Expanding Community Choices to Make Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Decisions

1. Expanding Community Choices to Make Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Decisions John Akudago (Ph.D.) Meena Palaniappan Misha Hutchings International Water and Communities Initiative, Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA, USA, www.pacinst.org

2. Non-profit research institute based in Oakland, CA, USA Founded in 1987 The Institute Staff: Full Time-15, Part Time-8, and occasional volunteers We work in the Western U.S., West Africa, India, Indonesia, and internationally on projects to improve water management and services. Background of Pacific Institute • VISION:A world where the basic needs of all people are met, resources are managed sustainably and the natural world protected, and conflicts over resources are resolved in a peaceful and democratic fashion • MISSION:Work to create a healthier planet and sustainable communities through inter-disciplinary research and partnerships

3. WASH Programming Challenges • Physical structural development- Demand for physical structures such as hand-pump wells, sanitation facilities and other improved structures exceeds supply. • Sustainability- Some existing structures fail to function after short period of time. • Balancing community need with donor and government interest- Community needs project A most, but there is only funding for B, and Government policy favors project C. • Lack of knowledge of existing WASH solutions- Both Community and donor or implementing organization need to have knowledge of the many appropriate solutions that could meet community needs. • Education and capacity building tools-Release of knowledge through tools can facilitate education and capacity building.

4. Existing WASH decision-support tools There are WASH decision support tools such as Akvopedia, EAWAG Compendium, NETSSAF, SSWM, WASH Cluster website, WHO Technical Notes in Emergencies in the sector but these tools lack • Flexibility to customize user input • User interface • All in one type of tool for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene

5. WASH facilities were constructed in communities without involving the users The central or local government took care of operation and maintenance cost of WASH facilities in communities Communities did not think of participating in program implementation and long term sustainability Donors did not have conditions of cost sharing as one of the criteria for awarding grants Gone are the days when………………. • Technologies were limited and users had to keep struggling with the known technology • Knowledge transfer was one of the biggest challenge-taking over 3 months to send knowledge materials from Europe or America to Africa or Latin America or vice versa.

6. Yet, even now current CLTS implementation can lead to uninformed choices Government officials, NGO workers Visit Community to trigger CLTS-water, sanitation and hygiene issues We don’t know any technology/have means to construct toilet except dig and burry Pick a technology – based on incomplete information?

7. Linking WASH Choices Tool to CLTS can give communities a greater range of options for implementation based on their specified needs Government officials, NGO workers Visit Community to trigger CLTS-water, sanitation and hygiene issues We don’t know any technology to construct toilet except dig and burry NGO worker follows up with decision support system www.washchoices.org Community makes informed choice

8. What is the WASH Choices Tool? Increase community participation Release trapped knowledge COMMUNITIES CHOICES TOOL www.washchoices.org Sustainability Capacity building Educate for over all good health Confidence in best options to solve on WASH issues Clip art

9. Questions addressed What technologies match the financial capacity of the community/resident and what financing options are available? What are the available technologies that could meet the community’s identified needs? Are there other sustainable or unsustainable technologies used in the past and why? COMMUNITIES CHOICES TOOL www.washchoices.org How do I build this technology? Under what conditions will it work? Is there capacity and construction material available to build chosen technology? Has the technology been used successfully elsewhere nearby?

10. Using the tool

11. Solution page (chosen technologies)

12. Instruction to design

13. Key issues from learning sessions • Tool should be designed to be country specific • Tool will be helpful in a country-wide CLTS program • Include cost of technology • Include access to water model • Internet based tool cannot be accessed by communities • Target audience should be NGOs, local and government staff, WASH practitioners • If communities are audience, tool should be hardcopy • Modify questions in the tool to reflect cultural perception of WASH, rural and urban sanitation

14. Lessons Learned from the sessions • Questions should be inter-linked • Take off log in before use function • Results should be displayed in matrix form • Include explanation why the technology is selected • Display the remaining technologies that are not selected by the computer program • A local NGO (Pronet-North) proposed that if supported could host the website upon completion

15. Next Steps • Receive feed back from RWSN Participants • Incorporate key issues from learning sessions and other feedback to produce the Alpha version and pilot test it in a West African community • Plan to have alpha version developed and tested by March 2012

16. Thank You for your attention