Last year, IRC has been supporting the Inter-American Development and the governments of three countries in Latin America (El Salvador, Honduras and Paraguay) in the development of national WASH monitoring systems. This included support on the development of indicators as well as on the institutionalization of the monitoring systems in the sector, through the definition of an institutional framework for monitoring and the costing and identification of financing of these monitoring activities. Based on these three experiences, a generic approach was developed for the institutionalization of national WASH monitoring systems in the region. This presentation was shared during an IRC webinar on 22 May 2013, in which the approach was presented illustrated with specific examples and experiences from the three countries. The presentation was followed by reflections by an (online) panel from Liberia, a country that seeks to embark on a similar process, consisting of George Yarngo and Abdul Koroma (Ministry of Public Works) and Bimal Tandukar (SNV). After the reflections by the panel, there was an open discussion on needs and approaches for the institutionalization of national monitoring systems.

1. 1
How to make monitoring a common and
lasting practice ?
Lessons from El Salvador, Honduras and Paraguay
IRC Lunch seminar, 22 May 2013

2. Key messages
• Monitoring important to improve sustainability, by providing
information to target post-construction support to service
providers
• Many monitoring systems often suffer sustainability problems
themselves, therefore there is need to identify such risks and
mitigation measures
• This can be done through a structured approach for defining
institutional arrangements through a multi-stakeholder process

3. Background
• IDB re-entering rural WASH, but found:
– Many of the systems they had supported before, no
longer functioning adequately
– Few countries with up-to-date inventories of rural WASH
assets
• Triggering interest in monitoring sustainability of rural
water supplies for:
– Targeting post-construction support
– Informing investment plans
• Need to address sustainability of monitoring systems
themselves, by having clear institutional framework
and costing of them

4. Honduras: background and approach
• Used to have reasonably well-functioning rural water information system (SIAR), but got out-of-
date quickly after donor support ended
• Joined regional monitoring initiative (SIASAR)
• Implying a move from an organizational to a sector monitoring system
– Opening up access to all sector stakeholders
– Meeting needs of different stakeholders
– Decentralising and distributing data collection
• Structured approach to develop this institutional framework and costing

5. Honduras: key issues
• Data collection: by centralised agency or by
municipalities and service providers
• Validation of data: spot-checks, sieving out obvious
errors and through open access of information
• Processing: need for careful calibration of
algorithms
• Analysis and interpretation: the weakest link, with
limited capacity at decentralised level

6. Paraguay: main characteristics
• Coverage figures rural/urban water 66/99 and for sanitation 40/90 (JMP
-2012)
• No sector leadership and highly fragmented sector (institutions and
systems)
• Process lead by SENASA- capacity is weak and centralized in Asunción
• Establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group
• Involvement in design of the system (purpose, scope)
• Sub-groups in development of the indicators (service, service provider, TA)
• Development of the technological platform
by Geoinformatica – piloted in 2011

7. Paraguay: highlights
• Work on design of the system with multi-actor working group:
– Allowed the introduction of SDA as opposed to the infrastructure and implementation
focus in the sector
– Helped to arise awareness on the need for one single framework for monitoring WASH
services- ( alignment between systems and collaboration among actors- institutional
arrangements)
• Work on the indicators: heated debate on norms and benchmarks for
service delivery
• Agreement of a staggered process in terms of comprehensiveness of the
system and application at scale
• Critical are clarity on management and governance of the system (need of
allocation of dedicated resources)

8. El Salvador
• Centralised sector with one national utility;
community-based management unregulated
• Wish to get better understanding of status of
rural water, with initial focus on doing a first
inventory of assets and services provided
– Indicator development around service levels,
service provider performance and access to
support
– Algorithms to reach an overall score (A to D)
• Triggered interest in and need for post-
construction support mechanisms to act upon
results

9. Key elements of the approach
• Defining monitoring systems as set of procedures for carrying
out monitoring:
– Objectives
– Processes
– Institutional arrangements
– Information system
• Critically assess the capacity to use and maintain it:
– Financing framework
– Human resources to fulfil responsibilities
– Institutional ownership and governance
• Multi-stakeholder process, with leadership by main
government agency – even though not always clear who that
is

10. Overview of the approach

11. Step
Stakeholder
Data collection Processing Analysis Reporting
Identifying corrective
actions
Service providers
On-going but
unstructured
Without standard
procedure or tool
Without standard
procedure or tool
Annual reports to users
Some decision making
tools for water quality
and administration
Municipal
Association of Water
Committees
On-going but
unstructured
Sometimes, but without
standard procedure or
tool
Without standard
procedure or tool
Unknown Unknown
Operation and
Maintenance
Technician
Using standard tool.
Demand-based and
depending on resources
Using SIAR Using SIAR
To the service provider
and national utility
Based on standard set
of typical corrective
measures
Regulation and
Control Technician
Using standard tool
As above, but using other
information system
By national regulator
Reports on website of
national regulator
National regulator
informs municipality to
take action
Environmental
Health Technicians
Using standard tool, but
limited Resource
Data provided to Regional
Health Secretariat
Unknown Unknown Unknown
NGOs and projects
Detailed assessments
based on project needs
Based on own criteria Based on own criteria Internal
Feasibility assessment
of Project
Tools: mapping current monitoring activities

12. Institution
Roles
System
manager Data collector Validator
Information
user
PAT
Technical assistance provider
(SANAA)
Policy making body (CONASA)
Regulator (ERSAPS)
Implementing agency (FHIS)
Health Secretariat
Finance and Planning
Secretariat
Association of Municipalities
of Honduras
Municipalities
Associations of Water
Committees
Water Committees
NGOs
Tools: Matrix to definition roles

13. Tool: Matrix for defining the new institutional
arrangements
• Broken down by steps in monitoring
• Phases in the development of the monitoring system
Data
collection
Validation Processing
Publishing of
results
Analysis
Identifying
corrective
measures
Self-reporting
by service
providers
In municipal Water
Roundtables, bringing
together municipal officials
and water committees.
ANDA (national utility)
revises information to
identity obvious errors and
uploads to database
Automatized but
under supervision of
ANDA
ANDA makes
national synthesis
report.
Municipalities make
local reports based
on the results from
database, where
needed supported
by ANDA
Municipal Water
Roundtables do this
jointly
Municipal Water
Roundtables do this
jointly, supported by
ANDA or other
PATs

14. Tools: Costing and responsibilities for financing
• Detailed budgeting of all steps in monitoring
– Differentiated between baseline and regular monitoring
– Quantifying all costs, including hidden costs, e.g. time of
communities and local government staff
• Verification through rounds of piloting
• Based on this, agree on financial agreements
• Check whether the costs can be met feasibly by different
bodies
• Iterations – to adjust budgets or ambitions
• Continuous monitoring of the costs of monitoring in the roll-
out

15. Results of costing
• Main costs are in data collection, but don’t
underestimate costs of analysis
El Salvador Honduras Paraguay
Baseline 0.39 0.24-0.34
(actual)
0.09
Regular
updating
0.11 + 0.08 0.23

16. Lessons learnt from applications
• Build on existing monitoring practices even if they
are incomplete or imperfect
• Decentralise most of the steps in monitoring but
ensure sufficient support to local governments
• Gradual approach to the comprehensiveness of the
scope of the monitoring
• Phased approach to reach country-wide scale,
including pilots to adjust information system and
create ownership within sector
• Costing is important tool in assigning
responsibilities and assessing risks

17. For discussion
• How effective can monitoring WASH service delivery be in a sector
dominated by an implementation and infrastructure approach?
• How to overcome the weak institutional capacity at national and
decentralised levels for ensuring continuous WASH monitoring?