NL-KvK-41151952-E1735E
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
WASH SDG IRC Ethiopia
For sustainable equitable WASH services
The WASH SDG Programme aims to sustainably deliver access to, and use of, safe drinking water for at least 450,000 people; and improve access to, and use of, sanitation and improve hygiene behaviours for at least 2 million people. The WASH SDG Consortium is formed by the partners WASH Alliance International (WAI ), SNV and Plan Netherlands. In alliance with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS / IGG), the Programme responds to the Dutch commitment to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 6, with the aim to reach an improved WASH situation for all. Particularly, to contribute to safe water and clean toilets for respectively 30 million and 50 million people, as communicated by Minister Ploumen during the Global Citizen 2015 Earth Day celebrations in Washington DC on 18 April 2015.
The programme will be implemented between July 2017 to December 2022 in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nepal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia, with two or more sub-national level programmes (sub-programmes) developed per country. These countries all have significant numbers of people with poor access to and use of WASH services, either in rural areas or in densely populated areas with uncontrolled urbanisation and deteriorating water security. In all these countries the consortium members have long-term presence and ongoing WASH programmes, as well as established influence at the national level.
The WASH SDG programme works towards an improved WASH situation for all. We use an integrated approach and ensure that facilities and services are sustainable, climate resilient, gender sensitive and socially inclusive. The programme is built on three core strategic objectives:
1) Increasing demand for improved WASH facilities and practices
2) Improving the quality of service provision
3) Improving governance of the sector
The Netherlands WASH SDG Programme aims to reach an improved WASH situation for all. This includes the hard to reach households; the poorest of the poor and those living in remote or slum areas, men and women. The Programme will contribute by sustainably improving access to and use of sanitation and improving hygiene behaviours for at least 2 million people, and access to and use of safe drinking water for at least 450,000 people in the coming five years.
As sustainability will only be realised when equal access and use for women and men is guaranteed, the programme will mainstream gender equality and social inclusion in the whole programme cycle. Our programme activities will target those households in communities and cities that have insufficient access to WASH facilities and/or practice unhealthy WASH behaviours which results in the entire community living in an unhealthy environment. Consequently women and men of entire communities and neighbourhoods in cities will benefit from programme activities.
As a result, the WASH SDG programme is expected the reach over 7.4 million people through project activities.
Simavi
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Akvo Foundation
IRC
Rene van Lieshout
0651757795
lieshout@ircwash.org
PO Box 82327, The Hague, The Netherlands
9.145 40.489673
19760.00
9880.00
Stichting Amref Flying Doctors Nederland
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
19760.00
Stichting Amref Flying Doctors Nederland
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Project photo
NL-KvK-41151952-E1735C
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
WASH SDG IRC Uganda
For sustainable equitable WASH services
The WASH SDG Programme aims to sustainably deliver access to, and use of, safe drinking water for at least 450,000 people; and improve access to, and use of, sanitation and improve hygiene behaviours for at least 2 million people. The WASH SDG Consortium is formed by the partners WASH Alliance International (WAI ), SNV and Plan Netherlands. In alliance with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS / IGG), the Programme responds to the Dutch commitment to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 6, with the aim to reach an improved WASH situation for all. Particularly, to contribute to safe water and clean toilets for respectively 30 million and 50 million people, as communicated by Minister Ploumen during the Global Citizen 2015 Earth Day celebrations in Washington DC on 18 April 2015.
The programme will be implemented between July 2017 to December 2022 in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nepal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia, with two or more sub-national level programmes (sub-programmes) developed per country. These countries all have significant numbers of people with poor access to and use of WASH services, either in rural areas or in densely populated areas with uncontrolled urbanisation and deteriorating water security. In all these countries the consortium members have long-term presence and ongoing WASH programmes, as well as established influence at the national level.
The WASH SDG programme works towards an improved WASH situation for all. We use an integrated approach and ensure that facilities and services are sustainable, climate resilient, gender sensitive and socially inclusive. The programme is built on three core strategic objectives:
1) Increasing demand for improved WASH facilities and practices
2) Improving the quality of service provision
3) Improving governance of the sector
The Netherlands WASH SDG Programme aims to reach an improved WASH situation for all. This includes the hard to reach households; the poorest of the poor and those living in remote or slum areas, men and women. The Programme will contribute by sustainably improving access to and use of sanitation and improving hygiene behaviours for at least 2 million people, and access to and use of safe drinking water for at least 450,000 people in the coming five years.
As sustainability will only be realised when equal access and use for women and men is guaranteed, the programme will mainstream gender equality and social inclusion in the whole programme cycle. Our programme activities will target those households in communities and cities that have insufficient access to WASH facilities and/or practice unhealthy WASH behaviours which results in the entire community living in an unhealthy environment. Consequently women and men of entire communities and neighbourhoods in cities will benefit from programme activities.
As a result, the WASH SDG programme is expected the reach over 7.4 million people through project activities.
Simavi
Akvo Foundation
IRC
Rene van Lieshout
0651757795
lieshout@ircwash.org
https://www.ircwash.org/
PO Box 82327, The Hague, The Netherlands
1.373333 32.290275
22200.00
15000.00
Simavi
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
7200.00
Simavi
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
22200.00
Simavi
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Project photo
NL-KvK-41151952-E1735B
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
WASH SDG IRC Bangladesh
For sustainable equitable WASH services
The WASH SDG Programme aims to sustainably deliver access to, and use of, safe drinking water for at least 450,000 people; and improve access to, and use of, sanitation and improve hygiene behaviours for at least 2 million people. The WASH SDG Consortium is formed by the partners WASH Alliance International (WAI ), SNV and Plan Netherlands. In alliance with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS / IGG), the Programme responds to the Dutch commitment to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 6, with the aim to reach an improved WASH situation for all. Particularly, to contribute to safe water and clean toilets for respectively 30 million and 50 million people, as communicated by Minister Ploumen during the Global Citizen 2015 Earth Day celebrations in Washington DC on 18 April 2015.
The programme will be implemented between July 2017 to December 2022 in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nepal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia, with two or more sub-national level programmes (sub-programmes) developed per country. These countries all have significant numbers of people with poor access to and use of WASH services, either in rural areas or in densely populated areas with uncontrolled urbanisation and deteriorating water security. In all these countries the consortium members have long-term presence and ongoing WASH programmes, as well as established influence at the national level.
The WASH SDG programme works towards an improved WASH situation for all. We use an integrated approach and ensure that facilities and services are sustainable, climate resilient, gender sensitive and socially inclusive. The programme is built on three core strategic objectives:
1) Increasing demand for improved WASH facilities and practices
2) Improving the quality of service provision
3) Improving governance of the sector
The Netherlands WASH SDG Programme aims to reach an improved WASH situation for all. This includes the hard to reach households; the poorest of the poor and those living in remote or slum areas, men and women. The Programme will contribute by sustainably improving access to and use of sanitation and improving hygiene behaviours for at least 2 million people, and access to and use of safe drinking water for at least 450,000 people in the coming five years.
As sustainability will only be realised when equal access and use for women and men is guaranteed, the programme will mainstream gender equality and social inclusion in the whole programme cycle. Our programme activities will target those households in communities and cities that have insufficient access to WASH facilities and/or practice unhealthy WASH behaviours which results in the entire community living in an unhealthy environment. Consequently women and men of entire communities and neighbourhoods in cities will benefit from programme activities.
As a result, the WASH SDG programme is expected the reach over 7.4 million people through project activities.
Simavi
Akvo Foundation
IRC
Rene van Lieshout
0651757795
lieshout@ircwash.org
https://www.ircwash.org/
PO Box 82327, The Hague, The Netherlands
23.684994 90.356331
4000.00
4000.00
Simavi
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Project photo
Nl-KvK-41151952-E1614
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Watershed IRC International & Netherlands
IRC share in WP7,8,9,10,11
2030 is closer than you think. We have to get the next five years right, if we’re to meet the target of universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) by 2030. Watershed will take up the challenge by putting lobby and advocacy as one of the key pillars to achieve faster results. Watershed is a strategic partnership between the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and IRC, Simavi, Wetlands International and Akvo. Sustainability of WASH services is a critical Watershed goal. Over the next five years, the Watershed strategic partnership will deliver improvements in the governance and management of water, sanitation and hygiene services as well as of the water resources on which they draw. Good WASH governance requires the active and meaningful involvement of users (particularly women) of WASH services, service providers, water resource users and polluters. A strong civil society is essential to ensure that the voices of users are heard by service providers and government, and that government, service providers and the private sector are effectively held to account. At international level and in six countries: Kenya, Uganda, Mali, Ghana, Bangladesh, India we want to see… • Proven interventions funnelling knowledge and lessons upwards to influence governance and policy at national, regional and international levels. • Global civil society demanding fulfilment of the right to water and sanitation and equitable, sustainable allocation of water resources. • New partners investing in other countries based on Watershed results and approach. • International donors integrating environmental sustainability and climate change resilience into their WASH frameworks and practices.
still to be done
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Akvo Foundation
info@ircwash.org
http://ircwash.org
Visiting address
Bezuidenhoutseweg 2
2594 AV The Hague
The Netherlands
Postal address
P.O. Box 82327
2508 EH The Hague
The Netherlands
Phone : +31 70 304 4000
52.132633 5.291266
1942737.00
180602.00
100671.00
93588.00
37138.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
12379.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
61896.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
29710.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
29710.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
99033.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
56240.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
56240.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
112480.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
56240.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
111918.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
224960.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
281200.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
281200.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
562399.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
281200.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
559588.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
1124800.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
1006625.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
400787.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
5034357.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
64580.00
83842.00
92522.00
170076.00
Project photo
Watershed Partnership Learning meeting
CSO 6. - CSOs integrate IWRM-WASH in their L&A activities
CSO 6. - <Partner 1> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
Partner: ANEW
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
ANEW is currently on 25%, they are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management but aren’t acting upon it. This has not to do with a lack of knowledge about the topic, the chair of ANEW explained both WASH and IWRM are relatively well mentioned in the strategies of all its members. The current and most urgent problem of ANEW is its legitimacy and renewal of membership. ANEW faces serious governance challenges a couple of years ago which made donors run away from the network. Currently they are reviving the network but after a year it’s difficult to keep the momentum. ANEW is now hosted with KEWASNET but their HR-capacity to work on ANEW is very low and depending on the director Samson Shivaji.
CSO 6. - <Partner 2> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
Partner: CE
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
Coalition Eau and their members are extensively engaged in L&A for both WASH and IWRM with government, global platforms, regional bodies and national level civil society coalitions. They support and provide advocacy capacity building in WASH and IWRM. The work they do in these two areas is often siloed. Their organizational vision is “delivering strong message to decision-makers at all level with a view to achieving universal and sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation, while preserving water resources.” This demonstrates that both issues are at the core of their work but their approaches to influencing at the global level seem to focus on one area at a time. Coalition Eau is at 50% of the QIS ladder on the level of integration of WASH and IWRM in L&A.
CSO 6. - <Partner 3> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
Partner: GWP
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
Global Water Partnership is focused as an organization on IWRM and the integration of IWRM. Their level of knowledge of the linkages between the two issues is high and they have several initiatives that combine both WASH and IWRM. In certain focus areas such as urban water, advocacy is key but this component of their work is in startup mode. The focus on WASH and it’s integration with their IWRM work is less developed. The capacity building of their members at country level in Kenya and Uganda is strong but the focus is on climate change, drought and IWRM, how to implement SDGs.
A comprehensive WASH strategy is adopted by the parliament
Level of adoption of comprehensive WASH strategy by parliament
Partner: MFA
100% Parliament approves strategy with full support
75% Strategy is considered in parliament and questions are asked by members of the parliament
50% IGG sends WASH Strategy to Parliament
25% IGG does not send WASH strategy to Parliament – but Strategy is based on ambitions in line with four key principles of WASH Governance
0% Strategy is in hands of the ministry – without seeking the consultation of Civil society/NGOs
The ministry has asked two times for input for the new WASH strategy: during the consultation meeting in January 2016 and via e-mail in October. In final versions of the WASH strategy we saw, three of the four key principles of WASH governance were incorporated.
In response to parliamentary questions and during several meetings (e.g. Unicef partnership meeting in December) the MFA promised the WASH-strategy will be sent to parliament before Christmas. Up to now, the strategy isn’t send to parliament, so we give this indicator 25%.
MFA budgets for WASH based on an analysis of the costs of reaching marginalised people
Level of MFA budget in line with costs required for reaching marginalised people.
Partner: MFA
100% Both MFA-IGG and EKN’s with a WASH programme have set specific targets for reaching marginalised people and have budgeted to achieve all of its targets.
75% The MFA has set specific targets for reaching marginalised people and has budgeted to achieve all of its targets.
50% The MFA has set specific targets for reaching marginalised people but has budgeted only to achieve half of its targets.
25% The MFA has set specific targets for reaching marginalised people but hasn’t budgeted to achieve this targets.
0% The MFA hasn’t set specific targets for reaching marginalised people.
The draft WASH strategy contains an interesting paragraph about the new results framework (page 14), where it is said that the number of people to be reached annually will be divided urban and rural, water, sanitation and hygiene and when possible the number of vulnerable people. So the MFA hasn’t set targets for reaching marginalised people and hasn’t decided also if they are going to monitor this.
MFA budgets for WASH based on an analysis of the costs needed to sustain services at least 15 years
Level of MFA implementing 15 year sustainability clauses in their WASH policy and programmes.
Partner: MFA
100% The MFA has set specific sustainability targets in their WASH policy, has obligated all implementing partners with a sustainability clause including sustainability checks, prescribes a uniform sustainability clause and check, is able to compare the sustainability of WASH programmes with each other and dares to come up with a benchmark for its whole portfolio (e.g. in 50% of our programmes WASH services will sustain at least 15 years).
75% The MFA has set specific sustainability targets in their WASH policy, has obligated all implementing partners with a sustainability clause including sustainability checks, prescribes a uniform sustainability clause and check and is able to compare the sustainability of WASH programmes with each other.
50% The MFA has set specific sustainability targets in their WASH policy, has obligated all implementing partners with a sustainability clause including sustainability checks and prescribes a uniform sustainability clause and check.
25% The MFA has set specific sustainability targets in their WASH policy and has obligated all implementing partners with a sustainability clause including sustainability checks.
0% The MFA has set specific sustainability targets in their WASH policy, but hasn’t obligated all implementing partners with a sustainability clause.
The MFA has set an ambitious target for sustainability of WASH services: that these will last for at least 15 years in its draft 50/30 strategy. It has indicated that for all new programmes a ‘sustainability clause’ will need to be signed which will oblige the partner to ensure that sustainability. Such a clause is so far only in place for programmes funded through UNICEF and the WSSCC. But future programmes will get such a clause including the SDG6 NGO consortium, the programme of Water Operators but also bilateral programmes, for example in Benin.
The likely mechanism to measure the sustainability are the ‘sustainability checks’, which measure a series of indicators related to the level of WASH services provided and the likelihood of sustainability. MFA is now in the process of standardizing these checks – both in terms of process and content - which in due time can then be applied uniformly across different programmes.
So in summary, currently not all partners have a sustainability clause nor have to use a uniform sustainability check (hence the score of 0%), but there is much work in progress which will probably lead to an increase in the score in the next few years.
Water envoy promotes WASH governance as part of the urban delta approach.
Level of alignment of WASH & IWRM in speeches and statements of the water envoy
Partner: MFA
100% Water envoy understands the importance of WASH governance as part of the urban delta approach and does mention it in all relevant statements
66% Water envoy understands the importance of WASH governance as part of the urban delta approach and mentions it in some statements.
33% Water envoy meets with WASH NGOs and understands the importance of WASH governance as part of the urban delta approach
0% Water envoy does not understand the importance of WASH governance as part of the urban delta approach and does not make time to meet with WASH NGOs
The Dutch Water Envoy is a busy man, so it’s difficult to track all of his statements. Most of his statements are also not traceable, since he’s not a minister and therefore doesn’t publish press statements or speeches often. An analysis of his tweets of the 2 last months (November & December 2016) showed that he is very active in the public debate, but rarely mention the importance of WASH governance. Only a few retweets are about drinking water and sanitation.
The question is if he understands the importance of WASH governance as part of the urban delta approach. So far it has not been possible to set up a meeting with him and WASH NGOs.
MFA include alignment of WASH and IWRM* in their policies and programmes
Level of implementation of alignment of WASH and IWRM in policies and programmes of MFA
Partner: MFA
100% MFA does include alignment of WASH & IWRM in their policies and all their programmes
75% MFA does include alignment of WASH and IWRM in their policies and in their checklist that is used for approving new programmes and they plan piloting new WASH & IWRM programmes in the same areas so that geographical alignment takes place or they collaborate with IWRM experts (IGG or experts from other donors) to ensure that new WASH programmes align with IWRM
50% MFA does include alignment of WASH and IWRM in their policies and in their checklist that is used for approving new programmes
25% MFA does include alignment of WASH and IWRM in their policies, but this is not translated into their programmes
0% MFA does not include alignment of WASH and IWRM in their policies
In theory, MFA supports the alignment of WASH and IWRM. Practice however is more stubborn. Currently, MFA’s WASH programmes are mainly focusing on services and administrative management, and link not often to IWRM principles. If we advocate for the importance of a strong alignment of IWRM & WASH and build capacity on how to link the two areas of expertise and practice, we will achieve considerable improvements: When integrating IWRM and WASH approaches, both the role and vulnerability of water-regulating ecosystems, water allocation and wastewater management, as well as the participation and prioritization of marginalized WASH users will be taken into account.
NL-KvK-41151952-E1606
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Watershed IRC WP6 India
IRC share in WP6
2030 is closer than you think. We have to get the next five years right, if we’re to meet the target of universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) by 2030. Watershed will take up the challenge by putting lobby and advocacy as one of the key pillars to achieve faster results. Watershed is a strategic partnership between the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and IRC, Simavi, Wetlands International and Akvo. Sustainability of WASH services is a critical Watershed goal. Over the next five years, the Watershed strategic partnership will deliver improvements in the governance and management of water, sanitation and hygiene services as well as of the water resources on which they draw. Good WASH governance requires the active and meaningful involvement of users (particularly women) of WASH services, service providers, water resource users and polluters. A strong civil society is essential to ensure that the voices of users are heard by service providers and government, and that government, service providers and the private sector are effectively held to account. At international level and in six countries: Kenya, Uganda, Mali, Ghana, Bangladesh, India we want to see… • Proven interventions funnelling knowledge and lessons upwards to influence governance and policy at national, regional and international levels. • Global civil society demanding fulfilment of the right to water and sanitation and equitable, sustainable allocation of water resources. • New partners investing in other countries based on Watershed results and approach. • International donors integrating environmental sustainability and climate change resilience into their WASH frameworks and practices.
still to be done
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Akvo Foundation
info@ircwash.org
http://ircwash.org
Visiting address
Bezuidenhoutseweg 2
2594 AV The Hague
The Netherlands
Postal address
P.O. Box 82327
2508 EH The Hague
The Netherlands
Phone : +31 70 304 4000
20.593684 78.96288
281200.00
20466.00
9846.00
11279.00
281200.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
37138.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
32431.00
27431.00
11830.00
18742.00
56240.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Project photo
CSO 1. - CSOs use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
CSO 1. - <Partner 1> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
CSO 1. - <Partner 2> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
CSO 1. - <Partner 3> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
CSO 1. - <Partner 4> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
CSO 2. - CSOs have increased legitimacy through representation of constituency
CSO 2. - <Partner 1> Level of legitimacy through representation of constituency
100% - CSOs are acknowledged by both their constituency and the government to represent their constituency
75% - CSOs are adapting their messages and strategies to the needs of their constituency
50% - CSOs have a two-way engagement with their constituency to understand their needs
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to represent a constituency
0% - CSOs are not aware of the importance to represent a constituency
CSO 2. - <Partner 2> Level of legitimacy through representation of constituency
100% - CSOs are acknowledged by both their constituency and the government to represent their constituency
75% - CSOs are adapting their messages and strategies to the needs of their constituency
50% - CSOs have a two-way engagement with their constituency to understand their needs
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to represent a constituency
0% - CSOs are not aware of the importance to represent a constituency
CSO 2. - <Partner 3> Level of legitimacy through representation of constituency
100% - CSOs are acknowledged by both their constituency and the government to represent their constituency
75% - CSOs are adapting their messages and strategies to the needs of their constituency
50% - CSOs have a two-way engagement with their constituency to understand their needs
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to represent a constituency
0% - CSOs are not aware of the importance to represent a constituency
CSO 2. - <Partner 4> Level of legitimacy through representation of constituency
100% - CSOs are acknowledged by both their constituency and the government to represent their constituency
75% - CSOs are adapting their messages and strategies to the needs of their constituency
50% - CSOs have a two-way engagement with their constituency to understand their needs
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to represent a constituency
0% - CSOs are not aware of the importance to represent a constituency
CSO 3. - CSOs collaborate with other CSOs for effective lobby and advocacy
CSO 3. - <partner 1> Level of collaboration with other CSOs for effective lobby and advocacy
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership increases the weight of the voice of CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other CSOs
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other CSOs
0% - CSOs work in isolation
CSO 3. - <partner 2> Level of collaboration with other CSOs for effective lobby and advocacy
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership increases the weight of the voice of CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other CSOs
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other CSOs
0% - CSOs work in isolation
CSO 3. - <partner 3>Level of collaboration with other CSOs for effective lobby and advocacy
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership increases the weight of the voice of CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other CSOs
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other CSOs
0% - CSOs work in isolation
CSO 3. - <partner 4> Level of collaboration with other CSOs for effective lobby and advocacy
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership increases the weight of the voice of CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other CSOs
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other CSOs
0% - CSOs work in isolation
CSO 4. - CSOs collaborate with other non-governmental actors for effective lobby and advocacy
CSO 4. - <partner 1> Level of collaboration with other non-governmental actors for effective lobby and advocacy
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership with non-governmental actors increases the effectiveness of L&A for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other non-government actors in L&A for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other non-governmental actors
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other non-governmental actors
0% - CSOs are unaware of the importance to work with other non-governmental actors
CSO 4. - <partner 2> Level of collaboration with other non-governmental actors for effective lobby and advocacy
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership with non-governmental actors increases the effectiveness of L&A for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other non-government actors in L&A for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other non-governmental actors
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other non-governmental actors
0% - CSOs are unaware of the importance to work with other non-governmental actors
CSO 4. - <partner 3> Level of collaboration with other non-governmental actors for effective lobby and advocacy
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership with non-governmental actors increases the effectiveness of L&A for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other non-government actors in L&A for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other non-governmental actors
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other non-governmental actors
0% - CSOs are unaware of the importance to work with other non-governmental actors
CSO 4. - <partner 4> Level of collaboration with other non-governmental actors for effective lobby and advocacy
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership with non-governmental actors increases the effectiveness of L&A for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other non-government actors in L&A for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other non-governmental actors
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other non-governmental actors
0% - CSOs are unaware of the importance to work with other non-governmental actors
CSO 5. - CSOs are inclusive: recognition of diversity of groups and those excluded from WASH services
CSO 5. - <Partner 1> Level of inclusion of marginalised groups
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership with non-governmental actors increases the effectiveness of L&A for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other non-government actors in L&A for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other non-governmental actors
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other non-governmental actors
0% - CSOs are unaware of the importance to work with other non-governmental actors
CSO 5. - <Partner 2> Level of inclusion of marginalised groups
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership with non-governmental actors increases the effectiveness of L&A for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other non-government actors in L&A for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other non-governmental actors
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other non-governmental actors
0% - CSOs are unaware of the importance to work with other non-governmental actors
CSO 5. - <Partner 3> Level of inclusion of marginalised groups
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership with non-governmental actors increases the effectiveness of L&A for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other non-government actors in L&A for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other non-governmental actors
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other non-governmental actors
0% - CSOs are unaware of the importance to work with other non-governmental actors
CSO 5. - <Partner 4> Level of inclusion of marginalised groups
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership with non-governmental actors increases the effectiveness of L&A for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other non-government actors in L&A for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other non-governmental actors
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other non-governmental actors
0% - CSOs are unaware of the importance to work with other non-governmental actors
CSO 6. - CSOs integrate IWRM-WASH in their L&A activities
CSO 6. - <Partner 1> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
CSO 6. - <Partner 2> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
CSO 6. - <Partner 3> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
CSO 6. - <Partner 4> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
CSO 7. - CSOs are transparent about own activities and results
CSO 7. - <Partner 1> Level of transparency on own activities and results
100% - CSOs openly sharing their achievements, lessons learnt and failures
75% - CSOs monitoring their activities, budgets and results, and reporting the findings
50% - CSOs preparing to monitor their activities, budgets and results
25% - CSOs understand that to be able to hold duty bearers accountable, they have to be transparent about their own activities, budgets and results as well
0% - CSOs do not understand the importance of being transparent about their own activities and results
CSO 7. - <Partner 2> Level of transparency on own activities and results
100% - CSOs openly sharing their achievements, lessons learnt and failures
75% - CSOs monitoring their activities, budgets and results, and reporting the findings
50% - CSOs preparing to monitor their activities, budgets and results
25% - CSOs understand that to be able to hold duty bearers accountable, they have to be transparent about their own activities, budgets and results as well
0% - CSOs do not understand the importance of being transparent about their own activities and results
CSO 7. - <Partner 3> Level of transparency on own activities and results
100% - CSOs openly sharing their achievements, lessons learnt and failures
75% - CSOs monitoring their activities, budgets and results, and reporting the findings
50% - CSOs preparing to monitor their activities, budgets and results
25% - CSOs understand that to be able to hold duty bearers accountable, they have to be transparent about their own activities, budgets and results as well
0% - CSOs do not understand the importance of being transparent about their own activities and results
CSO 7. - <Partner 4> Level of transparency on own activities and results
100% - CSOs openly sharing their achievements, lessons learnt and failures
75% - CSOs monitoring their activities, budgets and results, and reporting the findings
50% - CSOs preparing to monitor their activities, budgets and results
25% - CSOs understand that to be able to hold duty bearers accountable, they have to be transparent about their own activities, budgets and results as well
0% - CSOs do not understand the importance of being transparent about their own activities and results
CSO 8. - CSOs hold service providers accountable
CSO 8. - <Partner 1> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
100% - CSOs are holding government WASH and IWRM service providers to account successfully
75% - CSOs are holding service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
50% - CSOs have planned concrete actions on how they will hold service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM (for example by tracking the inclusiveness and sustainability of WASH and IWRM services)
25% - CSOs know how to hold service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
0% - CSOs are not holding service providers (government and/or private sector) to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
CSO 8. - <Partner 3> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
100% - CSOs are holding government WASH and IWRM service providers to account successfully
75% - CSOs are holding service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
50% - CSOs have planned concrete actions on how they will hold service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM (for example by tracking the inclusiveness and sustainability of WASH and IWRM services)
25% - CSOs know how to hold service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
0% - CSOs are not holding service providers (government and/or private sector) to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
CSO 8. - <Partner 4> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
100% - CSOs are holding government WASH and IWRM service providers to account successfully
75% - CSOs are holding service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
50% - CSOs have planned concrete actions on how they will hold service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM (for example by tracking the inclusiveness and sustainability of WASH and IWRM services)
25% - CSOs know how to hold service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
0% - CSOs are not holding service providers (government and/or private sector) to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
CSO 8. - <Partner 2> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
100% - CSOs are holding government WASH and IWRM service providers to account successfully
75% - CSOs are holding service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
50% - CSOs have planned concrete actions on how they will hold service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM (for example by tracking the inclusiveness and sustainability of WASH and IWRM services)
25% - CSOs know how to hold service providers to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
0% - CSOs are not holding service providers (government and/or private sector) to account regarding sustainable and inclusive WASH / IWRM
Gov 1. - Government is responsive to stakeholder demands on WASH/IWRM
GOV - 1 <partner 1> Level of Government responsiveness to stakeholder demands on WASH and IWRM
100% - Government reports to stakeholders on how they have incorporated/addressed their demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
75% - Government action is guided by stakeholders’ demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
50% - Government actively seeks to understand stakeholders’ demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
25% - Government is aware of the importance of listening to stakeholders’ demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
0% - Government is unwilling to listen to stakeholders’ demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
GOV - 1 <partner 2> Level of Government responsiveness to stakeholder demands on WASH and IWRM
100% - Government reports to stakeholders on how they have incorporated/addressed their demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
75% - Government action is guided by stakeholders’ demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
50% - Government actively seeks to understand stakeholders’ demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
25% - Government is aware of the importance of listening to stakeholders’ demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
0% - Government is unwilling to listen to stakeholders’ demands on WASH and IWRM service provision
Gov 2. - Relevant Government offices coordinate on IWRM/WASH integration
GOV - 2 <partner 1> Level of coordination between relevant Government offices on IWRM/WASH integration
100% Relevant government offices have integrated IWRM and WASH in policies and plans
75% Relevant government offices have documented how they will integrate IWRM and WASH
50% Relevant government offices are engaged in discussion on how to integrate IWRM and WASH
25% Relevant government offices understand the importance to coordinate on IWRM/WASH
0% Relevant government offices do not coordinate on IWRM/WASH
Narrative
GOV - 2 <partner 2> Level of coordination between relevant Government offices on IWRM/WASH integration
100% Relevant government offices have integrated IWRM and WASH in policies and plans
75% Relevant government offices have documented how they will integrate IWRM and WASH
50% Relevant government offices are engaged in discussion on how to integrate IWRM and WASH
25% Relevant government offices understand the importance to coordinate on IWRM/WASH
0% Relevant government offices do not coordinate on IWRM/WASH
Narrative
Gov 3. -Government includes marginalised groups in policies, plans, implementation, monitoring
GOV - 3 <Partner 1> Level of inclusion of marginalised groups (in policies and plans)
100% - Government reports back to marginalised groups how their needs have been included in the WASH/IWRM policies and plans
75% - Government has explicitly included in policies and plans how marginalised groups will benefit from WASH/IWRM service delivery
50% - Government actively engages in dialogue with marginalised groups on their needs regarding WASH/IWRM, in several ways
25% - Government is aware of the importance to explicitly address the needs of marginalised groups in WASH / IWRM policies and plans
0% - Government has not explicitly addressed the needs of marginalised groups (women, youth, elderly, low income groups, isolated communities, refugees, slum dwellers,... ) in WASH / IWRM policies and plans
GOV - 3 <Partner 2> Level of inclusion of marginalised groups (in policies and plans)
100% - Government reports back to marginalised groups how their needs have been included in the WASH/IWRM policies and plans
75% - Government has explicitly included in policies and plans how marginalised groups will benefit from WASH/IWRM service delivery
50% - Government actively engages in dialogue with marginalised groups on their needs regarding WASH/IWRM, in several ways
25% - Government is aware of the importance to explicitly address the needs of marginalised groups in WASH / IWRM policies and plans
0% - Government has not explicitly addressed the needs of marginalised groups (women, youth, elderly, low income groups, isolated communities, refugees, slum dwellers,... ) in WASH / IWRM policies and plans
Gov 4. <partner 1> National Government allocates budget transparently to WASH/IWRM
GOV - 4: Level of transparency in budget allocation by National Government
100% - National Government coordinates joint (inclusive, sustainable) sector budget allocation
75% - National Government supports dialogue on (inclusive, sustainable) sector budget allocation
50% - National Government is practising transparent (inclusive, sustainable) budget allocation
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in (inclusive, sustainable) budget allocation
0% - National Government does not have transparency in (inclusive, sustainable) budget allocation
Gov 4. <partner 2> National Government allocates budget transparently to WASH/IWRM
100% - National Government coordinates joint (inclusive, sustainable) sector budget allocation
75% - National Government supports dialogue on (inclusive, sustainable) sector budget allocation
50% - National Government is practising transparent (inclusive, sustainable) budget allocation
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in (inclusive, sustainable) budget allocation
0% - National Government does not have transparency in (inclusive, sustainable) budget allocation
Gov 5. -Local Government allocates budget transparently to WASH/IWRM
GOV - 5 <Partner 1> Level of transparency in budget allocation by Local Government
100% - Local Government coordinates joint (inclusive, sustainable) sector budget allocation
75% - Local Government supports dialogue on (inclusive, sustainable) sector budget allocation
50% - Local Government is practising transparent (inclusive, sustainable) budget allocation
25% - Local Government is aware of the importance of transparency in (inclusive, sustainable) budget allocation
0% - Local Government does not have transparency in (inclusive, sustainable) budget allocation
GOV - 5 <Partner 2> Level of transparency in budget allocation by Local Government
Gov 6. -National Government is transparent about expenditure on WASH/IWRM
GOV - 6 <partner 1> Level of transparency in expenditure by National Government
100% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - National Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - National Government do not have transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
GOV - 6 <partner 1> Level of transparency in expenditure by National Government
100% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - National Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - National Government do not have transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
GOV - 6 <partner 3> Level of transparency in expenditure by National Government
100% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - National Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - National Government do not have transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
GOV - 6 <partner 4> Level of transparency in expenditure by National Government
100% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - National Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - National Government do not have transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
Gov 7. -Local Government is transparent about expenditure on WASH/IWRM
GOV - 7 <partner 1> Level of transparency in expenditure by Local Government
100% - Local Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - Local Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - Local Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - Local Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - Local Government do not practise transparency in expenditures on WASH and IWRM
GOV - 7 <partner 2> Level of transparency in expenditure by Local Government
100% - Local Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - Local Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - Local Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - Local Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - Local Government do not practise transparency in expenditures on WASH and IWRM
Gov 8. -National Government has integrated IWRM/WASH in implementation and monitoring of policies and plans
GOV - 8 <partner 1> Level of integration of WASH/IWRM in implementation and monitoring by National Government
100% - National Government authorities are implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way, openly communicating the findings and using these to improve services
75% - National Government authorities are implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way and openly communicating the findings
50% - National Government authorities are implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
25% - National Government authorities are preparing to implement and monitor WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
0% - National Government authorities are neither implementing nor monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
GOV - 8 <partner 2> Level of integration of WASH/IWRM in implementation and monitoring by National Government
100% - National Government authorities are implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way, openly communicating the findings and using these to improve services
75% - National Government authorities are implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way and openly communicating the findings
50% - National Government authorities are implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
25% - National Government authorities are preparing to implement and monitor WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
0% - National Government authorities are neither implementing nor monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
Gov 9. -Local Government has integrated IWRM/WASH in implementation and monitoring of policies and plans
GOV - 9 <partner 1> Level of integration of WASH/IWRM in implementation and monitoring by Local Government
100% - Local Government is implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way, openly communicating the findings and using these to improve services
75% - Local Government is implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way and openly communicating the findings
50% - Local Government is implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
25% - Local Government is preparing to implement and monitor WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
0% - Local Government is neither implementing nor monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
GOV - 9 <partner 2> Level of integration of WASH/IWRM in implementation and monitoring by Local Government
100% - Local Government is implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way, openly communicating the findings and using these to improve services
75% - Local Government is implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way and openly communicating the findings
50% - Local Government is implementing and monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
25% - Local Government is preparing to implement and monitor WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
0% - Local Government is neither implementing nor monitoring WASH/IWRM policies and plans in an integrated way
Gov 10. -Government generates reliable data on WASH and IWRM services beyond functionality of facilities (water availability, water quality, pollution of water sources, waste management, reliability of services, consumer satisfaction,...)
GOV - 10 <partner 1> Level of Government monitoring of WASH and IWRM services
100% - Government uses reliable data on WASH and IWRM services to improve quality of services
75% - Government makes reliable data on WASH and IWRM services available
50% - Government generates reliable data on WASH and IWRM services
25% - Government understands the importance of generating reliable data on WASH and IWRM services (functionality of WASH facilities, water availability, water quality,...)
0% - Government does not monitor WASH and IWRM services (functionality of WASH facilities, water availability, water quality,...)
GOV - 10 <partner 2> Level of Government monitoring of WASH and IWRM services
100% - Government uses reliable data on WASH and IWRM services to improve quality of services
75% - Government makes reliable data on WASH and IWRM services available
50% - Government generates reliable data on WASH and IWRM services
25% - Government understands the importance of generating reliable data on WASH and IWRM services (functionality of WASH facilities, water availability, water quality,...)
0% - Government does not monitor WASH and IWRM services (functionality of WASH facilities, water availability, water quality,...)
Gov 11. -Government connects the monitoring of sector investments and WASH and IWRM SDG status
GOV - 11 <partner 1> Level of monitoring sector investments connected to WASH and IWRM SDG status
100% - National Government coordinates the linking of sector investments to the WASH and IWRM SDG status
75% - National Government links sector investments to the WASH and IWRM SDG status
50% - National Government tracks WASH and IWRM SDG status but does not link it to sector investments
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of monitoring sector investments in relation to WASH and IWRM SDG status
0% - National Government does not link the monitoring of sector investments with the WASH and IWRM SDG status
GOV - 11 <partner 2> Level of monitoring sector investments connected to WASH and IWRM SDG status
100% - National Government coordinates the linking of sector investments to the WASH and IWRM SDG status
75% - National Government links sector investments to the WASH and IWRM SDG status
50% - National Government tracks WASH and IWRM SDG status but does not link it to sector investments
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of monitoring sector investments in relation to WASH and IWRM SDG status
0% - National Government does not link the monitoring of sector investments with the WASH and IWRM SDG status
Gov 12. -Government ensures an enabling environment for CSOs (civic space)
GOV- 12 <partner 1> Level of existence of an enabling environment for CSOs (civic space)
100% - Government structurally supports the full, independent, active and effective participation of civil society
75% - Government is actively seeking participation of civil society
50% - Government is allowing participation of civil society
25% - Government is aware of the importance to allow participation of civil society
0% - Government is unwilling to allow participation of civil society
GOV- 12 <partner 2> Level of existence of an enabling environment for CSOs (civic space)
100% - Government structurally supports the full, independent, active and effective participation of civil society
75% - Government is actively seeking participation of civil society
50% - Government is allowing participation of civil society
25% - Government is aware of the importance to allow participation of civil society
0% - Government is unwilling to allow participation of civil society
DEV 1.- CSOs have influencing power in regional and international WASH and IWRM platforms
DEV - 1: Level of influencing power of CSOs in regional and international WASH and IWRM platforms
100% - CSOs actively participate in reporting and decision making in international WASH and IWRM platforms
75% - CSOs actively engaging in dialogue in international WASH and IWRM platforms (in the form of position papers, CSO reports)
50% - CSOs have delegated representation in regional and international WASH and IWRM platforms
25% - CSOs participate in regional and international WASH and IWRM platforms
0% - CSOs do not participate in regional and international WASH and IWRM platforms
DEV 2.- International development partners support improved WASH governance
DEV 2 – Level of support by International development partners for improved WASH governance
100% - International development partners are actively engaged in improved WASH governance (organizational policies, dedicated staff and documented action demonstrate prioritization)
75% - International development partners demonstrate limited engagement in improved WASH governance
50% - International development partners are open to supporting improved WASH governance
25% - International development partners are aware of the importance of improved WASH governance
0% - International development partners are unaware of importance of improved WASH governance
MS 1. - CSOs and Government coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH services for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...) in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
MS - 1: Level of CSO - Government coordination on matters relevant to achieving sustainable WASH for all
100% - CSOs and Government structurally coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
75% - CSOs and Government regularly coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs and Government engage in dialogue on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
25% - CSOs and Government see the need to coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
0% - CSOs and Government are not coordinating on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...)
MS - 1: Level of CSO <partner 1> Government coordination on matters relevant to achieving sustainable WASH for all
100% - CSOs and Government structurally coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
75% - CSOs and Government regularly coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs and Government engage in dialogue on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
25% - CSOs and Government see the need to coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
0% - CSOs and Government are not coordinating on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...)
MS - 1: Level of CSO <partner 2> Government coordination on matters relevant to achieving sustainable WASH for all
100% - CSOs and Government structurally coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
75% - CSOs and Government regularly coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs and Government engage in dialogue on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
25% - CSOs and Government see the need to coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
0% - CSOs and Government are not coordinating on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...)
MS - 1: Level of CSO <partner 3> Government coordination on matters relevant to achieving sustainable WASH for all
100% - CSOs and Government structurally coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
75% - CSOs and Government regularly coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs and Government engage in dialogue on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
25% - CSOs and Government see the need to coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
0% - CSOs and Government are not coordinating on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...)
NL-KvK-41151952-E1605
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Watershed IRC WP5 Bangladesh
IRC share in WP5
2030 is closer than you think. We have to get the next five years right, if we’re to meet the target of universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) by 2030. Watershed will take up the challenge by putting lobby and advocacy as one of the key pillars to achieve faster results. Watershed is a strategic partnership between the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and IRC, Simavi, Wetlands International and Akvo. Sustainability of WASH services is a critical Watershed goal. Over the next five years, the Watershed strategic partnership will deliver improvements in the governance and management of water, sanitation and hygiene services as well as of the water resources on which they draw. Good WASH governance requires the active and meaningful involvement of users (particularly women) of WASH services, service providers, water resource users and polluters. A strong civil society is essential to ensure that the voices of users are heard by service providers and government, and that government, service providers and the private sector are effectively held to account. At international level and in six countries: Kenya, Uganda, Mali, Ghana, Bangladesh, India we want to see… • Proven interventions funnelling knowledge and lessons upwards to influence governance and policy at national, regional and international levels. • Global civil society demanding fulfilment of the right to water and sanitation and equitable, sustainable allocation of water resources. • New partners investing in other countries based on Watershed results and approach. • International donors integrating environmental sustainability and climate change resilience into their WASH frameworks and practices.
still to be done
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Akvo Foundation
info@ircwash.org
http://ircwash.org
Visiting address
Bezuidenhoutseweg 2
2594 AV The Hague
The Netherlands
Postal address
P.O. Box 82327
2508 EH The Hague
The Netherlands
Phone : +31 70 304 4000
23.684994 90.356331
281200.00
10590.00
6717.00
1324.00
12379.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
1621.00
7733.00
4376.00
23962.00
56240.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Project photo
NL-KvK-41151952-E1604
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Watershed IRC WP4 Ghana
IRC share in WP4
2030 is closer than you think. We have to get the next five years right, if we’re to meet the target of universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) by 2030. Watershed will take up the challenge by putting lobby and advocacy as one of the key pillars to achieve faster results. Watershed is a strategic partnership between the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and IRC, Simavi, Wetlands International and Akvo. Sustainability of WASH services is a critical Watershed goal. Over the next five years, the Watershed strategic partnership will deliver improvements in the governance and management of water, sanitation and hygiene services as well as of the water resources on which they draw. Good WASH governance requires the active and meaningful involvement of users (particularly women) of WASH services, service providers, water resource users and polluters. A strong civil society is essential to ensure that the voices of users are heard by service providers and government, and that government, service providers and the private sector are effectively held to account. At international level and in six countries: Kenya, Uganda, Mali, Ghana, Bangladesh, India we want to see… • Proven interventions funnelling knowledge and lessons upwards to influence governance and policy at national, regional and international levels. • Global civil society demanding fulfilment of the right to water and sanitation and equitable, sustainable allocation of water resources. • New partners investing in other countries based on Watershed results and approach. • International donors integrating environmental sustainability and climate change resilience into their WASH frameworks and practices.
still to be done
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Akvo Foundation
info@ircwash.org
http://ircwash.org
Visiting address
Bezuidenhoutseweg 2
2594 AV The Hague
The Netherlands
Postal address
P.O. Box 82327
2508 EH The Hague
The Netherlands
Phone : +31 70 304 4000
7.946527 -1.023194
112480.00
28098.00
34306.00
36844.00
18185.00
17635.00
25227.00
30549.00
112480.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Project photo
Watershed Ghana: Developing an advocacy strategy for the Ghana work package
Daily Graphic News: Rethink lifting galamsey ban
Poor mining regulation deprives Ghanaian communities of potable water
Watershed Ghana: Capacity strengthening on IWRM and WASH along the Ankobra Basin
Domeabra community cry for potable water
Communities told to own WASH facilities
Watershed Ghana: Mole XXVIII Conference Side Event
Watershed Ghana: Training for Ghana WATSAN Journalists Network
Watershed Ghana: Training for Ghana WATSAN Journalists
Watershed Ghana Learning and Reflection meeting, Accra, Ghana
Watershed Training by AKVO on the RSR reporting Tool
Watershed partners at data gathering and reporting training
Akvo RSR training for Watershed partners in Accra Ghana
Lobby and Advocacy Watershed programme workshop
CSO 1. - CSOs use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
CSO 1. - <Partner 1> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
partner: HFFG
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
HGGF has some skills in research and can interpret data for L&A at district level. However, HFFG does not know where to get all the relevant information nor has easy access to experts on L&A.
CSO 1. - <Partner 2> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
Partner: CONIWAS
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
CONIWAS sometimes generates evidence for advocacy, but this is limited. Much of the evidence for L&A are generated by members based on the needs identified. There are varied levels and types of expertise within the coalition in generating evidence for advocacy. Sometimes the coalition relies on the use of consultants within the sector. Most of the advocacy messages are presented separately (IWRM and WASH) and not often linked together. Depending on the issue, members may processes adequate capacity interrogate evidence generated through secondary sources to investigate and consult experts within and outside the sector to verify them prior to its use.
CSO 1. - <Partner 3> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
Partner: GWJN
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
GWJN members find it challenging to get information on the WASH sector in the first place. This makes it tricky to trust the data that has been provided. Some experts do not want to talk about issues in the sector. Some have research that is good but the media don't have access to the data. It is important to share information in WASH with the media to inform their articles and messages.
CSO 1. - <Partner 4> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
Partner: RCN
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
The RCN has academic and research institutions as members who conduct and report periodically on WASH issues; and these reports are synthesized into readable knowledge products for the sector. The network relies on credible data for its L&A activities since L&A is dependent on credibility and evidence based research. More evidence-based data from the IWRM institutions will be required in the period ahead.
CSO 6. - CSOs integrate IWRM-WASH in their L&A activities
CSO 6. - <Partner 1> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
Partner: HFFG
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
The Context analysis indicated that WASH and WRM cross-path seemed limited from the assessment or responses by the people interviewed. WASH appeared to be more visible but in reality both WRM and WASH provision sometimes face common challenges. In particular, some poor WASH related practices often have negative effects on WRM and vice versa. HFFG has no experience in integrating WASH-IWRM in L&A.
CSO 6. - <Partner 2> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
Partner: CONIWAS
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
The Context analysis indicated that WASH and WRM cross-path seemed limited from the assessment or responses by the people interviewed. WASH appeared to be more visible but in reality both WRM and WASH provision sometimes face common challenges. In particular, some poor WASH related practices often have negative effects on WRM and vice versa. The CSAs for CONIWAS, also showed that the connection between WASH and IWRM is not always evident in the programming of members within the coalition. With the exception of a few members, most of the CONIWAS members focus on WASH within programming. There is a coalition for environment and they mainly focus on IWRM.
CSO 6. - <Partner 3> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
Partner: GWJN
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
The Context analysis indicated that WASH and WRM cross-path seemed limited from the assessment or responses by the people interviewed. WASH appeared to be more visible but in reality both WRM and WASH provision sometimes face common challenges. In particular, some poor WASH related practices often have negative effects on WRM and vice versa. The GWJN have some knowledge about how IWRM and WASH are connected, but are eager to learn more about it. Wetlands International has a lot of experience in working on IWRM and WASH, and will share its experience with partners.
CSO 6. - <Partner 4> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
Partner: RCN
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
The Context analysis indicated that WASH and WRM cross-path seemed limited from the assessment or responses by the people interviewed. WASH appeared to be more visible but in reality both WRM and WASH provision sometimes face common challenges. In particular, some poor WASH related practices often have negative effects on WRM and vice versa. The RCN has some knowledge about how IWRM and WASH are connected, but are eager to learn more about it. Wetlands International has a lot of experience in working on IWRM and WASH, and will share its experience with partners.
Gov 6. -National Government is transparent about expenditure on WASH/IWRM
GOV - 6 <partner 1> Level of transparency in expenditure by National Government
Partner: MWRWH
100% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - National Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - National Government do not have transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
WASH and WRM Financing in Ghana faces three challenges which can largely be resolved through lobby and advocacy: funding gaps (inadequacy); untimely releases and huge variations between approved budget and actual releases. The presence of CSO coalitions and networks such as CONIWAS and the Ghana WASH Journalists Network (WASH JN), presents a major opportunity for WASH L&A. At the District level HFFG seeks to generate data for L & A with duty bearers. However, their current level of engagement in lobby and advocacy is weak. The CSAs for CONIWAS and GWJN also mentioned their previous experience with WASH budget tracking and monitoring of the Ghana SWA commitments. It is not evident if these L&A efforts have yielded positive results as financing in WASH has fluctuated over the years with no clear pattern.
GOV - 6 <partner 1> Level of transparency in expenditure by National Government
Partner: WRC
100% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - National Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - National Government do not have transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
WASH and WRM Financing in Ghana faces three challenges which can largely be resolved through lobby and advocacy: funding gaps (inadequacy); untimely releases and huge variations between approved budget and actual releases. The presence of CSO coalitions and networks such as CONIWAS and the Ghana WASH Journalists Network (WASH JN), presents a major opportunity for WASH L&A. At the District level HFFG seeks to generate data for L & A with duty bearers. However, their current level of engagement in lobby and advocacy is weak. The CSAs for CONIWAS and GWJN also mentioned their previous experience with WASH budget tracking and monitoring of the Ghana SWA commitments. It is not evident if these L&A efforts have yielded positive results as financing in WASH has fluctuated over the years with no clear pattern.
GOV - 6 <partner 3> Level of transparency in expenditure by National Government
Partner: CWSA
100% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - National Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - National Government do not have transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
WASH and WRM Financing in Ghana faces three challenges which can largely be resolved through lobby and advocacy: funding gaps (inadequacy); untimely releases and huge variations between approved budget and actual releases. The presence of CSO coalitions and networks such as CONIWAS and the Ghana WASH Journalists Network (WASH JN), presents a major opportunity for WASH L&A. At the District level HFFG seeks to generate data for L & A with duty bearers. However, their current level of engagement in lobby and advocacy is weak. The CSAs for CONIWAS and GWJN also mentioned their previous experience with WASH budget tracking and monitoring of the Ghana SWA commitments. It is not evident if these L&A efforts have yielded positive results as financing in WASH has fluctuated over the years with no clear pattern.
GOV - 6 <partner 4> Level of transparency in expenditure by National Government
Partner: EHSD
100% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM and requesting feedback from civil society
75% - National Government is practising transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
50% - National Government is planning how to practise transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
25% - National Government is aware of the importance of transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
0% - National Government do not have transparency in expenditure on WASH and IWRM
WASH and WRM Financing in Ghana faces three challenges which can largely be resolved through lobby and advocacy: funding gaps (inadequacy); untimely releases and huge variations between approved budget and actual releases. The presence of CSO coalitions and networks such as CONIWAS and the Ghana WASH Journalists Network (WASH JN), presents a major opportunity for WASH L&A. At the District level HFFG seeks to generate data for L & A with duty bearers. However, their current level of engagement in lobby and advocacy is weak. The CSAs for CONIWAS and GWJN also mentioned their previous experience with WASH budget tracking and monitoring of the Ghana SWA commitments. It is not evident if these L&A efforts have yielded positive results as financing in WASH has fluctuated over the years with no clear pattern.
MS 1. - CSOs and Government coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH services for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...) in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
MS - 1: Level of CSO - Government coordination on matters relevant to achieving sustainable WASH for all
Partner: GWF
100% - CSOs and Government structurally coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
75% - CSOs and Government regularly coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs and Government engage in dialogue on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
25% - CSOs and Government see the need to coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
0% - CSOs and Government are not coordinating on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...)
During the context analysis, key institutions in government, NGOs, INGOs and the donors identified major opportunities that could serve as the foundation for evidence-based lobby and advocacy in WASH & WRM provision. They identified many existing platforms which could improve dialogue and coordination in the sector. They include the Ghana Water Forum, the Mole Conference and the Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee for the water and sanitation sector. These platforms have been used for multiple purposes and sometimes lacks a clear focus for coordination. There are also other coordination mechanisms such as the WASH sector working group, which CONIWAS and IRC are members. Despite the existence of these platforms, fragmentation still exists and emphasis is usually place on drinking water supply and sanitation. Issues of integration, social inclusion, social accountability are sometimes considered but it is not always evident in programming
MS - 1: Level of CSO <partner 1> Government coordination on matters relevant to achieving sustainable WASH for all
Partner: Mole
100% - CSOs and Government structurally coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
75% - CSOs and Government regularly coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs and Government engage in dialogue on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
25% - CSOs and Government see the need to coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
0% - CSOs and Government are not coordinating on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...)
During the context analysis, key institutions in government, NGOs, INGOs and the donors identified major opportunities that could serve as the foundation for evidence-based lobby and advocacy in WASH & WRM provision. They identified many existing platforms which could improve dialogue and coordination in the sector. They include the Ghana Water Forum, the Mole Conference and the Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee for the water and sanitation sector. These platforms have been used for multiple purposes and sometimes lacks a clear focus for coordination. There are also other coordination mechanisms such as the WASH sector working group, which CONIWAS and IRC are members. Despite the existence of these platforms, fragmentation still exists and emphasis is usually place on drinking water supply and sanitation. Issues of integration, social inclusion, social accountability are sometimes considered but it is not always evident in programming
MS - 1: Level of CSO <partner 2> Government coordination on matters relevant to achieving sustainable WASH for all
Partner: IMSCWS
100% - CSOs and Government structurally coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
75% - CSOs and Government regularly coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs and Government engage in dialogue on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
25% - CSOs and Government see the need to coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
0% - CSOs and Government are not coordinating on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...)
During the context analysis, key institutions in government, NGOs, INGOs and the donors identified major opportunities that could serve as the foundation for evidence-based lobby and advocacy in WASH & WRM provision. They identified many existing platforms which could improve dialogue and coordination in the sector. They include the Ghana Water Forum, the Mole Conference and the Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee for the water and sanitation sector. These platforms have been used for multiple purposes and sometimes lacks a clear focus for coordination. There are also other coordination mechanisms such as the WASH sector working group, which CONIWAS and IRC are members. Despite the existence of these platforms, fragmentation still exists and emphasis is usually place on drinking water supply and sanitation. Issues of integration, social inclusion, social accountability are sometimes considered but it is not always evident in programming
MS - 1: Level of CSO <partner 3> Government coordination on matters relevant to achieving sustainable WASH for all
Partner: WASGWG
100% - CSOs and Government structurally coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all in functional multi-stakeholder spaces
75% - CSOs and Government regularly coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs and Government engage in dialogue on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
25% - CSOs and Government see the need to coordinate on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all
0% - CSOs and Government are not coordinating on matters which are relevant for achieving sustainable WASH for all (IWRM/WASH integration, social inclusion, data/evidence, transparency, social accountability,...)
During the context analysis, key institutions in government, NGOs, INGOs and the donors identified major opportunities that could serve as the foundation for evidence-based lobby and advocacy in WASH & WRM provision. They identified many existing platforms which could improve dialogue and coordination in the sector. They include the Ghana Water Forum, the Mole Conference and the Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee for the water and sanitation sector. These platforms have been used for multiple purposes and sometimes lacks a clear focus for coordination. There are also other coordination mechanisms such as the WASH sector working group, which CONIWAS and IRC are members. Despite the existence of these platforms, fragmentation still exists and emphasis is usually place on drinking water supply and sanitation. Issues of integration, social inclusion, social accountability are sometimes considered but it is not always evident in programmingll
NL-KvK-41151952-E1603
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Watershed IRC WP3 Mali
IRC share in WP3
2030 is closer than you think. We have to get the next five years right, if we’re to meet the target of universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) by 2030. Watershed will take up the challenge by putting lobby and advocacy as one of the key pillars to achieve faster results. Watershed is a strategic partnership between the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and IRC, Simavi, Wetlands International and Akvo. Sustainability of WASH services is a critical Watershed goal. Over the next five years, the Watershed strategic partnership will deliver improvements in the governance and management of water, sanitation and hygiene services as well as of the water resources on which they draw. Good WASH governance requires the active and meaningful involvement of users (particularly women) of WASH services, service providers, water resource users and polluters. A strong civil society is essential to ensure that the voices of users are heard by service providers and government, and that government, service providers and the private sector are effectively held to account. At international level and in six countries: Kenya, Uganda, Mali, Ghana, Bangladesh, India we want to see… • Proven interventions funnelling knowledge and lessons upwards to influence governance and policy at national, regional and international levels. • Global civil society demanding fulfilment of the right to water and sanitation and equitable, sustainable allocation of water resources. • New partners investing in other countries based on Watershed results and approach. • International donors integrating environmental sustainability and climate change resilience into their WASH frameworks and practices.
still to be done
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Akvo Foundation
info@ircwash.org
http://ircwash.org
Visiting address
Bezuidenhoutseweg 2
2594 AV The Hague
The Netherlands
Postal address
P.O. Box 82327
2508 EH The Hague
The Netherlands
Phone : +31 70 304 4000
17.570692 -3.996166
56240.00
45431.00
8113.00
11297.00
0.00
37757.00
10997.00
9210.00
56240.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Project photo
still to be done
still to be done
NL-KvK-41151952-E1602
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Watershed IRC WP2 Kenya
IRC share in WP2
2030 is closer than you think. We have to get the next five years right, if we’re to meet the target of universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) by 2030. Watershed will take up the challenge by putting lobby and advocacy as one of the key pillars to achieve faster results. Watershed is a strategic partnership between the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and IRC, Simavi, Wetlands International and Akvo. Sustainability of WASH services is a critical Watershed goal. Over the next five years, the Watershed strategic partnership will deliver improvements in the governance and management of water, sanitation and hygiene services as well as of the water resources on which they draw. Good WASH governance requires the active and meaningful involvement of users (particularly women) of WASH services, service providers, water resource users and polluters. A strong civil society is essential to ensure that the voices of users are heard by service providers and government, and that government, service providers and the private sector are effectively held to account. At international level and in six countries: Kenya, Uganda, Mali, Ghana, Bangladesh, India we want to see… • Proven interventions funnelling knowledge and lessons upwards to influence governance and policy at national, regional and international levels. • Global civil society demanding fulfilment of the right to water and sanitation and equitable, sustainable allocation of water resources. • New partners investing in other countries based on Watershed results and approach. • International donors integrating environmental sustainability and climate change resilience into their WASH frameworks and practices.
still to be done
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Akvo Foundation
info@ircwash.org
http://ircwash.org
Visiting address
Bezuidenhoutseweg 2
2594 AV The Hague
The Netherlands
Postal address
P.O. Box 82327
2508 EH The Hague
The Netherlands
Phone : +31 70 304 4000
-0.023559 37.906193
111918.00
36806.00
9566.00
9262.00
7859.00
7163.00
37957.00
16990.00
111918.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Project photo
still to be done
still to be done
NL-KVK-41151952-E1601
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Watershed IRC WP1 Uganda
IRC share in WP1
- draft -
To support CSOs in advocacy and lobby for improvements in policy, practice and discourse of WASH and IWRM, a four-pronged approach will be used:
1. Engagement of key stakeholders: private sector to secure funding and delivery of WASH services, and media, academic and research organisations to create mass awareness and generate evidence required for advocacy and lobbying
2. Civil society participation to ensure that the voices of users are heard by government, and that government, service providers and the private sector are effectively held to account
3. Capacity building of CSOs in WASH and IWRM policy analysis, advocacy and lobbying—essential skills for monitoring, engaging with government and other WASH-IWRM actors, influencing policy and promoting accountability
4. Support to help CSOs engage in advocacy and lobbying, using various strategies
-Draft-
1. Competent CSOs and their networks to lobby effectively
2. Effective lobby strategies to governments to plan, implement and monitor WASH and IWRM regulations
3. Lobby strategies and activities of CSO are effective in addressing the cross-cutting issues water security, gender and marginalisation or exclusion
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Akvo Foundation
info@ircwash.org
http://www.ircwash.org/
Visiting addressBezuidenhoutseweg 22594 AV The HagueThe NetherlandsPostal addressP.O. Box 823272508 EH The HagueThe NetherlandsPhone : +31 70 304 4000
1.373333 32.290275
1124800.00
17088.00
46221.00
71238.00
1124800.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
99033.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
75416.00
71572.00
59003.00
22265.00
224960.00
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Project photo
Akvo Training for Watershed Partners in Uganda
WATER RESOURCES: Partake and Protect
UWASNET IWRM Working group training
Lobbying and Advocacy Training for Civil Society Organisations in Uganda
Watershed WPI-WASH/IWRM integration
Making Reporting Simple and Fun
Really Simple Reporting - RSR Training in action
Training in Reporting and data collection for Watershed WP I ( Uganda)
Asset management training for Mugusu Water Board
CSO 1. - CSOs use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
CSO 1. - <Partner 1> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
Partner: UWASNET
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
UWASNET knows that they could do better at L&A if they use reliable evidence. The know that they need to collaborate more with the academic and research institutions for better data and packaging messages with evidence which will make L&A easier.
CSO 1. - <Partner 2> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
Partner: HEWASA
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
HEWASA often collects primary data in form of baseline and monitoring data in areas of implementation. This data is currently project focused and not yet used for L&A purposes. Action research projects like LEAPPs provided opportunity on how to capture voices and reliable data at grassroots level. However, there is need to improve on ways of acquiring and using evidence and data for L&A at district, National and international level and other relevant stakeholders.
CSO 1. - <Partner 3> Level of use of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
Partner: JESE
100% - CSOs convince their target groups with reliable evidence
75% - CSOs use reliable evidence to base lobby and advocacy strategies and messages on
50% - CSOs partner with relevant stakeholders to identify and fill gaps in reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to use reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
0% - CSOs are not aware of reliable evidence for lobby and advocacy
Capacity needs to be improved because in the past partner has relied on primary data collected in form of baseline surveys. However, there is need to improve on ways of acquiring and using evidence and data at district, National and international level.
CSO 3. - CSOs collaborate with other CSOs for effective lobby and advocacy
CSO 3. - <partner 1> Level of collaboration with other CSOs for effective lobby and advocacy
Partner: JESE
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership increases the weight of the voice of CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other CSOs in lobby and advocacy for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other CSOs
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other CSOs
0% - CSOs work in isolation
CSO needs to support policy reviews and formulation and will help reduce on duplication of efforts. Using implementation experience to support policy formulation will reduce parallel implementation and enable adoption of innovations for L&A.
CSO 4. - CSOs collaborate with other non-governmental actors for effective lobby and advocacy
CSO 4. - <partner 1> Level of collaboration with other non-governmental actors for effective lobby and advocacy
Partner: UWASNET
100% -CSOs’ strategic partnership with non-governmental actors increases the effectiveness of L&A for sustainable WASH for all
75% - CSOs are collaborating strategically with other non-government actors in L&A for sustainable WASH for all
50% - CSOs are engaged in discussions toward strategic collaboration with other non-governmental actors
25% - CSOs are aware of the importance to collaborate with other non-governmental actors
0% - CSOs are unaware of the importance to work with other non-governmental actors
Partner is aware that there is need to engage with other actors at all levels; non-UWASNET members. This also includes the need to know what other stakeholders in WASH/IWRM and how to partner in them for better L&A.
CSO 6. - CSOs integrate IWRM-WASH in their L&A activities
CSO 6. - <Partner 1> Level of integration of WASH-IWRM in L&A
Partner: JESE
100% - CSOs convince their targets from both WASH and IWRM sectors to collaborate on themes/issues relevant for the CSOs constituency
75% - CSOs have integrated strategies and specific L&A messages for WASH and IWRM sectors
50% - CSOs are engaged in L&A about the same theme/issue with targets (in government and/or private sector) from both the WASH and IWRM sectors
25% - CSOs are aware that sustainable WASH is dependent on proper water resource management
0% - CSOs do not understand the relation between WASH and IWRM
JESE has experience in integration of WASH and IWRM and known as the local IWRM CSO in the Rwenzori region. Organization has good understanding of local and national partners for IWRM and WASH and often proactively sought after for engagement especially by WASH partners. There is however a gap in integrating IWRM/WASH in regards to L&A.
CSO 7. - CSOs are transparent about own activities and results
CSO 7. - <Partner 1> Level of transparency on own activities and results
Partner: UWASNET
100% - CSOs openly sharing their achievements, lessons learnt and failures
75% - CSOs monitoring their activities, budgets and results, and reporting the findings
50% - CSOs preparing to monitor their activities, budgets and results
25% - CSOs understand that to be able to hold duty bearers accountable, they have to be transparent about their own activities, budgets and results as well
0% - CSOs do not understand the importance of being transparent about their own activities and results
UWASNET is aware that there is need for transparency of their own activities and their partner. They have been working with partners and admit that because of lack of transparency there have been a lot of gaps on who does what and which achievements have been reached. They have experience in L&A but have not documented their successes either and admit that because of lack of transparency they have not been able to hold duty bearers accountable.
CSO 7. - <Partner 2> Level of transparency on own activities and results
Partner: HEWASA
100% - CSOs openly sharing their achievements, lessons learnt and failures
75% - CSOs monitoring their activities, budgets and results, and reporting the findings
50% - CSOs preparing to monitor their activities, budgets and results
25% - CSOs understand that to be able to hold duty bearers accountable, they have to be transparent about their own activities, budgets and results as well
0% - CSOs do not understand the importance of being transparent about their own activities and results
HEWASA is actively monitoring their results but largely to report to donors and ensure own accountability. HEWASA has recently developed an organization ToC, but there is a need to link it to the strategic plan and L&A strategy (to be developed). There is still room to ensure the beneficiary group is captured and documented in the monitoring process and that there is good communication of the same. For example, community based monitoring has been piloted by HEWASA, but more thinking is needed on how to report back to the community on the results of this exercise. Another need for HEWASA is to have concrete results and to be credible for communities and local government. Under the Watershed programme, HEWASA will work on using monitor system across projects to measure the success of HEWASA in holding service providers to account. There is a need to develop specific indicators in order to measure this.