Final Report Summary - WASHTECH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Technologies)
Executive Summary:
The Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Technologies (WASHTech) was a three-year action research initiative (2011 to 2013) that:
• Is driven by the goal towards effective investment in new technologies for sustained access to WASH services
• Aims to strengthen the sector’s capacity to arrive at informed decisions in the choice of sustainable WASH technologies
• Undertakes participatory action research to identify obstacles and opportunities for uptake and scaling up technology beyond pilot testing
• Offers sector professionals (governmental agencies, development partners, NGOs, private operators, research institutes etc.) a set of methodological tools and participatory approaches for informed decision-making, strategic planning and introduction of validated WASH technologies and capacitating of host institutions on using the tools and support in incorporation of tools in national procedures to improve WASH sustainability in countries
• Through the participatory development, implementation and evaluation of the methodological tools, embeds the practice of multi-stakeholder learning, sharing and collaboration - instilling individual and collective ownership of, attention to, and responsibility for sustainability
• Set up web based resource base to ensure access and sustainability beyond project phase
WASHTech developed, tested in Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda, and introduced a robust assessment tool, the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) that provides a neutral approach for investigation of WASH technological innovation through an objective examination of criteria in the specific context of technology application using six key dimensions and three stakeholder perspectives:
Sustainability dimensions:
• Social aspects
• Economic and Financial aspects
• Environmental aspects
• Institutional and legal aspects
• Skills and know-how
• Technological aspects
Stakeholder perspectives:
• Technology user-buyer perspective
• Technology producer – provider perspective
• Technology facilitator (e.g. government), investor or regulator.
WASHTech developed in close consultation with the government, private sector, development partners and research institutes in Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda, country-specific guidelines for a Technology Introduction. The country-specific guidelines take a validated WASH technology through a multi-stakeholder process with agreed responsibilities to a successful introduction and uptake in the WASH sector in areas where the specific technology is promising to contribute to a sustainable WASH service delivery. As basis for these country-specific guides, a generic guidance document was developed, the Technology Introduction Process (TIP), which could be useful for other countries.
The WASHTech project and sector professionals identified four main uses of the TAF:
1. For validation of a new WASH technology for application in the country. Technology developers who want to get their technology accepted, they approach national level ministries, which will apply the TAF & TIP.
2. For validation of an existing WASH technology for application in a specific context, for instance at district or sub-district level with specific local socio-, cultural, economic and other conditions. Then the TAF is applied before a technology is being introduced at that decentralised level. Barriers to sustainability are being identified and can be addressed prior to local introduction of the specific WASH technology.
3. As a monitoring tool to assess why one WASH technology is a success while another one is a failure. Then hindrance and success factors are determined that will lead to choosing either another technology or formulating actions to do better.
4. And, as a tool in a project/programme appraisal process, in which the proposed WASH technology is being appraised for its potential to contribute to a sustainable WASH service.
Project Context and Objectives:
1.2 A summary description of project context and objectives
1.2.1 Concept and objectives of WASHTech
The water and sanitation sector is not short of new and emerging technologies, but despite many projects piloting them, hardly any have been adopted into national strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), nor have they been widely taken up by private enterprise. Their contribution to MDG targets appears therefore to have been minimal in the last 20 years. A key constraint to reaching the sector targets therefore appears to be the lack of systems to assess the potential of a technology and lack of ability to take new appropriate technologies to scale effectively.
1.2.2 Introducing new technologies
The challenges of meeting the MDG targets in water and sanitation are enormous, especially in rural areas. The JMP shows that increases in water supply coverage in sub-Saharan Africa has averaged less than 1% per year, with more rural people without access to safe water now than in 1990. Peri-urban and small town populations have grown three times faster than rural communities as people move into urban areas, but even so the majority of un-served (over 80%) remain in rural areas. A four-fold increase in rates of coverage for rural areas is needed for water MDG targets to be met. 40 million more rural people are without sanitation than in 1990, reflecting a 0.25% per annum growth in coverage. Alarmingly, 7% per year will be needed to reach the goal. It seems ‘business as usual’ using technologies and approaches of the last twenty years will not achieve the MDGs and that new mind-sets and innovative ideas are needed.
1.2.3 Description baseline parameters
Introducing new technologies --- In response to this need in sub-Saharan Africa a wide range of innovations in low-cost water and sanitation technologies and promotion strategies have already been made, including those below:
• Technologies for household level or small communities, such as rope pumps, or on-site latrines. Some of these seek multiple-use of water for both domestic and productive purposes, or re-use of by- products in agricultural production
• Decentralised technologies for use in small towns or peri-urban areas, such as constructed wetlands with reuse of wastewater, bank infiltration with reed beds, solar pumping for small piped water supplies, mechanised boreholes with privately- owned connections,
• Accompanying management models, including lease contracts for private operators, community management contracts, and household owned shared supplies
• New approaches to marketing water and sanitation technologies, such as CLTS, Self Supply, micro-financial support.
Some of these technological and institutional innovations have come from NGOs and small-scale entrepreneurs from African countries themselves. There are many new technologies available, and many organisations promoting the specific ones that they favour. However there is no objective system, which i) provides a transparent measure of how well any one option is performing, and ii) evaluates whether the approach used to introduce it could be improved to increase up-take and improve sustainability. This is what WASHTech aims to provide.
a) Level of agreement in-country on criteria to use for adopting new and existing low-cost technologies in the WASH sector.
b) Level of functionality of an in-country mechanism or platform to introduce and take to scale given low-cost WASH technologies.
WASHTech seeks to address the problem through research on an innovatory process for assessing the potential and sustainability of a wide range of new technologies, and for designing successful strategies for scaling up.
1.2.4 Introducing new technologies
The challenge of meeting the MDG targets in water and sanitation are enormous, especially in rural areas. The JMP shows that increases in water supply coverage in sub-Saharan Africa has averaged less than 1% per year, with more rural people without access to safe water now than in 1990. Peri-urban and small town populations have grown three times faster than rural communities as people move into urban areas, but even so the majority of un-served (over 80%) remain in rural areas. A four-fold increase in rates of coverage for rural areas is needed for water MDG targets to be met. 40 million more rural people are without sanitation than in 1990, reflecting a 0.25% per annum growth in coverage. Alarmingly, 7% per year will be needed to reach the goal. It seems ‘business as usual’ using technologies and approaches of the last twenty years will not achieve the MDGs and that innovative ideas are needed.
1.2.5 Description baseline
As mentioned above in the ‘baseline parameters’ section, in sub-Saharan Africa a wide range of innovations in low-cost water and sanitation technologies and promotion strategies exist, including:
• Technologies for household level or small communities, including multiple-use of water
• Decentralised technologies for use in small towns or peri-urban areas,
• Accompanying management models
• New approaches to marketing water and sanitation technologies
NGOs and small-scale entrepreneurs from within/outside Africa contributed to these technological and institutional innovations. WASHTech will provide a neutral and transparent instrument to measure the performance of new and existing WASH technologies, and a process to introduce technologies for successful uptake and long-term sustainability
Decentralised water supply systems --- Of the de-centralised piped water supply systems, which are in place, few are performing ideally, even in the best organised countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Where piped supplies are not viable or reliable in the region, some 370,000 or so handpumps have been installed but of which over 130,000 are estimated to be broken down at any one time . Yet since the intense research on handpump performance in the 1980’s by the World Bank, there has been no subsequent concerted effort to evaluate recently developed pumps, and at no time has there been a comprehensive analysis of the social and cultural factors, which affect handpump performance. Thus innovation is necessary not just to expand coverage but also to develop robust methodologies, which improve on the sustainability of those water supply systems already in place. It is this that WASHTECH aims to do, with particular reference to the interface between district and community levels.
Meanwhile in small towns and peri-urban areas, problems with solid waste and sewage lead to growing environmental degradation, water pollution and increased health risks. Piloting of sustainable businesses in solid waste management in areas characterised by poverty and lack of minimum institutional support is becoming a major need, as are a wider variety of technical and managerial sanitation solutions. These systems need evaluating not just for their effects on the environment but also for their business potential, affordability, and the relationship between public and private sectors. It is this holistic approach, which the TAF is designed to address.
Going to scale---The sustainability of conventional technological solutions is one problem, but a second is that whilst many new solutions have been developed, and even piloted, they are having little overall impact on the MDG targets for the sector.
Numerous developments of technologies such as eco-sanitation, rainwater harvesting, multiple use, and household water treatment have been tested and piloted by projects but very few have spread beyond the areas in which they have been introduced. This is mainly as a result of the approach through which such innovations have been initiated, and in particular the low involvement of the private sector and poor development of effective social marketing. These two factors, when combined with demonstration models given free, the high dependence on donor funds and project driven approaches, have usually confined technology adoption to piloted areas. Community Led Total Sanitation and Self Supply are approaches, which seek to avoid this trap, encouraging less donor-dependent replication of improved water supply and sanitation facilities from the outset. These approaches therefore have the potential for more cost effective and rapid technology up-take. Thus the research, development and testing of the TAF will explore ways of moving from demonstration or piloting to going to scale in ways which maximise up-take through users’ capacities, private sector investment and local government’s limited resources. Research and analysis will therefore concentrate particularly on the elements which link households and communities to service providers in many different forms.
Technology assessment and validation --- Up-take of new technologies by policy makers and planners as well as the private sector has been weak, with, for example, no new technology for point water systems being taken to scale since the handpumps tested and widely introduced from the early 1980’s. This has been largely due to the lack of formalised systems for technology assessment.
Description Baseline ‘technology assessment and validation’
There are many examples of this lack of technology assessment systems. For instance in Zimbabwe the present economic situation calls for cheaper household latrines and community and household adoption of rope pumps but government has no process by which such technologies can be accepted alongside the conventional options approved many years ago. Similarly governments in Ghana, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Zambia and Uganda, among others, are considering whether rope pumps can be considered as an acceptable level of supply for households and communities. These governments have, however, delayed for several years from any decision because there is no procedure in place to validate technologies or to evaluate the effects of other social, institutional, economic, and market factors, which would affect going to scale. There is also no objective assessment of the performance of other piloted pumps, giving proponents the opportunity to claim all pumps are working well or require no maintenance and others to claim that the same technologies are usually broken down.
The lack of processes and methodologies for technology evaluation is part of the problem, but lack of availability of necessary capacities to develop or implement such processes is another. Government ministries for water and sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa generally do not have technology accreditation sections, or well-researched data on performance of specific technologies. Country resource centres, academic institutions and government engineers have staff with relevant backgrounds but little research capacity or experience in developing assessment methodologies. The aim of developing the TAF is partly to provide a well-designed framework for assessment, but the process of the research and development will also be used to build up in-country expertise in technology testing and validation.
1.2.6 Objectives
The overall development objective is for more effective investment in new technologies to achieve MDG targets. The project (WASHTECH) objective is to strengthen sector capacity to make effective investment in new technologies, through research and development of a framework, which assesses the potential of new technologies introduced into innovative decentralised systems. Here ‘new technologies’ are taken to range from those that are un-tested, through to those that have been piloted, but have not been taken to scale through adoption into national sector strategy. Most emphasis will initially be put on the latter.
1.2.7 Outputs
The direct outputs are:
• A widely applicable Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) and process that will provide a simple system and criteria for evaluating new technologies and their performance, identifying sustainability issues, and analysing approaches to introduction, innovation, diffusion and scaling up.
• Well-established capacities in three countries for the application and adaptation of the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) and processes to local context and type of technology. The in-country Resource Centres will have the capacity to manage and facilitate the assessments independently
• The second level of outputs depends on the TAF development and capacity building. They define strategies for innovation and scaling up, and the time-span and process needed to achieve successful up-take and sustainability. These outputs are both of direct use to the sector and are also an indication of the value and application of the framework. These recommendations and strategies for sustainable innovation and going to scale will be finalized.
The WASHTECH objective and outputs are achieved through a set of research activities which increase awareness of new technology options, develop assessment systems relevant to different stakeholders, and build long-term local capacity to identify weaknesses in approach and assess sustainability and scalability of new technologies. These activities are undertaken in three countries, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda, where IRC and other consortium members have been working for a long time in partnership with key sector actors. These countries offer a wide range of technologies and different cultural, socio-economic and physical environments. The process and the tools developed are, however, appropriate for use in other countries and the web support and training materials which form part of the outputs will be freely accessible. This three-year research project produced results that can be used for scaling up with minimum delay.
The assessment framework evaluates the sustainability of new low cost technologies in their institutional, economic, and social contexts and so also identify and elaborate sustainable innovation strategies for introducing new technologies. Building capacity and procedures for technology validation as part of the framework facilitates government endorsement of technical innovations. The strategies will be suitable to a range of sector actors. Capacity building focuses not just at national level but also on the practitioners, i.e. the decision makers who are in charge of the WASH sector development at district and decentralised levels and on whom many of the issues of sustainability depend.
Project Results:
1.3 A description of the main S&T results/foregrounds
WASHTech produced five main S&T results and foregrounds, for each a description is included:
1. Research Report
2. Technology Applicability Framework- TAF: manual with questions and questionnaires
3. Guide to Technology Introduction Process (TIP) – generic and for each of the project countries
4. Project Impact Assessment
5. Learning Alliances in WASHTech
1.3.1 WASHTech Research Report
This report outlines the research process that was followed to develop two tools that are useful for the WASH sector: The Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) and the Technology Introduction Process (TIP). The TAF is applied to validate different technology options considered for a given context, and to thus assess possible blockages to their sustainability and scalability. The TAF, therefore, assists the local sector stakeholders to find solutions to overcome the stumbling blocks hindering provision of lasting services. The TIP is a guidance document to be used to steer the multi-stakeholder coordinated initiation of a specific WASH technology towards a local WASH service that lasts.
Rationale
WASH practitioners can draw upon a number of different technology options when delivering water supply, sanitation and hygiene services. There are many different types of pumps, different ways of powering pumping, different latrines and different hand-washing facilities. At the same time, there is a serious challenge facing producers, practitioners, communities, governments and development partners whereby the services introduced, struggle to remain in operation or perform optimally for sufficient lengths of time to truly meet user needs. Broken down pumps, semi-functional piped schemes and abandoned latrines are only all too common.
The WASH sector is currently faced with a situation where lessons learned in pilots are not widely transferred. There is little or no feedback loop from communities to producers and implementers of some widely used WASH technologies, that meaning user difficulties persist for long periods without being resolved. Many countries do not have policies or standards in place for assessment and uptake of new WASH technologies, resulting in arbitrary adoption of options that are not fit for purpose, too expensive for users to pay for, not scalable and inadequately supported at local level. Technologies that look like a good idea on paper and in marketing campaigns in developed countries can be promoted for long periods of time before it becomes clear that they lack relevance or practical application on the ground. The lack of guidance has led to a set of negative consequences, which include:
➢ Introduction of technologies and services that do not meet user needs;
➢ Introduction of technologies that look like a good idea on paper and in marketing campaigns in developed countries but lack relevance or practical application on the ground;
➢ Introduction of technologies in an arbitrary way, with poor consideration of criteria likely to impact on success;
➢ Introduction of technologies that are too expensive for users to pay for;
➢ Introduction of technologies that cannot be adequately supported in the local context resulting in breakdown and failure;
➢ Introduction of technologies that are not scalable because of multiple barriers to their uptake;
➢ Misdiagnosis of reasons for failure with good technologies dismissed as sub-standard;
➢ Assumptions being made about certain technologies that are rarely corroborated or that are not true but are perpetuated as myths;
➢ Aggressive promotion of technologies that are not appropriate;
➢ Overwhelming of government institutions or support agencies with technologies that are at such a basic stage of development that they are not yet fit for purpose.
To address this gap, the TAF and TIP were developed and tested within the EU-funded action research project WASHTech.
Technology Applicability Framework (TAF)
The TAF is a decision support tool to assess applicability and scalability of a specific water, sanitation or hygiene technology. It is applied in a participatory approach in four steps:
• Screening
• Assessment
• Presentation of results
• Interpretation and conclusion.
For the assessment of a technology, 18 indicators have been defined which reflect six sustainability dimensions and which take into account perspectives of all key actors involved in the technology introduction process. These 18 indicators consider not only the particular technology itself but also the way the technology is introduced. In a scoring workshop, the verified data from desk studies and field visits are used to answer scoring questions. Each indicator is scored in the workshop using a traffic light system. All relevant actors participate in the scoring workshop and contribute their views. As a result of the scoring workshop, a graphical profile is generated which presents the achievements so far but also the limitations related to the technology and to the introduction process. This presentation allows various entry points for interpretation and to identify mitigation measures where needed. Apart from the validation of a WASH technology in a local given context, the TAF will also enable all institutions involved in technology introduction to identify blockages to sustainability and scalability of WASH services, using technology as the entry point for discussions. The results are documented in a Final Assessment Report and as a summary in a Technology Brief.
The TAF has been tested in 18 technology assessments on 13 different WASH technologies in three rounds in three countries: Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda. After the testing in all three countries, institutions were appointed to host the TAF. This will provide an institutional memory and national resource base for it. In the process of testing, it became clear that the perception of the performance of WASH technologies was mainly based on limited anecdotal information, often with little evidence from the ground. By going through the TAF process, judgments on performance became more nuanced and grounded. Exposure to the field and to inputs presented by other actors in the scoring workshop improved understanding. In particular, it became clear that successful technologies and lasting services are not only dependent on the technology itself but also on their introduction process. For technologies that had previously been identified as failed, it was revealed that the introduction had often been so poor that the technology could not perform properly. In one instance, an entire community was using a hand pump as the only water supply system, although the pump had originally been designed to serve only a couple of households.
The TAF is a cost efficient tool. The costs for applying the TAF are estimated around US$ 3,000 per assessment of one technology in one district.
Technology Introduction Process (TIP)
The TAF is linked to a second tool, the Technology Introduction Process (TIP), which also has been developed and applied within the WASHTech project. The TIP is a generic guidance document on technology introduction. The TIP should be applied once a technology has passed a TAF successfully. During introduction of a technology the TAF can also be used as a monitoring tool to follow up the performance of an introduction process over time. The TIP is designed to provide step-by step-guidance for successful introduction of WASH technologies to provide lasting WASH services. In all three countries the TIP has been used to support the sector in developing country specific guidelines for technology introduction.
Resource Base
The TAF and TIP are provided in the public domain. The TAF comprises a manual and a set of questionnaires, which can be adopted and customized to specific local needs. All relevant documents and additional information on TAF and TIP including Q/A service are available on www.washtechnologies.net , hosted by RWSN.
1.3.2 Technology Applicability Framework- TAF: manual
The TAF Manual, screening questions and guiding & scoring questions are available from www.washtechnologies.net
Overview : TAF
What is the TAF for?
Applicability Framework (TAF) is a decision support tool on the applicability, scalability and sustainability of a specific WASH technology to provide lasting services in a specific context and on the readiness for its introduction. The TAF can be used to
➢ Start discussion, documentation and sharing experiences about a WASH technology and approaches to scale up this technology
➢ Assess the potential of a specific technology with respect to applicability, scalability, sustainability and uptake in a specific context,
➢ Assess readiness of a sector to scale up this technology including identification of potential measures for improving uptake,
Monitor performance of technology and its introduction process.
How does it work?
The TAF should be applied when a technology is being piloted. It can also be used to support monitoring and evaluation of progress and performance of technology introduction processes
When to apply the TAF?
The TAF is designed as a participatory tool. It is applied using a stepwise process. It uses specific questionnaires for screening and field questionnaires for the assessment. Information needed is collected through desk studies and field visits. All relevant actors are involved in the collection of data and in the generation and discussion of results. This allows all actors, including representatives from national and local government and users of the technology such as communities, to bring in their perspectives and views and to hear the opinions of other actors.
Where are the limits?
The TAF is designed to assess a single WASH technology (e.g. a pump or UDDT), which is or will be used to provide WASH services in a district or region. The TAF can also be used to assess complex systems such as a piped supply with tanks, pipes and taps. However, prior to the TAF assessment of a system, the boundaries for the assessment have to be defined. Field visits are used to verify the context and boundaries of each TAF application. The TAF is designed as an assessment tool for a single WASH technology in a specific context, not a selection tool, which selects between various technologies.
Four steps in the TAF assessment The assessment within the TAF follows a procedure with four steps: The TAF process starts with a screening in step-1 The screening focuses on two key questions:
➢ Is there a need for this technology?
➢ Is the technology at all feasible in this region?
If the screening is positive, the technology will be comprehensively assessed in step-2. In step-3 the results are collected and presented. In step-4 all results are comprehensively interpreted.
Overview: TAF Methodology
Stepwise procedure for application of the TAF Preparation 1. Analysis of the objective of the assessment (e.g. which technology, context, experiences so far, need, partners)
2. Setting up of Study team Step
Step-1 3. Screening, mostly desk work
Step-2 4. Preparation of field work: e.g. contextualization of questionnaires incl. data on costs needed (e.g. CapEx for indicator 4), training of study team on TAF, logistics, orientation of partners in field including districts and villages to be visited
5. Formal orientation of partners in the field, including districts and villages to be visited, training on TAF methodology, logistics incl. translation for local languages
6. Field visits: interviews and data collection, using Focus Group Discussion, bilateral interviews with randomly chosen households and site visits
7. Processing and validation of data, maybe in a workshop
8. Scoring workshop; attended by all relevant actors, moderated by an experienced and neutral facilitator
Step-3 9. Presentation of all results (screening, field visits, scoring) in the workshop
Step-4 10. Interpretation of results in the workshop and documentation
The TAF Manual gives the details per step – see www.washtechnologies.net :
Step-1: Screening
The purpose of the screening is to assure a cost effective assessment of a technology, which has the potential to be feasible and reasonable in a specific context. The screening helps to reject technologies, which are not suitable in a particular context, e.g. latrines where the groundwater level is high and the area is often flooded.
Step-2 Assessment
The Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) is a decision support tool on the applicability, scalability and sustainability of a specific WASH technology to provide lasting services in a specific context and on the readiness for its introduction. The TAF assesses not only the technology but also if key elements for a successful introduction of this technology are in place to assure that lasting services can be provided. The concept of the TAF allows the user to identify areas of risks and of opportunities and to define specific measures to support the technology introduction process. The TAF can be used to identify requirements and challenges of a specific cost model, which has been chosen as basis for the introduction process.
Scoring rules in the TAF, see this traffic lights diagram.
Step-4 Presentation of Results
Step-1“Screening” provides general information about the context the technology is supposed to be applied in, but in particular, the results include
• the assessment of the need to introduce the technology in the context considered;
• the assessment of the applicability of this technology in this context.
After the field visits the data collected should be verified. And presented in the scoring workshop for approval prior to the scoring. A compilation of the approved field data should be included in the presentation of the assessment as an annex.
The resulting 18 scores of the TAF assessment will be presented according to their numbers in a graphical TAF profile. The figure below shows on the left side an example of a TAF profile. On the right side, an example of an annotated profile is added.
Step-5 Interpretation of Results
The interpretation of the results of Step-1 “Screening” is straightforward. Results of the screening are very context specific and not applicable to other regions without detailed analysis.
Information on the scope of technology use, the mode of introduction and the boundaries defined for the assessment or impressions and information from the field visits are crucial inputs for Step-2 and the interpretation of the results. Questions, which came up during the screening should be clarified during the assessment in Step-2. The results of Step-2 are interpreted based on the graphical profile, on the comments coming up during the field visit and the discussion but also on additional comments received during the screening and field visits. The graphical profile offers various entry points and supports a comprehensive interpretation:
• Per row focusing on a specific sustainability dimension
• Per column focusing on a specific perspective
• Comprehensively as an entire profile
• Additionally specific thematic interpretation is possible with respect to cross cutting topics such as O&M
These entry points allow to identify areas of high risk and to define appropriate mitigation measures, e.g. to improve the design of the introduction process. The result of the TAF assessment can support the decision making to “Go“, “NOT-GO“ or “GO under certain conditions for the technology being considered". It also indicates the bottlenecks e.g. concerning the service level provided by this technology and the introduction process. The TAF process also triggers discussion if there are actors wiling to take the technology further.
A comprehensive synthesis of the discussion of the results and of the detailed interpretation including the nuances in the process is documented in a Final Assessment Report. The report should elaborate on the process of the TAF testing, participation of the different actors, the atmosphere in the scoring workshop but also on the particular technology, e.g. photos or drawings, the TAF profile. As a four page summary document of the Final Assessment Report a technology brief informs the sector on the results of this assessment.
Results of the TAF assessment are very context specific and not applicable to other regions without detailed analysis.
1.3.3 Guide to Technology Introduction Process (TIP)
This report outlines the research process that was followed to develop two tools that are useful for the WASH sector: the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) and the Technology Introduction Process (TIP). The TAF is applied to validate different technology options considered for a given context, and to thus assess possible blockages to their sustainability and scalability. The TAF, therefore, assists the local sector stakeholders to find solutions to overcome the stumbling blocks hindering provision of lasting services. The TIP is a guidance document to be used to steer the multi-stakeholder-coordinated initiation of a specific WASH technology towards a local WASH service that lasts.
Rationale
The rationale for the TIP is basically the same as for the TAF. Indeed, the TAF and TIP are ‘two hands of the same body’. TAF & TIP complements each other. A validated and promising technology needs a coherent and coordinated introduction to get scaled up. If one important stakeholder in the introduction does not deliver, the entire scaling up may fail. An opportunity in the national or local WASH sector missed to make progress towards sustainable water and sanitation service delivery.
Technology Introduction Process
The Technology Introduction Process (TIP) is a guidance document on technology introduction. The TIP gives guidance for countries on how to develop country-based technology validation and introduction guidelines and how to apply them so that the sector can learn and develop in terms of innovation.
The TIP provides generic information on actors involved in the introduction process and on key tasks in each phase of the process. For each application, the generic tasks need to be contextualized to the country-specific conditions. The TIP proposes steps for the development and application of country- specific guidelines, for the institutional set-up and options and for funding of the process and its follow up.
In all three WASHTech partner countries, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda, the TIP has been used to support the sector in developing country specific guidelines for technology introduction.
The TAF and the TIP are designed as complementary tools. The TAF can be used as a validation tool for WASH technologies. During the introduction of a technology, the TAF can also serve as a monitoring tool to follow up the performance of an introduction process over time.
Resource Base
The TAF and TIP are provided in the public domain. All relevant documents and additional information on TAF and TIP including Q/A service will be available on www.washtechnologies.net hosted by the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN).
Approaches to technology introduction
In the case of the so-called supply-driven approaches, it is usually the producer and provider who put a lot of effort into the development and promotion of a specific product. In the past, government bodies or development partners were often also pushing to introduce a specific WASH technology and related services. The supply-driven approach may be promoted with or without business-related intentions. For example, a market-based, supply-driven approach takes place when a private company promotes a water filter for household water treatment by applying intensive methods such as advertising, offering giveaways, etc.
There are also so-called demand-responsive approaches where products and the way to introduce them are developed starting from the needs of the target population. In some cases, the product will even be developed together with the target users.
In all cases, the socio-economic context of the target population is one of the key factors that determines the success of the introduction and influences the dynamics of the uptake. A comprehensive assessment of the applicability and scalability of WASH technologies is provided through the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) (Olschewski and Casey, 2013).
Cost models used
The introduction process depends on the technology itself, but also on factors within the wider context, such as the institutional and legal set-up. In particular, the introduction approach is linked to the financial and funding framework which defines who will pay for the life cycle-cost components, especially for the investment costs (CapEx) and which actor will bear or contribute to the costs for operation and maintenance (OpEx) or the costs for major repairs (CapManEx).
Many different cost models are used for the introduction of WASH technologies. Three often-used models are described in the figure below.
A) Capital-Subsidy Model
In this model, almost all capital investment costs for WASH infrastructures are subsidized, but the costs for operation and maintenance should be covered by the users themselves. Subsidies go to the buyers of a technology, but not to the producer. This is a common model for capital-intensive infrastructure that is, impossible or highly improbable, for the end user to afford, but where on-going operations and maintenance costs are covered wholly or partially by the end user through an on-demand purchase or a regular tariff. While this approach reduces the drain on public funds, tariffs for water and sanitation services rarely cover the full lifecycle costs (including Capital Maintenance Expenditure (CapManEx) and direct and indirect support costs. For a long time, a subsidized model for the introduction of technologies has been used, and it still is predominant.
B) 100% Subsidy Model
In this model, it is the public sector or the donors that assume full responsibility for the technology introduction, its upfront capital costs, on-going minor (OpEx) and major maintenance costs (CapManEx) and support costs. Such an approach can allow for efficiencies through national standardization, supply chains, training, and quality control, but also requires healthy public finances and a competent government structure at all levels. However, long-term sustainability of this model has to be assessed carefully. Nowadays, cost model B is not often used, except in situations, which are close to an emergency.
C) Zero Subsidy
In a zero-subsidy approach, the users cover all costs. This approach bears the hope of increasing ownership and accountability, to avoid the problems associated with donor-dependence, weak public finances or institutions and sustainability issues. Here, the role of the state is mainly focused on creating a suitable environment for market creation, e.g. through stimulation of demand and developing capacities of local business, but also through monitoring and controlling quality of products and level of services. In the so-called market-based approach, the technologies and services are provided through the private sector on a commercial basis. The users are clients and not beneficiaries. All products are provided through a private sector-based supply chain.
Nowadays, many sanitation technologies are promoted following a market-based approach. However, the private sector also provides more and more water-related technologies, e.g. for self supply, for filters for household water treatment or for providing water for productive and domestic use (multiple use of water).
In reality, all cost models can be found, although models A and C are prominent.
Key aspects of the introduction process
Based on the various experiences from different fields of technology introduction, a common picture of the dynamics throughout the uptake process of new technologies was identified. As shown in Figure below, technologies that were taken up followed an S-shaped curve (see red curve). The dynamic indicates a slow uptake in the beginning and a steeper uptake after a certain time, followed by a plateau when market saturation is reached. However there are many examples where introduction failed and efforts ended in the “Valley of Death”, which refers to the period in the beginning of the introduction process when the expenditures increase and there is still no or very little revenue. The resulting gap can be substantial and cause a risk for the entire process if there is not sufficient funding. If the “Valley of Death” cannot be properly funded, introduction won’t succeed.
Scope of the TIP
The TIP is a management tool for guidance of technology introduction processes, actors’ roles and responsibilities. The overall objective of the TIP is to support the actors of the WASH sector in designing and planning their country-specific guidelines for validation and technology introduction. It provides a generic description of roles and tasks of key actors in the introduction process. The TIP considers all phases of the Project Management Cycle, such as preparing, planning, managing, monitoring or analyzing a specific uptake approach. The TIP offers a set of inputs to support the sector in developing and establishing the country-specific guidelines for technology introduction. These elements include:
• Components of the TIP – key phases, actors, roles and tasks: For each of the key phases which determine the introduction process, the TIP describes the roles and tasks of the actors involved.
• Process of developing the country-specific guidelines: The TIP describes a stepwise procedure and key issues which need to be discussed and decided during the process of developing and approving the country-specific guidelines.
• Application and adaption of guidelines through an iterative process: once the guidelines are approved, a mechanism needs to be in place to share experiences, to learn as a sector and to trigger innovation.
Key phases in technology introduction
The TIP follows the concept of distinguishing and characterizing the introduction process with three major phases: the invention phase, the phase of the tipping point and phase of uptake and use (Figure below). The background of this concept is based on various experiences from product introduction applying market-based approaches (Heierli 2000, 2007, 2008) and additional literature on innovation in developing countries (Douthwaite 2002, Rogers 2003, Danert 2003).
The key phases can be summarized as follows:
• The invention phase involves research, development of prototypes, assessing feasibility, testing and piloting on a wider scale and the preparation for the wider launch. The invention phase includes two sub-phases:
o testing and
o preparing for launch.
Testing includes the development of a new technology or the adaptation of an existing one, its piloting and assessment of feasibility. Feasibility should be assessed comprehensively to capture key issues for introduction right from the onset. This is the moment when the TAF comes in as a methodology for assessing applicability and scalability of the technology in that particular context. The results of the TAF assessment provide relevant inputs for a better design and management of the introduction process. In this sub-phase, the focus of activities is on improving performance and costs of the technology, aligning it with national strategies and developing a viable business case for it. Additional market research may be needed to improve feasibility of the technology and its introduction.
If, after testing, the feasibility and the potential are proven, the decision might be taken to introduce the technology on a larger scale, e.g. through promotion in a national WASH programme.
Preparatory work is undertaken to prepare the launching of the technology on a larger scale. At this stage, major efforts are made to set up mechanisms for quality control, training of target users, and marketing and promotion, establishing production capacity and viable supply chains, and capacity development of the supply chain to follow up introduction. In this phase, a “big kick” could perhaps be organized to support promotion, e.g. a specific event to create visibility and demand. Complementary efforts such as demand creation through social marketing can be undertaken. Apart from the producer, many other actors will be involved in supporting the uptake and giving guidance including the government as a regulator, or local NGOs to facilitate the uptake process.
• The tipping point is the phase at which the technology is widely taken up. Many units are produced, purchased and installed. Production capacity and viable and efficient supply chains are further strengthened. Sufficient resources for proper after-sales follow up are provided. Specific marketing measures might be needed, including promotion. Product quality control is required and effective support and mitigation measures including monitoring are needed to keep up and to further improve performance of the technology and of the introduction process. In order to cope with the increasing
Key actors and their role
A thorough understanding of the formal roles, connections and driving interests of the actors involved is essential for the design and management of the introduction process and for anticipating the reactions of actors. As a starting point, a mapping of actors involved in the introduction process should be done considering the key roles in the technology introduction process:
• National government, e.g. Ministry for Water, Ministry of Health
• TIP host (to assure accountability, it should be within government)
• Private sector at national level
• Private sector at local level, such as local retailers, pump mechanics or service providers
• User of technologies; e.g. water user committees or, for complex technologies, the system operator
• Local government
• Inventor of the technology
• Investor/Development partner
• NGO
• Academia, research
• Other actors, e.g. microfinance institutions
The list of actors has to be adapted to the country-specific situation and to the type of technology to be introduced, e.g. for sanitation, different actors might be involved compared to water-related technologies. For specific phases and activities, the list has to be extended to include representatives from the media but also local leaders.
The roles should clearly describe a defined range and type of tasks. Roles are defined specifically with respect to responsibility and accountability and not necessarily to one institution. The key roles in technology introduction are as follows:
• Regulator at national and local level,
• Developer of technology / inventor of technology,
• Producer,
• Provider including service provider,
• Users (household members, communities or institutions or even operators for complex technologies)
• Investor in the introduction process,
• Facilitator of introduction process,
• Research & development organizations,
• Lead of the introduction process
Tasks of actors in key phases
By allocating specific tasks to actors, their role in the introduction process will be defined. Actors become accountable for their responsibilities and activities. The TIP provides a generic description of the tasks related to WASH technology introduction. In the TIP, particular focus is put on the roles of actors involved in the introduction process in order to assure a precise allocation of the tasks to the actors. The description of tasks is based on the concept of key phases of the introduction process (Figure below). In the process of developing the country-specific guidelines, the actors and their tasks will be specified for activities in the three key phases: invention phase, tipping point and the uptake and use.
No matter which cost model and approach is followed for the introduction of WASH technologies, a wide range of tasks are required to drive an introduction successfully as a sector. To give proper instruction, the TIP provides a generic description of key tasks which are presented in tables for each phase, in the so-called TIP Matrix. The collection of tasks is based on an analysis of many case studies. To support the user of the TIP in translating the generic description of tasks into the contextualized definition of tasks, the generic set of tasks is grouped into five different levels (Figure below). These five levels characterize the activities and indicate the capacities and resources needed to accomplish these tasks.
Building on existing procedures and experiences
The development and introduction of formal procedures for validation and introduction of WASH technologies should build on existing experiences and capacities in the sector and should be embedded in established procedures.
The starting point to develop or to revise guidelines for technology introduction or validation might differ from country to country. Depending on the context in each country, e.g. whether a guideline for introduction is already in place or not, but also on the technology to be introduced, or the type of cost model selected, the tasks listed in the TIP matrix need to be further adapted and then allocated to specific actors in the sector.
Stepwise process for developing guidelines
In most cases, the process of developing guidelines for validation and technology introduction will develop step by step. Key steps include:
I. Kick-off and preparation
This phase will include the establishment of a working group and a steering committee. The steering committee should comprise members of all relevant stakeholder groups in the sector. A work plan for the development of the guidelines should be developed taking into consideration the level of formal or informal procedures existing and known in the WASH sector. The objectives and scope of the guidelines and a work plan should be approved by the steering committee as “TOR” for the working group developing the details. The next steps should be organized as workshops with work in between accomplished by the working group or the members it has appointed.
II. Draft Concept
In the first step, a mapping of key actors in the process of validation and introduction and of their roles is carried out. Based on this mapping, in the second step, particular tasks are defined and assigned to these actors. As a basis for this work, the generic description of tasks as documented in the TIP Matrix can be used. The draft concept of the county specific guidelines should be developed by and discussed in the working group and presented to the steering committee. Setting out from the feedback on the draft guidelines, options for funding particular work packages related to the introduction process should also be developed. Above all, ideas should be generated that show how the activities of the working group and the steering committee can be funded, especially in the testing phase, but also beyond it.
III. Final Concept and approval
The final document presenting the country-specific guidelines will be approved by the steering committee. Depending on country-specific legislation, the procedures for approval might be rather informal, through practice in the sector, or more formal, through a ministerial decree. In many cases, an outright legislation of the guideline might not be possible in the short term. A high-level body of the sector will adopt the guideline. After development and approval, they will be communicated to the actors, maybe through a particular information event, e.g. information sessions at high-level sector events.
Iterative development
The guidelines should be looked at as a “living document”. This means that to a certain extent, they will be further developed in a somehow iterative process. However due to the formal act of approval, each and every approved version should be implemented and enforced.
Institutional set-up and finding requirement
For the process of the development, application and review of guidelines, a dedicated and defined institutional set-up is needed which determines the involvement of specific actors as well as the allocation of financial resources.
• In the process of developing the guidelines, the lead for the process should be at government level. For practical reasons, a working group should be established that does the footwork to work out the guidelines and organize consultation with key actors. A steering committee should be established at high level to guide the process and finally approve the product and the guidelines. Members of the steering committee should include representatives of the ministries for water and sanitation and finance or trade, members of the government agency responsible for standardization and quality control of products, and members of the private sector.
• For the application of the guideline, i.e. in the case of a concrete introduction process of a specific technology, a specific task force should be established that takes on the tasks as defined in the guidelines.
Linkages between TAF and TIP
The TAF and the TIP are designed as complementary tools and at the same time the TAF is embedded within the TIP as key step in an early phase of an introduction process.
The TAF is a decision-support tool for the WASH sector to comprehensively assess the applicability and the scalability of a specific WASH technology in a specific context. The TAF is a participatory process and should be applied in the testing phase, the very first phase of introduction, to provide a comprehensive feasibility assessment and validate the technology. In this respect, the TAF should be used as a validation tool. The TAF can be applied to new technologies or to already existing technologies, which should be further scaled up.
Once the technology has successfully passed the TAF, it can be taken up to a wider scale if any actors are interested in and dedicated to investing in this technology. The results of the TAF assessment can then be used in various phases of the introduction process to improve its design. In the generic TIP Matrix as shown in Annex 3, the figures listed in bold in the table show the indicators and aspects which should be considered in detail, e.g. for defining specific mitigation measures to improve progress in uptake. In this respect, the TAF can also be used as a proper monitoring tool in the introduction process.
1.3.4 Project Impact Assessment
This is a synthesis of country and global reports evaluating the impact of the Water Sanitation and Hygiene Technology (WASHTech) project up to November 2013.
The overall development objectives are to strengthen WASH sector capacity to make effective investment in new technologies, thereby improving sustainability of WASH services and ensuring the scale-up of suitable of technologies is realized. The project proposed to achieve this objective through the development of tools aiding in technology assessment and scale-up, employing an action research methodology within three participant countries: Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda. The terms of reference outlined in the projects description of work document demanded that the impact evaluation covered the following aspects:
• Assess the changes in capacity, attitudes and knowledge among learning alliance members and Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) users (including project partners themselves).
• Gauge the degree of adoption of the technical validation tool and its ease of use
• Identify new potential users of the TAF and those adopting or considering adoption of the recommendations.
This report outlines the findings from 40 key informant interviews and one focus group discussion among stakeholders within the three participant countries. Further country and global perspectives pertaining to the project and the tools developed (particularly the TAF) have been accounted for through interviews conducted as part of the process monitoring component of the project (WP 7.3) which has employed a Most Significant Change (MSC) methodology (Davis and Dart 2004).
Key Findings
Project Outputs
WASHTech has succeeded in producing its main outputs. The project has developed two main tools. The first tool, the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF), is a tool, which aims to assist WASH sector professionals in making rigorous assessments about the suitability of a given technology to a specific context. The TAF takes into account the views of various key stakeholders including the user of the technology, the producer or provider and the regulators of the sector. The tool employs a participatory approach to decision making and requires a field team to collect data on the technology, which is processed and analysed at multi-stakeholder platforms. The second tool, the Technology Introduction Process (TIP), provides a guide to scaling up technologies, identifying all the key actors and their roles and responsibilities in this process. Aside from the tools, the project has also produced a number of documents and literature reviews of WASH technologies used in Africa, the tools for assessing technologies and performance and methods of assessment in the three participant countries. The main tools and the projects reviews are now in the public domain and are available on a website hosted by the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN)
Assessing technology
Throughout the action research component of the project the TAF tool was applied to technologies being used in the different countries. The interviews revealed cases where the tool and the methodology behind its application have helped to identify new technologies for scale-up, barriers to scaling up both new and old technologies and various areas where technologies and their introduction can be improved. Thus, WASHTech has demonstrated that the tools they have produced have the potential to fulfil their main objectives.
Attitudes
The project has allowed stakeholders a platform to discuss current issues relating to technology assessment and introduction in the sector. This has allowed people to recognize the importance of hardware in service delivery and has worked to increase technology issues on the sector agenda. The project has created a demand for a formalized and documented approach to technology assessment and introduction, something that was previously lacking in each of the countries involved. A key attitudinal change among interviewees was to recognize the value of obtaining the users perspective and the social considerations around technology. The interviews also uncovered numerous examples where the assessment of technologies by the TAF had changed attitudes towards specific technologies.
Control and Coordination
Each country has had previous problems with inadequate assessment and informal introduction of WASH technologies. Interviewees believed that the tools had the ability to address these issues by providing a standardized approach to assessment and introduction and that this in turn could make the processes more explicit and transparent to NGOs and private technology developers. The project has engaged stakeholders from different areas of the sector. This has generated different cases where coordination around technology introduction has been improved. NGOs and technology developers have been put in touch with government officials and are now engaging with official bodies. At the same time, government officials have been able to appreciate the difficulties faced by external organizations regarding the lack of clear processes to follow.
Sector practices and procedures
Interviews discovered examples of how WASH stakeholders had begun to modify their practices. These examples predominantly came from representatives of NGOs and the private sector. Some mentioned they were now making efforts to engage with official government approval and introduction process as mentioned above. Private technology developers also mentioned that they were now trying to ensure users of their technologies are able to contact them about operation and maintenance of the technology. The majority of national and regional government stakeholders explained how their working practices were guided by directives from government ministries. As such, most of these actors were awaiting official approval of the tools and the subsequent integration into policy before their practices and procedures would be changed.
Stakeholder perceptions of the tools
The tools have certainly filled a gap within each of the sectors and interviewees were unanimous in their opinion that the tools were important. Some interviewees thought the TAF tool was still quite a heavy document and needed further refinement before certain actors in the sector use it. Other actors had reservations about how the tools would be funded and these are clearly factors, which need to be resolved before the tool is widely taken up by the sector.
Sector embedding
Significant steps have been taken to embed the tools within each country’s sector. Country partners have identified institutional hosts who will be responsible for implementing the tools. However, there is clearly a lot of work remaining in terms of raising awareness of the tools in the sector, building capacity of potential users of the tool, encouraging official government approval and policy integration, and determining clear processes behind the implementation of the tools. At a global level, the tools were shared in the public domain in September 2013. The official launch of the main project products was on 12 December 2013 during an international WASHTech webinar. As such, the awareness of the tools is still relatively low. Again, project consortium members will have to continue to disseminate the tools and advocate their use beyond the project timeline. The uptake of the tool and process TAF & TIP by international development partners and financing institutions, like the EU, would be very important, e.g. by using the tools in their programmes, by documenting impact, in promoting it in events, appraisals and assessments.
1.3.5 Learning Alliances in WASHTech
This document describes the theoretical underpinnings of the learning alliance approach and provides a framework for assessing the actual progress and challenges in implementing this approach in WASHTech. It is intended as a working document that will be periodically updated. A checklist for reviewing progress and gathering evidence is provided at the end of the document.
This document replaces the Guidelines for training learning alliance facilitators as the country teams concluded that they have sufficient experience from previous work. Instead a framework to support reflection and documentation of the learning alliance process in the focus countries was deemed more useful. This framework consists of five elements that cover key elements of any learning alliance process: essence, arborescence (or rooting), presence, resilience and evidence of the alliance.
The learning alliances in Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda build on existing platforms, groups and learning events at national and decentralised levels. In 2011, alliance activities such as scoping studies and meetings were initiated. At this stage of the project it is too early to speak of evidence and resilience of the alliances. Alliance facilitators in each country have identified opportunities and challenges faced in 2011. Opportunities include several national and international platforms and events, which provide space to share WASHTech outputs and engage stakeholders (end 2011 and 2012) and linkages between the host organisations and other sector players. Challenges include the development of (linkages with) active decentralised platforms, getting the right people involved and keeping them on board in a learning process. Linkages with other learning initiatives such as CLARA and with researchers outside WASHTech are important issues in the further embedding of the TAF in the coming year.
Why this document and who is it for?
WASHTech states that it will apply a learning alliance approach. Learning alliances (LAs) are not new but are a fairly complex multi-level and multi-stakeholder approach to carry out action-research and implementation work. The central premise of learning alliances is the embedding of research and implementation work in the local and national policy processes and in the practices of key sector stakeholders.
This document provides an overview of the concept of learning alliances in the WASHTech project, explains how a learning alliance is supposed to work and what it aims to improve. It also provides insights into the practical choices and implications for learning alliance processes in the three project countries and at the international level.
This document replaces the official deliverable D6.1 / D4 (Guidelines for training LA facilitators). After consultation with all country team coordinators, it was concluded that guidelines were not necessary, but instead sound documentation of the theory and practice of applying a learning alliance approach in the project would be useful.
This is a working document that should help all learning alliance facilitators (the WASHTech national coordinators) and WASHTech consortium members 1) understand the vision of change that learning alliances promote and 2) provide a framework for them to reflect on their practice and decisions regarding the facilitation of the learning alliance process and its development within and beyond the project’s lifetime.
Potential Impact:
1.4 The potential impact and the main dissemination activities and exploitation of results
1.4.1 Potential use and impact
The WASHTech project and sector professionals identified four main uses of the TAF:
1. For validation of a new WASH technology for application in the country. Technology developers who want to get their technology accepted, they approach national level ministries, which will apply the TAF & TIP.
2. For validation of an existing WASH technology for application in a specific context, for instance at district or sub-district level with specific local socio-, cultural, economic and other conditions. Then the TAF is applied before a technology is being introduced at that decentralised level. Barriers to sustainability are being identified and can be addressed prior to local introduction of the specific WASH technology.
3. As a monitoring tool, to assess why one WASH technology is a success while another one is a failure. Then hindrance and success factors are determined that will lead to choosing either another technology or formulating actions to do better.
4. And, as a tool in a project/programme appraisal process, in which the proposed WASH technology is being appraised for its potential to contribute to a sustainable WASH service.
As mentioned before, the guidance on Technology Introduction Process, developed in this WASHTech project, will lead to:
• Introduction of technologies and services that do meet user needs;
• Introduction of technologies that have relevance for practical application on the ground;
• Introduction of technologies in a concerted and coherent way, with good consideration of criteria likely to impact on success;
• Introduction of technologies that are affordable for users to pay for;
• Introduction of technologies that can be adequately supported in the local context, resulting in lasting water and sanitation services from these technologies;
• Introduction of technologies that are scalable because of multiple barriers to their uptake have been removed;
• Proper diagnosis of reasons for success and failure of highly potential technologies resulting in acceptance and scaling up;
• Assumptions made about certain technologies that are rarely corroborated or that are not true but are perpetuated as myths are discussed and removed;
• Former aggressive promotion of technologies -that are not appropriate- stopped;
• The end of overwhelming of government institutions or support agencies with technologies that are at such a basic stage of development that they are not yet fit for purpose.
Application of the WASHTech tool TAF and process TIP will contribute to:
• More effective investment in new technologies for sustained access to WASH services
• A sector that makes informed decisions in the choice of sustainable WASH technologies
• A participatory action research to identify obstacles and opportunities for uptake and scaling up technology beyond pilot testing
• Providing sector professionals (governmental agencies, development partners, NGOs, private operators, research institutes etc.) a set of methodological tools and participatory approaches for informed decision-making, strategic planning and introduction of validated WASH technologies
• The participatory development, implementation and evaluation of the methodological tools, embeds the practice of multi-stakeholder learning, sharing and collaboration - instilling individual and collective ownership of, attention to, and responsibility for sustainability
Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results
See under section 2. for all the details on dissemination and use.
1.5 The address of the project public website, if applicable as well as relevant contact details.
To ensure the continued availability for the sector professionals and organisations of the WASHTech project outputs, it was agreed within the project consortium to have a hosting arrangement with the Rural Water Supply Network. RWSN has a wide membership in the WASH sector of International Financing Institutions, UN organisations, International NGOs, knowledge and research centres etc., see http://www.rural-water-supply.net/en/supported-by. The key documents TAF with questions and TIP, and the case studies, templates etc. and discussion forum are now accessible from http://www.washtechnologies.net/ with both English and French versions.
During the 3-year project period 2011-2013, the project used the website http://washtechafrica.wordpress.com. For 2014, this project website will remain accessible, and if there is a significant number of users still at the end of 2014, then the project website will continue for another year.
List of Websites:
1.5 The address of the project public website, if applicable as well as relevant contact details.
To ensure the continued availability for the sector professionals and organisations of the WASHTech project outputs, it was agreed within the project consortium to have a hosting arrangement with the Rural Water Supply Network. RWSN has a wide membership in the WASH sector of International Financing Institutions, UN organisations, International NGOs, knowledge and research centres etc., see http://www.rural-water-supply.net/en/supported-by. The key documents TAF with questions and TIP, and the case studies, templates etc. and discussion forum are now accessible from http://www.washtechnologies.net/ with both English and French versions.
During the 3-year project period 2011-2013, the project used the website http://washtechafrica.wordpress.com. For 2014, this project website will remain accessible, and if there is a significant number of users still at the end of 2014, then the project website will continue for another year.
Consortium partner Country Role Contact person Email
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre The Netherlands Coordinator; lead in WP1-6-8-9 Mr Jo Smet smet@irc.n
Mrs Carmen da Silva-Well dasilvawells@irc.nl
Cranfield University United Kingdom Researcher, lead in WP2-7 Dr Alison Parker a.parker@cranfield.ac.uk
Skat Foundation Switzerland Researcher, lead in WP3-5 Mr André Olschewski andre.olschewski@skat.ch
WaterAid United Kingdom Research facilitator, lead in WP4 Mr Vincent Casey vincentcasey@wateraid.org
Water and Sanitation for Africa (WSA; former CREPA) Burkina Faso Country Facilitator, Communication and Researcher Dr Andrews
Dr Yacouba Coulibaly andrewsnkansah@wsafrica.org yacoubanoelcoulibaly@wsafrica.org
Training, Research and Networking for Development LBG (TREND) Ghana Country Facilitator, Communication Mr Benedict Tuffuor btuffuor@gmail.com
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Ghana Researcher Dr Kwabena Nyarko nyarko.k.b@gmail.com
Network for Water and Sanitation Uganda (NETWAS) Uganda Country Facilitator, Communication and Researcher Mrs Hellen Obuya Epitu hnhellen@gmail.com
Mr Simon Peter Sekuma petersekuma@gmail.com
Mr Paul Kimera paulkim245@gmail.com
The Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Technologies (WASHTech) was a three-year action research initiative (2011 to 2013) that:
• Is driven by the goal towards effective investment in new technologies for sustained access to WASH services
• Aims to strengthen the sector’s capacity to arrive at informed decisions in the choice of sustainable WASH technologies
• Undertakes participatory action research to identify obstacles and opportunities for uptake and scaling up technology beyond pilot testing
• Offers sector professionals (governmental agencies, development partners, NGOs, private operators, research institutes etc.) a set of methodological tools and participatory approaches for informed decision-making, strategic planning and introduction of validated WASH technologies and capacitating of host institutions on using the tools and support in incorporation of tools in national procedures to improve WASH sustainability in countries
• Through the participatory development, implementation and evaluation of the methodological tools, embeds the practice of multi-stakeholder learning, sharing and collaboration - instilling individual and collective ownership of, attention to, and responsibility for sustainability
• Set up web based resource base to ensure access and sustainability beyond project phase
WASHTech developed, tested in Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda, and introduced a robust assessment tool, the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) that provides a neutral approach for investigation of WASH technological innovation through an objective examination of criteria in the specific context of technology application using six key dimensions and three stakeholder perspectives:
Sustainability dimensions:
• Social aspects
• Economic and Financial aspects
• Environmental aspects
• Institutional and legal aspects
• Skills and know-how
• Technological aspects
Stakeholder perspectives:
• Technology user-buyer perspective
• Technology producer – provider perspective
• Technology facilitator (e.g. government), investor or regulator.
WASHTech developed in close consultation with the government, private sector, development partners and research institutes in Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda, country-specific guidelines for a Technology Introduction. The country-specific guidelines take a validated WASH technology through a multi-stakeholder process with agreed responsibilities to a successful introduction and uptake in the WASH sector in areas where the specific technology is promising to contribute to a sustainable WASH service delivery. As basis for these country-specific guides, a generic guidance document was developed, the Technology Introduction Process (TIP), which could be useful for other countries.
The WASHTech project and sector professionals identified four main uses of the TAF:
1. For validation of a new WASH technology for application in the country. Technology developers who want to get their technology accepted, they approach national level ministries, which will apply the TAF & TIP.
2. For validation of an existing WASH technology for application in a specific context, for instance at district or sub-district level with specific local socio-, cultural, economic and other conditions. Then the TAF is applied before a technology is being introduced at that decentralised level. Barriers to sustainability are being identified and can be addressed prior to local introduction of the specific WASH technology.
3. As a monitoring tool to assess why one WASH technology is a success while another one is a failure. Then hindrance and success factors are determined that will lead to choosing either another technology or formulating actions to do better.
4. And, as a tool in a project/programme appraisal process, in which the proposed WASH technology is being appraised for its potential to contribute to a sustainable WASH service.
Project Context and Objectives:
1.2 A summary description of project context and objectives
1.2.1 Concept and objectives of WASHTech
The water and sanitation sector is not short of new and emerging technologies, but despite many projects piloting them, hardly any have been adopted into national strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), nor have they been widely taken up by private enterprise. Their contribution to MDG targets appears therefore to have been minimal in the last 20 years. A key constraint to reaching the sector targets therefore appears to be the lack of systems to assess the potential of a technology and lack of ability to take new appropriate technologies to scale effectively.
1.2.2 Introducing new technologies
The challenges of meeting the MDG targets in water and sanitation are enormous, especially in rural areas. The JMP shows that increases in water supply coverage in sub-Saharan Africa has averaged less than 1% per year, with more rural people without access to safe water now than in 1990. Peri-urban and small town populations have grown three times faster than rural communities as people move into urban areas, but even so the majority of un-served (over 80%) remain in rural areas. A four-fold increase in rates of coverage for rural areas is needed for water MDG targets to be met. 40 million more rural people are without sanitation than in 1990, reflecting a 0.25% per annum growth in coverage. Alarmingly, 7% per year will be needed to reach the goal. It seems ‘business as usual’ using technologies and approaches of the last twenty years will not achieve the MDGs and that new mind-sets and innovative ideas are needed.
1.2.3 Description baseline parameters
Introducing new technologies --- In response to this need in sub-Saharan Africa a wide range of innovations in low-cost water and sanitation technologies and promotion strategies have already been made, including those below:
• Technologies for household level or small communities, such as rope pumps, or on-site latrines. Some of these seek multiple-use of water for both domestic and productive purposes, or re-use of by- products in agricultural production
• Decentralised technologies for use in small towns or peri-urban areas, such as constructed wetlands with reuse of wastewater, bank infiltration with reed beds, solar pumping for small piped water supplies, mechanised boreholes with privately- owned connections,
• Accompanying management models, including lease contracts for private operators, community management contracts, and household owned shared supplies
• New approaches to marketing water and sanitation technologies, such as CLTS, Self Supply, micro-financial support.
Some of these technological and institutional innovations have come from NGOs and small-scale entrepreneurs from African countries themselves. There are many new technologies available, and many organisations promoting the specific ones that they favour. However there is no objective system, which i) provides a transparent measure of how well any one option is performing, and ii) evaluates whether the approach used to introduce it could be improved to increase up-take and improve sustainability. This is what WASHTech aims to provide.
a) Level of agreement in-country on criteria to use for adopting new and existing low-cost technologies in the WASH sector.
b) Level of functionality of an in-country mechanism or platform to introduce and take to scale given low-cost WASH technologies.
WASHTech seeks to address the problem through research on an innovatory process for assessing the potential and sustainability of a wide range of new technologies, and for designing successful strategies for scaling up.
1.2.4 Introducing new technologies
The challenge of meeting the MDG targets in water and sanitation are enormous, especially in rural areas. The JMP shows that increases in water supply coverage in sub-Saharan Africa has averaged less than 1% per year, with more rural people without access to safe water now than in 1990. Peri-urban and small town populations have grown three times faster than rural communities as people move into urban areas, but even so the majority of un-served (over 80%) remain in rural areas. A four-fold increase in rates of coverage for rural areas is needed for water MDG targets to be met. 40 million more rural people are without sanitation than in 1990, reflecting a 0.25% per annum growth in coverage. Alarmingly, 7% per year will be needed to reach the goal. It seems ‘business as usual’ using technologies and approaches of the last twenty years will not achieve the MDGs and that innovative ideas are needed.
1.2.5 Description baseline
As mentioned above in the ‘baseline parameters’ section, in sub-Saharan Africa a wide range of innovations in low-cost water and sanitation technologies and promotion strategies exist, including:
• Technologies for household level or small communities, including multiple-use of water
• Decentralised technologies for use in small towns or peri-urban areas,
• Accompanying management models
• New approaches to marketing water and sanitation technologies
NGOs and small-scale entrepreneurs from within/outside Africa contributed to these technological and institutional innovations. WASHTech will provide a neutral and transparent instrument to measure the performance of new and existing WASH technologies, and a process to introduce technologies for successful uptake and long-term sustainability
Decentralised water supply systems --- Of the de-centralised piped water supply systems, which are in place, few are performing ideally, even in the best organised countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Where piped supplies are not viable or reliable in the region, some 370,000 or so handpumps have been installed but of which over 130,000 are estimated to be broken down at any one time . Yet since the intense research on handpump performance in the 1980’s by the World Bank, there has been no subsequent concerted effort to evaluate recently developed pumps, and at no time has there been a comprehensive analysis of the social and cultural factors, which affect handpump performance. Thus innovation is necessary not just to expand coverage but also to develop robust methodologies, which improve on the sustainability of those water supply systems already in place. It is this that WASHTECH aims to do, with particular reference to the interface between district and community levels.
Meanwhile in small towns and peri-urban areas, problems with solid waste and sewage lead to growing environmental degradation, water pollution and increased health risks. Piloting of sustainable businesses in solid waste management in areas characterised by poverty and lack of minimum institutional support is becoming a major need, as are a wider variety of technical and managerial sanitation solutions. These systems need evaluating not just for their effects on the environment but also for their business potential, affordability, and the relationship between public and private sectors. It is this holistic approach, which the TAF is designed to address.
Going to scale---The sustainability of conventional technological solutions is one problem, but a second is that whilst many new solutions have been developed, and even piloted, they are having little overall impact on the MDG targets for the sector.
Numerous developments of technologies such as eco-sanitation, rainwater harvesting, multiple use, and household water treatment have been tested and piloted by projects but very few have spread beyond the areas in which they have been introduced. This is mainly as a result of the approach through which such innovations have been initiated, and in particular the low involvement of the private sector and poor development of effective social marketing. These two factors, when combined with demonstration models given free, the high dependence on donor funds and project driven approaches, have usually confined technology adoption to piloted areas. Community Led Total Sanitation and Self Supply are approaches, which seek to avoid this trap, encouraging less donor-dependent replication of improved water supply and sanitation facilities from the outset. These approaches therefore have the potential for more cost effective and rapid technology up-take. Thus the research, development and testing of the TAF will explore ways of moving from demonstration or piloting to going to scale in ways which maximise up-take through users’ capacities, private sector investment and local government’s limited resources. Research and analysis will therefore concentrate particularly on the elements which link households and communities to service providers in many different forms.
Technology assessment and validation --- Up-take of new technologies by policy makers and planners as well as the private sector has been weak, with, for example, no new technology for point water systems being taken to scale since the handpumps tested and widely introduced from the early 1980’s. This has been largely due to the lack of formalised systems for technology assessment.
Description Baseline ‘technology assessment and validation’
There are many examples of this lack of technology assessment systems. For instance in Zimbabwe the present economic situation calls for cheaper household latrines and community and household adoption of rope pumps but government has no process by which such technologies can be accepted alongside the conventional options approved many years ago. Similarly governments in Ghana, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Zambia and Uganda, among others, are considering whether rope pumps can be considered as an acceptable level of supply for households and communities. These governments have, however, delayed for several years from any decision because there is no procedure in place to validate technologies or to evaluate the effects of other social, institutional, economic, and market factors, which would affect going to scale. There is also no objective assessment of the performance of other piloted pumps, giving proponents the opportunity to claim all pumps are working well or require no maintenance and others to claim that the same technologies are usually broken down.
The lack of processes and methodologies for technology evaluation is part of the problem, but lack of availability of necessary capacities to develop or implement such processes is another. Government ministries for water and sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa generally do not have technology accreditation sections, or well-researched data on performance of specific technologies. Country resource centres, academic institutions and government engineers have staff with relevant backgrounds but little research capacity or experience in developing assessment methodologies. The aim of developing the TAF is partly to provide a well-designed framework for assessment, but the process of the research and development will also be used to build up in-country expertise in technology testing and validation.
1.2.6 Objectives
The overall development objective is for more effective investment in new technologies to achieve MDG targets. The project (WASHTECH) objective is to strengthen sector capacity to make effective investment in new technologies, through research and development of a framework, which assesses the potential of new technologies introduced into innovative decentralised systems. Here ‘new technologies’ are taken to range from those that are un-tested, through to those that have been piloted, but have not been taken to scale through adoption into national sector strategy. Most emphasis will initially be put on the latter.
1.2.7 Outputs
The direct outputs are:
• A widely applicable Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) and process that will provide a simple system and criteria for evaluating new technologies and their performance, identifying sustainability issues, and analysing approaches to introduction, innovation, diffusion and scaling up.
• Well-established capacities in three countries for the application and adaptation of the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) and processes to local context and type of technology. The in-country Resource Centres will have the capacity to manage and facilitate the assessments independently
• The second level of outputs depends on the TAF development and capacity building. They define strategies for innovation and scaling up, and the time-span and process needed to achieve successful up-take and sustainability. These outputs are both of direct use to the sector and are also an indication of the value and application of the framework. These recommendations and strategies for sustainable innovation and going to scale will be finalized.
The WASHTECH objective and outputs are achieved through a set of research activities which increase awareness of new technology options, develop assessment systems relevant to different stakeholders, and build long-term local capacity to identify weaknesses in approach and assess sustainability and scalability of new technologies. These activities are undertaken in three countries, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda, where IRC and other consortium members have been working for a long time in partnership with key sector actors. These countries offer a wide range of technologies and different cultural, socio-economic and physical environments. The process and the tools developed are, however, appropriate for use in other countries and the web support and training materials which form part of the outputs will be freely accessible. This three-year research project produced results that can be used for scaling up with minimum delay.
The assessment framework evaluates the sustainability of new low cost technologies in their institutional, economic, and social contexts and so also identify and elaborate sustainable innovation strategies for introducing new technologies. Building capacity and procedures for technology validation as part of the framework facilitates government endorsement of technical innovations. The strategies will be suitable to a range of sector actors. Capacity building focuses not just at national level but also on the practitioners, i.e. the decision makers who are in charge of the WASH sector development at district and decentralised levels and on whom many of the issues of sustainability depend.
Project Results:
1.3 A description of the main S&T results/foregrounds
WASHTech produced five main S&T results and foregrounds, for each a description is included:
1. Research Report
2. Technology Applicability Framework- TAF: manual with questions and questionnaires
3. Guide to Technology Introduction Process (TIP) – generic and for each of the project countries
4. Project Impact Assessment
5. Learning Alliances in WASHTech
1.3.1 WASHTech Research Report
This report outlines the research process that was followed to develop two tools that are useful for the WASH sector: The Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) and the Technology Introduction Process (TIP). The TAF is applied to validate different technology options considered for a given context, and to thus assess possible blockages to their sustainability and scalability. The TAF, therefore, assists the local sector stakeholders to find solutions to overcome the stumbling blocks hindering provision of lasting services. The TIP is a guidance document to be used to steer the multi-stakeholder coordinated initiation of a specific WASH technology towards a local WASH service that lasts.
Rationale
WASH practitioners can draw upon a number of different technology options when delivering water supply, sanitation and hygiene services. There are many different types of pumps, different ways of powering pumping, different latrines and different hand-washing facilities. At the same time, there is a serious challenge facing producers, practitioners, communities, governments and development partners whereby the services introduced, struggle to remain in operation or perform optimally for sufficient lengths of time to truly meet user needs. Broken down pumps, semi-functional piped schemes and abandoned latrines are only all too common.
The WASH sector is currently faced with a situation where lessons learned in pilots are not widely transferred. There is little or no feedback loop from communities to producers and implementers of some widely used WASH technologies, that meaning user difficulties persist for long periods without being resolved. Many countries do not have policies or standards in place for assessment and uptake of new WASH technologies, resulting in arbitrary adoption of options that are not fit for purpose, too expensive for users to pay for, not scalable and inadequately supported at local level. Technologies that look like a good idea on paper and in marketing campaigns in developed countries can be promoted for long periods of time before it becomes clear that they lack relevance or practical application on the ground. The lack of guidance has led to a set of negative consequences, which include:
➢ Introduction of technologies and services that do not meet user needs;
➢ Introduction of technologies that look like a good idea on paper and in marketing campaigns in developed countries but lack relevance or practical application on the ground;
➢ Introduction of technologies in an arbitrary way, with poor consideration of criteria likely to impact on success;
➢ Introduction of technologies that are too expensive for users to pay for;
➢ Introduction of technologies that cannot be adequately supported in the local context resulting in breakdown and failure;
➢ Introduction of technologies that are not scalable because of multiple barriers to their uptake;
➢ Misdiagnosis of reasons for failure with good technologies dismissed as sub-standard;
➢ Assumptions being made about certain technologies that are rarely corroborated or that are not true but are perpetuated as myths;
➢ Aggressive promotion of technologies that are not appropriate;
➢ Overwhelming of government institutions or support agencies with technologies that are at such a basic stage of development that they are not yet fit for purpose.
To address this gap, the TAF and TIP were developed and tested within the EU-funded action research project WASHTech.
Technology Applicability Framework (TAF)
The TAF is a decision support tool to assess applicability and scalability of a specific water, sanitation or hygiene technology. It is applied in a participatory approach in four steps:
• Screening
• Assessment
• Presentation of results
• Interpretation and conclusion.
For the assessment of a technology, 18 indicators have been defined which reflect six sustainability dimensions and which take into account perspectives of all key actors involved in the technology introduction process. These 18 indicators consider not only the particular technology itself but also the way the technology is introduced. In a scoring workshop, the verified data from desk studies and field visits are used to answer scoring questions. Each indicator is scored in the workshop using a traffic light system. All relevant actors participate in the scoring workshop and contribute their views. As a result of the scoring workshop, a graphical profile is generated which presents the achievements so far but also the limitations related to the technology and to the introduction process. This presentation allows various entry points for interpretation and to identify mitigation measures where needed. Apart from the validation of a WASH technology in a local given context, the TAF will also enable all institutions involved in technology introduction to identify blockages to sustainability and scalability of WASH services, using technology as the entry point for discussions. The results are documented in a Final Assessment Report and as a summary in a Technology Brief.
The TAF has been tested in 18 technology assessments on 13 different WASH technologies in three rounds in three countries: Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda. After the testing in all three countries, institutions were appointed to host the TAF. This will provide an institutional memory and national resource base for it. In the process of testing, it became clear that the perception of the performance of WASH technologies was mainly based on limited anecdotal information, often with little evidence from the ground. By going through the TAF process, judgments on performance became more nuanced and grounded. Exposure to the field and to inputs presented by other actors in the scoring workshop improved understanding. In particular, it became clear that successful technologies and lasting services are not only dependent on the technology itself but also on their introduction process. For technologies that had previously been identified as failed, it was revealed that the introduction had often been so poor that the technology could not perform properly. In one instance, an entire community was using a hand pump as the only water supply system, although the pump had originally been designed to serve only a couple of households.
The TAF is a cost efficient tool. The costs for applying the TAF are estimated around US$ 3,000 per assessment of one technology in one district.
Technology Introduction Process (TIP)
The TAF is linked to a second tool, the Technology Introduction Process (TIP), which also has been developed and applied within the WASHTech project. The TIP is a generic guidance document on technology introduction. The TIP should be applied once a technology has passed a TAF successfully. During introduction of a technology the TAF can also be used as a monitoring tool to follow up the performance of an introduction process over time. The TIP is designed to provide step-by step-guidance for successful introduction of WASH technologies to provide lasting WASH services. In all three countries the TIP has been used to support the sector in developing country specific guidelines for technology introduction.
Resource Base
The TAF and TIP are provided in the public domain. The TAF comprises a manual and a set of questionnaires, which can be adopted and customized to specific local needs. All relevant documents and additional information on TAF and TIP including Q/A service are available on www.washtechnologies.net , hosted by RWSN.
1.3.2 Technology Applicability Framework- TAF: manual
The TAF Manual, screening questions and guiding & scoring questions are available from www.washtechnologies.net
Overview : TAF
What is the TAF for?
Applicability Framework (TAF) is a decision support tool on the applicability, scalability and sustainability of a specific WASH technology to provide lasting services in a specific context and on the readiness for its introduction. The TAF can be used to
➢ Start discussion, documentation and sharing experiences about a WASH technology and approaches to scale up this technology
➢ Assess the potential of a specific technology with respect to applicability, scalability, sustainability and uptake in a specific context,
➢ Assess readiness of a sector to scale up this technology including identification of potential measures for improving uptake,
Monitor performance of technology and its introduction process.
How does it work?
The TAF should be applied when a technology is being piloted. It can also be used to support monitoring and evaluation of progress and performance of technology introduction processes
When to apply the TAF?
The TAF is designed as a participatory tool. It is applied using a stepwise process. It uses specific questionnaires for screening and field questionnaires for the assessment. Information needed is collected through desk studies and field visits. All relevant actors are involved in the collection of data and in the generation and discussion of results. This allows all actors, including representatives from national and local government and users of the technology such as communities, to bring in their perspectives and views and to hear the opinions of other actors.
Where are the limits?
The TAF is designed to assess a single WASH technology (e.g. a pump or UDDT), which is or will be used to provide WASH services in a district or region. The TAF can also be used to assess complex systems such as a piped supply with tanks, pipes and taps. However, prior to the TAF assessment of a system, the boundaries for the assessment have to be defined. Field visits are used to verify the context and boundaries of each TAF application. The TAF is designed as an assessment tool for a single WASH technology in a specific context, not a selection tool, which selects between various technologies.
Four steps in the TAF assessment The assessment within the TAF follows a procedure with four steps: The TAF process starts with a screening in step-1 The screening focuses on two key questions:
➢ Is there a need for this technology?
➢ Is the technology at all feasible in this region?
If the screening is positive, the technology will be comprehensively assessed in step-2. In step-3 the results are collected and presented. In step-4 all results are comprehensively interpreted.
Overview: TAF Methodology
Stepwise procedure for application of the TAF Preparation 1. Analysis of the objective of the assessment (e.g. which technology, context, experiences so far, need, partners)
2. Setting up of Study team Step
Step-1 3. Screening, mostly desk work
Step-2 4. Preparation of field work: e.g. contextualization of questionnaires incl. data on costs needed (e.g. CapEx for indicator 4), training of study team on TAF, logistics, orientation of partners in field including districts and villages to be visited
5. Formal orientation of partners in the field, including districts and villages to be visited, training on TAF methodology, logistics incl. translation for local languages
6. Field visits: interviews and data collection, using Focus Group Discussion, bilateral interviews with randomly chosen households and site visits
7. Processing and validation of data, maybe in a workshop
8. Scoring workshop; attended by all relevant actors, moderated by an experienced and neutral facilitator
Step-3 9. Presentation of all results (screening, field visits, scoring) in the workshop
Step-4 10. Interpretation of results in the workshop and documentation
The TAF Manual gives the details per step – see www.washtechnologies.net :
Step-1: Screening
The purpose of the screening is to assure a cost effective assessment of a technology, which has the potential to be feasible and reasonable in a specific context. The screening helps to reject technologies, which are not suitable in a particular context, e.g. latrines where the groundwater level is high and the area is often flooded.
Step-2 Assessment
The Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) is a decision support tool on the applicability, scalability and sustainability of a specific WASH technology to provide lasting services in a specific context and on the readiness for its introduction. The TAF assesses not only the technology but also if key elements for a successful introduction of this technology are in place to assure that lasting services can be provided. The concept of the TAF allows the user to identify areas of risks and of opportunities and to define specific measures to support the technology introduction process. The TAF can be used to identify requirements and challenges of a specific cost model, which has been chosen as basis for the introduction process.
Scoring rules in the TAF, see this traffic lights diagram.
Step-4 Presentation of Results
Step-1“Screening” provides general information about the context the technology is supposed to be applied in, but in particular, the results include
• the assessment of the need to introduce the technology in the context considered;
• the assessment of the applicability of this technology in this context.
After the field visits the data collected should be verified. And presented in the scoring workshop for approval prior to the scoring. A compilation of the approved field data should be included in the presentation of the assessment as an annex.
The resulting 18 scores of the TAF assessment will be presented according to their numbers in a graphical TAF profile. The figure below shows on the left side an example of a TAF profile. On the right side, an example of an annotated profile is added.
Step-5 Interpretation of Results
The interpretation of the results of Step-1 “Screening” is straightforward. Results of the screening are very context specific and not applicable to other regions without detailed analysis.
Information on the scope of technology use, the mode of introduction and the boundaries defined for the assessment or impressions and information from the field visits are crucial inputs for Step-2 and the interpretation of the results. Questions, which came up during the screening should be clarified during the assessment in Step-2. The results of Step-2 are interpreted based on the graphical profile, on the comments coming up during the field visit and the discussion but also on additional comments received during the screening and field visits. The graphical profile offers various entry points and supports a comprehensive interpretation:
• Per row focusing on a specific sustainability dimension
• Per column focusing on a specific perspective
• Comprehensively as an entire profile
• Additionally specific thematic interpretation is possible with respect to cross cutting topics such as O&M
These entry points allow to identify areas of high risk and to define appropriate mitigation measures, e.g. to improve the design of the introduction process. The result of the TAF assessment can support the decision making to “Go“, “NOT-GO“ or “GO under certain conditions for the technology being considered". It also indicates the bottlenecks e.g. concerning the service level provided by this technology and the introduction process. The TAF process also triggers discussion if there are actors wiling to take the technology further.
A comprehensive synthesis of the discussion of the results and of the detailed interpretation including the nuances in the process is documented in a Final Assessment Report. The report should elaborate on the process of the TAF testing, participation of the different actors, the atmosphere in the scoring workshop but also on the particular technology, e.g. photos or drawings, the TAF profile. As a four page summary document of the Final Assessment Report a technology brief informs the sector on the results of this assessment.
Results of the TAF assessment are very context specific and not applicable to other regions without detailed analysis.
1.3.3 Guide to Technology Introduction Process (TIP)
This report outlines the research process that was followed to develop two tools that are useful for the WASH sector: the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) and the Technology Introduction Process (TIP). The TAF is applied to validate different technology options considered for a given context, and to thus assess possible blockages to their sustainability and scalability. The TAF, therefore, assists the local sector stakeholders to find solutions to overcome the stumbling blocks hindering provision of lasting services. The TIP is a guidance document to be used to steer the multi-stakeholder-coordinated initiation of a specific WASH technology towards a local WASH service that lasts.
Rationale
The rationale for the TIP is basically the same as for the TAF. Indeed, the TAF and TIP are ‘two hands of the same body’. TAF & TIP complements each other. A validated and promising technology needs a coherent and coordinated introduction to get scaled up. If one important stakeholder in the introduction does not deliver, the entire scaling up may fail. An opportunity in the national or local WASH sector missed to make progress towards sustainable water and sanitation service delivery.
Technology Introduction Process
The Technology Introduction Process (TIP) is a guidance document on technology introduction. The TIP gives guidance for countries on how to develop country-based technology validation and introduction guidelines and how to apply them so that the sector can learn and develop in terms of innovation.
The TIP provides generic information on actors involved in the introduction process and on key tasks in each phase of the process. For each application, the generic tasks need to be contextualized to the country-specific conditions. The TIP proposes steps for the development and application of country- specific guidelines, for the institutional set-up and options and for funding of the process and its follow up.
In all three WASHTech partner countries, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda, the TIP has been used to support the sector in developing country specific guidelines for technology introduction.
The TAF and the TIP are designed as complementary tools. The TAF can be used as a validation tool for WASH technologies. During the introduction of a technology, the TAF can also serve as a monitoring tool to follow up the performance of an introduction process over time.
Resource Base
The TAF and TIP are provided in the public domain. All relevant documents and additional information on TAF and TIP including Q/A service will be available on www.washtechnologies.net hosted by the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN).
Approaches to technology introduction
In the case of the so-called supply-driven approaches, it is usually the producer and provider who put a lot of effort into the development and promotion of a specific product. In the past, government bodies or development partners were often also pushing to introduce a specific WASH technology and related services. The supply-driven approach may be promoted with or without business-related intentions. For example, a market-based, supply-driven approach takes place when a private company promotes a water filter for household water treatment by applying intensive methods such as advertising, offering giveaways, etc.
There are also so-called demand-responsive approaches where products and the way to introduce them are developed starting from the needs of the target population. In some cases, the product will even be developed together with the target users.
In all cases, the socio-economic context of the target population is one of the key factors that determines the success of the introduction and influences the dynamics of the uptake. A comprehensive assessment of the applicability and scalability of WASH technologies is provided through the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) (Olschewski and Casey, 2013).
Cost models used
The introduction process depends on the technology itself, but also on factors within the wider context, such as the institutional and legal set-up. In particular, the introduction approach is linked to the financial and funding framework which defines who will pay for the life cycle-cost components, especially for the investment costs (CapEx) and which actor will bear or contribute to the costs for operation and maintenance (OpEx) or the costs for major repairs (CapManEx).
Many different cost models are used for the introduction of WASH technologies. Three often-used models are described in the figure below.
A) Capital-Subsidy Model
In this model, almost all capital investment costs for WASH infrastructures are subsidized, but the costs for operation and maintenance should be covered by the users themselves. Subsidies go to the buyers of a technology, but not to the producer. This is a common model for capital-intensive infrastructure that is, impossible or highly improbable, for the end user to afford, but where on-going operations and maintenance costs are covered wholly or partially by the end user through an on-demand purchase or a regular tariff. While this approach reduces the drain on public funds, tariffs for water and sanitation services rarely cover the full lifecycle costs (including Capital Maintenance Expenditure (CapManEx) and direct and indirect support costs. For a long time, a subsidized model for the introduction of technologies has been used, and it still is predominant.
B) 100% Subsidy Model
In this model, it is the public sector or the donors that assume full responsibility for the technology introduction, its upfront capital costs, on-going minor (OpEx) and major maintenance costs (CapManEx) and support costs. Such an approach can allow for efficiencies through national standardization, supply chains, training, and quality control, but also requires healthy public finances and a competent government structure at all levels. However, long-term sustainability of this model has to be assessed carefully. Nowadays, cost model B is not often used, except in situations, which are close to an emergency.
C) Zero Subsidy
In a zero-subsidy approach, the users cover all costs. This approach bears the hope of increasing ownership and accountability, to avoid the problems associated with donor-dependence, weak public finances or institutions and sustainability issues. Here, the role of the state is mainly focused on creating a suitable environment for market creation, e.g. through stimulation of demand and developing capacities of local business, but also through monitoring and controlling quality of products and level of services. In the so-called market-based approach, the technologies and services are provided through the private sector on a commercial basis. The users are clients and not beneficiaries. All products are provided through a private sector-based supply chain.
Nowadays, many sanitation technologies are promoted following a market-based approach. However, the private sector also provides more and more water-related technologies, e.g. for self supply, for filters for household water treatment or for providing water for productive and domestic use (multiple use of water).
In reality, all cost models can be found, although models A and C are prominent.
Key aspects of the introduction process
Based on the various experiences from different fields of technology introduction, a common picture of the dynamics throughout the uptake process of new technologies was identified. As shown in Figure below, technologies that were taken up followed an S-shaped curve (see red curve). The dynamic indicates a slow uptake in the beginning and a steeper uptake after a certain time, followed by a plateau when market saturation is reached. However there are many examples where introduction failed and efforts ended in the “Valley of Death”, which refers to the period in the beginning of the introduction process when the expenditures increase and there is still no or very little revenue. The resulting gap can be substantial and cause a risk for the entire process if there is not sufficient funding. If the “Valley of Death” cannot be properly funded, introduction won’t succeed.
Scope of the TIP
The TIP is a management tool for guidance of technology introduction processes, actors’ roles and responsibilities. The overall objective of the TIP is to support the actors of the WASH sector in designing and planning their country-specific guidelines for validation and technology introduction. It provides a generic description of roles and tasks of key actors in the introduction process. The TIP considers all phases of the Project Management Cycle, such as preparing, planning, managing, monitoring or analyzing a specific uptake approach. The TIP offers a set of inputs to support the sector in developing and establishing the country-specific guidelines for technology introduction. These elements include:
• Components of the TIP – key phases, actors, roles and tasks: For each of the key phases which determine the introduction process, the TIP describes the roles and tasks of the actors involved.
• Process of developing the country-specific guidelines: The TIP describes a stepwise procedure and key issues which need to be discussed and decided during the process of developing and approving the country-specific guidelines.
• Application and adaption of guidelines through an iterative process: once the guidelines are approved, a mechanism needs to be in place to share experiences, to learn as a sector and to trigger innovation.
Key phases in technology introduction
The TIP follows the concept of distinguishing and characterizing the introduction process with three major phases: the invention phase, the phase of the tipping point and phase of uptake and use (Figure below). The background of this concept is based on various experiences from product introduction applying market-based approaches (Heierli 2000, 2007, 2008) and additional literature on innovation in developing countries (Douthwaite 2002, Rogers 2003, Danert 2003).
The key phases can be summarized as follows:
• The invention phase involves research, development of prototypes, assessing feasibility, testing and piloting on a wider scale and the preparation for the wider launch. The invention phase includes two sub-phases:
o testing and
o preparing for launch.
Testing includes the development of a new technology or the adaptation of an existing one, its piloting and assessment of feasibility. Feasibility should be assessed comprehensively to capture key issues for introduction right from the onset. This is the moment when the TAF comes in as a methodology for assessing applicability and scalability of the technology in that particular context. The results of the TAF assessment provide relevant inputs for a better design and management of the introduction process. In this sub-phase, the focus of activities is on improving performance and costs of the technology, aligning it with national strategies and developing a viable business case for it. Additional market research may be needed to improve feasibility of the technology and its introduction.
If, after testing, the feasibility and the potential are proven, the decision might be taken to introduce the technology on a larger scale, e.g. through promotion in a national WASH programme.
Preparatory work is undertaken to prepare the launching of the technology on a larger scale. At this stage, major efforts are made to set up mechanisms for quality control, training of target users, and marketing and promotion, establishing production capacity and viable supply chains, and capacity development of the supply chain to follow up introduction. In this phase, a “big kick” could perhaps be organized to support promotion, e.g. a specific event to create visibility and demand. Complementary efforts such as demand creation through social marketing can be undertaken. Apart from the producer, many other actors will be involved in supporting the uptake and giving guidance including the government as a regulator, or local NGOs to facilitate the uptake process.
• The tipping point is the phase at which the technology is widely taken up. Many units are produced, purchased and installed. Production capacity and viable and efficient supply chains are further strengthened. Sufficient resources for proper after-sales follow up are provided. Specific marketing measures might be needed, including promotion. Product quality control is required and effective support and mitigation measures including monitoring are needed to keep up and to further improve performance of the technology and of the introduction process. In order to cope with the increasing
Key actors and their role
A thorough understanding of the formal roles, connections and driving interests of the actors involved is essential for the design and management of the introduction process and for anticipating the reactions of actors. As a starting point, a mapping of actors involved in the introduction process should be done considering the key roles in the technology introduction process:
• National government, e.g. Ministry for Water, Ministry of Health
• TIP host (to assure accountability, it should be within government)
• Private sector at national level
• Private sector at local level, such as local retailers, pump mechanics or service providers
• User of technologies; e.g. water user committees or, for complex technologies, the system operator
• Local government
• Inventor of the technology
• Investor/Development partner
• NGO
• Academia, research
• Other actors, e.g. microfinance institutions
The list of actors has to be adapted to the country-specific situation and to the type of technology to be introduced, e.g. for sanitation, different actors might be involved compared to water-related technologies. For specific phases and activities, the list has to be extended to include representatives from the media but also local leaders.
The roles should clearly describe a defined range and type of tasks. Roles are defined specifically with respect to responsibility and accountability and not necessarily to one institution. The key roles in technology introduction are as follows:
• Regulator at national and local level,
• Developer of technology / inventor of technology,
• Producer,
• Provider including service provider,
• Users (household members, communities or institutions or even operators for complex technologies)
• Investor in the introduction process,
• Facilitator of introduction process,
• Research & development organizations,
• Lead of the introduction process
Tasks of actors in key phases
By allocating specific tasks to actors, their role in the introduction process will be defined. Actors become accountable for their responsibilities and activities. The TIP provides a generic description of the tasks related to WASH technology introduction. In the TIP, particular focus is put on the roles of actors involved in the introduction process in order to assure a precise allocation of the tasks to the actors. The description of tasks is based on the concept of key phases of the introduction process (Figure below). In the process of developing the country-specific guidelines, the actors and their tasks will be specified for activities in the three key phases: invention phase, tipping point and the uptake and use.
No matter which cost model and approach is followed for the introduction of WASH technologies, a wide range of tasks are required to drive an introduction successfully as a sector. To give proper instruction, the TIP provides a generic description of key tasks which are presented in tables for each phase, in the so-called TIP Matrix. The collection of tasks is based on an analysis of many case studies. To support the user of the TIP in translating the generic description of tasks into the contextualized definition of tasks, the generic set of tasks is grouped into five different levels (Figure below). These five levels characterize the activities and indicate the capacities and resources needed to accomplish these tasks.
Building on existing procedures and experiences
The development and introduction of formal procedures for validation and introduction of WASH technologies should build on existing experiences and capacities in the sector and should be embedded in established procedures.
The starting point to develop or to revise guidelines for technology introduction or validation might differ from country to country. Depending on the context in each country, e.g. whether a guideline for introduction is already in place or not, but also on the technology to be introduced, or the type of cost model selected, the tasks listed in the TIP matrix need to be further adapted and then allocated to specific actors in the sector.
Stepwise process for developing guidelines
In most cases, the process of developing guidelines for validation and technology introduction will develop step by step. Key steps include:
I. Kick-off and preparation
This phase will include the establishment of a working group and a steering committee. The steering committee should comprise members of all relevant stakeholder groups in the sector. A work plan for the development of the guidelines should be developed taking into consideration the level of formal or informal procedures existing and known in the WASH sector. The objectives and scope of the guidelines and a work plan should be approved by the steering committee as “TOR” for the working group developing the details. The next steps should be organized as workshops with work in between accomplished by the working group or the members it has appointed.
II. Draft Concept
In the first step, a mapping of key actors in the process of validation and introduction and of their roles is carried out. Based on this mapping, in the second step, particular tasks are defined and assigned to these actors. As a basis for this work, the generic description of tasks as documented in the TIP Matrix can be used. The draft concept of the county specific guidelines should be developed by and discussed in the working group and presented to the steering committee. Setting out from the feedback on the draft guidelines, options for funding particular work packages related to the introduction process should also be developed. Above all, ideas should be generated that show how the activities of the working group and the steering committee can be funded, especially in the testing phase, but also beyond it.
III. Final Concept and approval
The final document presenting the country-specific guidelines will be approved by the steering committee. Depending on country-specific legislation, the procedures for approval might be rather informal, through practice in the sector, or more formal, through a ministerial decree. In many cases, an outright legislation of the guideline might not be possible in the short term. A high-level body of the sector will adopt the guideline. After development and approval, they will be communicated to the actors, maybe through a particular information event, e.g. information sessions at high-level sector events.
Iterative development
The guidelines should be looked at as a “living document”. This means that to a certain extent, they will be further developed in a somehow iterative process. However due to the formal act of approval, each and every approved version should be implemented and enforced.
Institutional set-up and finding requirement
For the process of the development, application and review of guidelines, a dedicated and defined institutional set-up is needed which determines the involvement of specific actors as well as the allocation of financial resources.
• In the process of developing the guidelines, the lead for the process should be at government level. For practical reasons, a working group should be established that does the footwork to work out the guidelines and organize consultation with key actors. A steering committee should be established at high level to guide the process and finally approve the product and the guidelines. Members of the steering committee should include representatives of the ministries for water and sanitation and finance or trade, members of the government agency responsible for standardization and quality control of products, and members of the private sector.
• For the application of the guideline, i.e. in the case of a concrete introduction process of a specific technology, a specific task force should be established that takes on the tasks as defined in the guidelines.
Linkages between TAF and TIP
The TAF and the TIP are designed as complementary tools and at the same time the TAF is embedded within the TIP as key step in an early phase of an introduction process.
The TAF is a decision-support tool for the WASH sector to comprehensively assess the applicability and the scalability of a specific WASH technology in a specific context. The TAF is a participatory process and should be applied in the testing phase, the very first phase of introduction, to provide a comprehensive feasibility assessment and validate the technology. In this respect, the TAF should be used as a validation tool. The TAF can be applied to new technologies or to already existing technologies, which should be further scaled up.
Once the technology has successfully passed the TAF, it can be taken up to a wider scale if any actors are interested in and dedicated to investing in this technology. The results of the TAF assessment can then be used in various phases of the introduction process to improve its design. In the generic TIP Matrix as shown in Annex 3, the figures listed in bold in the table show the indicators and aspects which should be considered in detail, e.g. for defining specific mitigation measures to improve progress in uptake. In this respect, the TAF can also be used as a proper monitoring tool in the introduction process.
1.3.4 Project Impact Assessment
This is a synthesis of country and global reports evaluating the impact of the Water Sanitation and Hygiene Technology (WASHTech) project up to November 2013.
The overall development objectives are to strengthen WASH sector capacity to make effective investment in new technologies, thereby improving sustainability of WASH services and ensuring the scale-up of suitable of technologies is realized. The project proposed to achieve this objective through the development of tools aiding in technology assessment and scale-up, employing an action research methodology within three participant countries: Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda. The terms of reference outlined in the projects description of work document demanded that the impact evaluation covered the following aspects:
• Assess the changes in capacity, attitudes and knowledge among learning alliance members and Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) users (including project partners themselves).
• Gauge the degree of adoption of the technical validation tool and its ease of use
• Identify new potential users of the TAF and those adopting or considering adoption of the recommendations.
This report outlines the findings from 40 key informant interviews and one focus group discussion among stakeholders within the three participant countries. Further country and global perspectives pertaining to the project and the tools developed (particularly the TAF) have been accounted for through interviews conducted as part of the process monitoring component of the project (WP 7.3) which has employed a Most Significant Change (MSC) methodology (Davis and Dart 2004).
Key Findings
Project Outputs
WASHTech has succeeded in producing its main outputs. The project has developed two main tools. The first tool, the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF), is a tool, which aims to assist WASH sector professionals in making rigorous assessments about the suitability of a given technology to a specific context. The TAF takes into account the views of various key stakeholders including the user of the technology, the producer or provider and the regulators of the sector. The tool employs a participatory approach to decision making and requires a field team to collect data on the technology, which is processed and analysed at multi-stakeholder platforms. The second tool, the Technology Introduction Process (TIP), provides a guide to scaling up technologies, identifying all the key actors and their roles and responsibilities in this process. Aside from the tools, the project has also produced a number of documents and literature reviews of WASH technologies used in Africa, the tools for assessing technologies and performance and methods of assessment in the three participant countries. The main tools and the projects reviews are now in the public domain and are available on a website hosted by the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN)
Assessing technology
Throughout the action research component of the project the TAF tool was applied to technologies being used in the different countries. The interviews revealed cases where the tool and the methodology behind its application have helped to identify new technologies for scale-up, barriers to scaling up both new and old technologies and various areas where technologies and their introduction can be improved. Thus, WASHTech has demonstrated that the tools they have produced have the potential to fulfil their main objectives.
Attitudes
The project has allowed stakeholders a platform to discuss current issues relating to technology assessment and introduction in the sector. This has allowed people to recognize the importance of hardware in service delivery and has worked to increase technology issues on the sector agenda. The project has created a demand for a formalized and documented approach to technology assessment and introduction, something that was previously lacking in each of the countries involved. A key attitudinal change among interviewees was to recognize the value of obtaining the users perspective and the social considerations around technology. The interviews also uncovered numerous examples where the assessment of technologies by the TAF had changed attitudes towards specific technologies.
Control and Coordination
Each country has had previous problems with inadequate assessment and informal introduction of WASH technologies. Interviewees believed that the tools had the ability to address these issues by providing a standardized approach to assessment and introduction and that this in turn could make the processes more explicit and transparent to NGOs and private technology developers. The project has engaged stakeholders from different areas of the sector. This has generated different cases where coordination around technology introduction has been improved. NGOs and technology developers have been put in touch with government officials and are now engaging with official bodies. At the same time, government officials have been able to appreciate the difficulties faced by external organizations regarding the lack of clear processes to follow.
Sector practices and procedures
Interviews discovered examples of how WASH stakeholders had begun to modify their practices. These examples predominantly came from representatives of NGOs and the private sector. Some mentioned they were now making efforts to engage with official government approval and introduction process as mentioned above. Private technology developers also mentioned that they were now trying to ensure users of their technologies are able to contact them about operation and maintenance of the technology. The majority of national and regional government stakeholders explained how their working practices were guided by directives from government ministries. As such, most of these actors were awaiting official approval of the tools and the subsequent integration into policy before their practices and procedures would be changed.
Stakeholder perceptions of the tools
The tools have certainly filled a gap within each of the sectors and interviewees were unanimous in their opinion that the tools were important. Some interviewees thought the TAF tool was still quite a heavy document and needed further refinement before certain actors in the sector use it. Other actors had reservations about how the tools would be funded and these are clearly factors, which need to be resolved before the tool is widely taken up by the sector.
Sector embedding
Significant steps have been taken to embed the tools within each country’s sector. Country partners have identified institutional hosts who will be responsible for implementing the tools. However, there is clearly a lot of work remaining in terms of raising awareness of the tools in the sector, building capacity of potential users of the tool, encouraging official government approval and policy integration, and determining clear processes behind the implementation of the tools. At a global level, the tools were shared in the public domain in September 2013. The official launch of the main project products was on 12 December 2013 during an international WASHTech webinar. As such, the awareness of the tools is still relatively low. Again, project consortium members will have to continue to disseminate the tools and advocate their use beyond the project timeline. The uptake of the tool and process TAF & TIP by international development partners and financing institutions, like the EU, would be very important, e.g. by using the tools in their programmes, by documenting impact, in promoting it in events, appraisals and assessments.
1.3.5 Learning Alliances in WASHTech
This document describes the theoretical underpinnings of the learning alliance approach and provides a framework for assessing the actual progress and challenges in implementing this approach in WASHTech. It is intended as a working document that will be periodically updated. A checklist for reviewing progress and gathering evidence is provided at the end of the document.
This document replaces the Guidelines for training learning alliance facilitators as the country teams concluded that they have sufficient experience from previous work. Instead a framework to support reflection and documentation of the learning alliance process in the focus countries was deemed more useful. This framework consists of five elements that cover key elements of any learning alliance process: essence, arborescence (or rooting), presence, resilience and evidence of the alliance.
The learning alliances in Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda build on existing platforms, groups and learning events at national and decentralised levels. In 2011, alliance activities such as scoping studies and meetings were initiated. At this stage of the project it is too early to speak of evidence and resilience of the alliances. Alliance facilitators in each country have identified opportunities and challenges faced in 2011. Opportunities include several national and international platforms and events, which provide space to share WASHTech outputs and engage stakeholders (end 2011 and 2012) and linkages between the host organisations and other sector players. Challenges include the development of (linkages with) active decentralised platforms, getting the right people involved and keeping them on board in a learning process. Linkages with other learning initiatives such as CLARA and with researchers outside WASHTech are important issues in the further embedding of the TAF in the coming year.
Why this document and who is it for?
WASHTech states that it will apply a learning alliance approach. Learning alliances (LAs) are not new but are a fairly complex multi-level and multi-stakeholder approach to carry out action-research and implementation work. The central premise of learning alliances is the embedding of research and implementation work in the local and national policy processes and in the practices of key sector stakeholders.
This document provides an overview of the concept of learning alliances in the WASHTech project, explains how a learning alliance is supposed to work and what it aims to improve. It also provides insights into the practical choices and implications for learning alliance processes in the three project countries and at the international level.
This document replaces the official deliverable D6.1 / D4 (Guidelines for training LA facilitators). After consultation with all country team coordinators, it was concluded that guidelines were not necessary, but instead sound documentation of the theory and practice of applying a learning alliance approach in the project would be useful.
This is a working document that should help all learning alliance facilitators (the WASHTech national coordinators) and WASHTech consortium members 1) understand the vision of change that learning alliances promote and 2) provide a framework for them to reflect on their practice and decisions regarding the facilitation of the learning alliance process and its development within and beyond the project’s lifetime.
Potential Impact:
1.4 The potential impact and the main dissemination activities and exploitation of results
1.4.1 Potential use and impact
The WASHTech project and sector professionals identified four main uses of the TAF:
1. For validation of a new WASH technology for application in the country. Technology developers who want to get their technology accepted, they approach national level ministries, which will apply the TAF & TIP.
2. For validation of an existing WASH technology for application in a specific context, for instance at district or sub-district level with specific local socio-, cultural, economic and other conditions. Then the TAF is applied before a technology is being introduced at that decentralised level. Barriers to sustainability are being identified and can be addressed prior to local introduction of the specific WASH technology.
3. As a monitoring tool, to assess why one WASH technology is a success while another one is a failure. Then hindrance and success factors are determined that will lead to choosing either another technology or formulating actions to do better.
4. And, as a tool in a project/programme appraisal process, in which the proposed WASH technology is being appraised for its potential to contribute to a sustainable WASH service.
As mentioned before, the guidance on Technology Introduction Process, developed in this WASHTech project, will lead to:
• Introduction of technologies and services that do meet user needs;
• Introduction of technologies that have relevance for practical application on the ground;
• Introduction of technologies in a concerted and coherent way, with good consideration of criteria likely to impact on success;
• Introduction of technologies that are affordable for users to pay for;
• Introduction of technologies that can be adequately supported in the local context, resulting in lasting water and sanitation services from these technologies;
• Introduction of technologies that are scalable because of multiple barriers to their uptake have been removed;
• Proper diagnosis of reasons for success and failure of highly potential technologies resulting in acceptance and scaling up;
• Assumptions made about certain technologies that are rarely corroborated or that are not true but are perpetuated as myths are discussed and removed;
• Former aggressive promotion of technologies -that are not appropriate- stopped;
• The end of overwhelming of government institutions or support agencies with technologies that are at such a basic stage of development that they are not yet fit for purpose.
Application of the WASHTech tool TAF and process TIP will contribute to:
• More effective investment in new technologies for sustained access to WASH services
• A sector that makes informed decisions in the choice of sustainable WASH technologies
• A participatory action research to identify obstacles and opportunities for uptake and scaling up technology beyond pilot testing
• Providing sector professionals (governmental agencies, development partners, NGOs, private operators, research institutes etc.) a set of methodological tools and participatory approaches for informed decision-making, strategic planning and introduction of validated WASH technologies
• The participatory development, implementation and evaluation of the methodological tools, embeds the practice of multi-stakeholder learning, sharing and collaboration - instilling individual and collective ownership of, attention to, and responsibility for sustainability
Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results
See under section 2. for all the details on dissemination and use.
1.5 The address of the project public website, if applicable as well as relevant contact details.
To ensure the continued availability for the sector professionals and organisations of the WASHTech project outputs, it was agreed within the project consortium to have a hosting arrangement with the Rural Water Supply Network. RWSN has a wide membership in the WASH sector of International Financing Institutions, UN organisations, International NGOs, knowledge and research centres etc., see http://www.rural-water-supply.net/en/supported-by. The key documents TAF with questions and TIP, and the case studies, templates etc. and discussion forum are now accessible from http://www.washtechnologies.net/ with both English and French versions.
During the 3-year project period 2011-2013, the project used the website http://washtechafrica.wordpress.com. For 2014, this project website will remain accessible, and if there is a significant number of users still at the end of 2014, then the project website will continue for another year.
List of Websites:
1.5 The address of the project public website, if applicable as well as relevant contact details.
To ensure the continued availability for the sector professionals and organisations of the WASHTech project outputs, it was agreed within the project consortium to have a hosting arrangement with the Rural Water Supply Network. RWSN has a wide membership in the WASH sector of International Financing Institutions, UN organisations, International NGOs, knowledge and research centres etc., see http://www.rural-water-supply.net/en/supported-by. The key documents TAF with questions and TIP, and the case studies, templates etc. and discussion forum are now accessible from http://www.washtechnologies.net/ with both English and French versions.
During the 3-year project period 2011-2013, the project used the website http://washtechafrica.wordpress.com. For 2014, this project website will remain accessible, and if there is a significant number of users still at the end of 2014, then the project website will continue for another year.
Consortium partner Country Role Contact person Email
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre The Netherlands Coordinator; lead in WP1-6-8-9 Mr Jo Smet smet@irc.n
Mrs Carmen da Silva-Well dasilvawells@irc.nl
Cranfield University United Kingdom Researcher, lead in WP2-7 Dr Alison Parker a.parker@cranfield.ac.uk
Skat Foundation Switzerland Researcher, lead in WP3-5 Mr André Olschewski andre.olschewski@skat.ch
WaterAid United Kingdom Research facilitator, lead in WP4 Mr Vincent Casey vincentcasey@wateraid.org
Water and Sanitation for Africa (WSA; former CREPA) Burkina Faso Country Facilitator, Communication and Researcher Dr Andrews
Dr Yacouba Coulibaly andrewsnkansah@wsafrica.org yacoubanoelcoulibaly@wsafrica.org
Training, Research and Networking for Development LBG (TREND) Ghana Country Facilitator, Communication Mr Benedict Tuffuor btuffuor@gmail.com
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Ghana Researcher Dr Kwabena Nyarko nyarko.k.b@gmail.com
Network for Water and Sanitation Uganda (NETWAS) Uganda Country Facilitator, Communication and Researcher Mrs Hellen Obuya Epitu hnhellen@gmail.com
Mr Simon Peter Sekuma petersekuma@gmail.com
Mr Paul Kimera paulkim245@gmail.com
