunities in applying the g?

• What would it take to ensure uptake of the guidance in practice (ideas for dissemination / capacity building)?

01_SE08_Rethinking_Rural_Sanitation01_SE08_Rethinking_Rural_SanitationPROGRAMMING GUIDANCE��PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON PROGRAMMING FOR RURAL SANITATION AND HYGIENE How did this come aboutSlide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5Programming implications?Collaborative & consultative approachProcessFindings (why things work)?GuidanceNATIONAL ANALYSIS: 6 STEPSAREA ANALYSIS: STEPSAREA ANALYSIS: 5 STEPSMAIN IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS AND STRATEGIESCost AssessmentSo is this really differentSystematic programmingGroup discussions