WASHTech Uganda End of Project Impact AssessmentReport

Deliverable 7.6

A report produced by Network for Water and Sanitation (NETWAS) Uganda

December 2013

i i | P a g e

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Technologies (WASHTech) is a project of the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme in Africa

NETWAS Uganda 2013 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Technology project End of project Impact Assessment. (WASHTech Deliverable 7.6) [Online] The Hague: WASHTech c/o IRC International Water and Sanitation Centreand NETWAS Uganda.

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene TechnologiesWASHTech, 2013

Author(s)Sekuma Simon Peter, NETWAS Uganda and Simon Taylor, Cranfield University

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Technologies (WASHTech) is a three-year action research initiative that aims to facilitate cost-effective investments in technologies for sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene services (WASH). Through action research and the development of a set of methodological tools and participatory approaches, WASHTech embeds the practice of multi-stakeholder learning, sharing and collaboration – instilling individual and collective ownership and responsibility for sustainable WASH services.

WASHTech, c/o IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre * P.O. Box 82327 2508EH The Hague, The Netherlands * WASHTech@irc.nl / www.irc.nl. Website: http://washtechafrica.wordpress.com

i v | P a g e

| 5

Contents

Contents.............................................................3Acknowledgements.....................................................4Abbreviations........................................................5Executive Summary....................................................62. Methodology.......................................................92.1 Sampling and Data Collection....................................92.2 Analysis.......................................................10

3. Findings.........................................................113.1 Knowledge and Attitudes........................................113.1.1 Attitudes to Technology Introduction.......................113.1.2 Knowledge..................................................12

3.2 Sector Practices and Procedures.................................123.2.2 Changes to Procedure.........................................13

3.3 Control Coordination and Monitoring.............................143.3 Stakeholder’s Perspectives on Tools.............................153.4 Embedding.......................................................174. Conclusions and Recommendations..................................194.1 Conclusions....................................................194.2 Recommendations................................................20

References..........................................................22Annexes.............................................................23

ANNEX 1: List of Interviewees....................................23

P a g e | 6

AcknowledgementsThis study is the result of an intensive collaborative effort between Networkfor Water and Sanitation (NETWAS) Uganda and Cranfield University in the context of the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Technologies (WASHTech) project.

NETWAS Uganda is highly appreciative of this intensive collaborative effort and would, therefore, like to thank all the actors involved for their valuable support and particularly Simon Taylor (Cranfield University-Researcher); for facilitating the development of this publication and guidingthe research.

NETWAS would also like to thank the Ministry of Water and Environment particularly Eng Dr Nyeko Paul, Technical Support Units 1and 5 (TSU1,TSU5), District Water Officer Jinja, Technology for Tomorrow, WATCOM, IRC Water and Sanitation, the French Development Agency and the Appropriate Technology Centre for their time input into this evaluation.

This publication is the result of a research funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme, FP7-Africa-2010 under Grant Agreement Number 266200.

| 7

Abbreviations

ATC Appropriate Technology Centre for Water and SanitationDWD Directorate of Water DevelopmentDWO District Water OfficerEHD Environmental Health DivisionFDA French Development AgencyKII Key InformantsIRC International Reference Centre for Water and SanitationMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingLA Learning AllianceMUK Makerere University, KampalaMoWE Ministry of Water and EnvironmentNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationRUWASA Rural Water and SanitationRWH Rain water HarvestingTIP Technology Introduction ProcessTFT Technology for Tomorrow TSU Technical Support UnitUDDT Urine Diversion Dry ToiletUNBS Uganda National Bureau of StandardsUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundURWA Uganda Rainwater AssociationUS- Uganda StandardUWASNET Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO NetworkWASH Water, Sanitation and HygieneWATSAN Water and Sanitation

P a g e | 8

Executive Summary

This study was planned within the context of the Water, Sanitation andHygiene technology (WASHTech) project work package 7 led by CranfieldUniversity and supported by Network for Water and Sanitation (NETWAS)Uganda. The WASHTech project is a three-year action researchinitiative that aims to facilitate cost-effective investments intechnologies for sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene services(WASH). Through action research and the development of a set ofmethodological tools and participatory approaches, WASHTech embeds thepractice of multi-stakeholder learning, sharing and collaboration –instilling individual and collective ownership and responsibility forsustainable WASH services. The purpose of this study was to assesschanges in capacity, attitudes and knowledge among WASHTech LearningAlliance members, Technology Assessment Framework (TAF) usersincluding the WASHTech partners themselves towards the technologyintroduction process in Uganda.

The impact assessment involved conducting semi-structured, keyinformant interviews. Study participants were purposively selected atnational level from the government sector and civil society, based ontheir involvement and knowledge of the WASHTech project and its toolsin the Uganda WASH Sector and their contribution to sector planningand decision-making. Secondary data for the study was collectedthrough an extensive review of key WASH sector documents.

Key Findings Knowledge and AttitudesThe WASHTech project has raised the issue of technology assessment andintroduction on the WASH sector agenda. Although these issues havebeen always been discussed and many WASH actors were aware of problemswith informal introduction and inadequate assessment of technologies,the project has acted as a platform, providing stakeholder’s the spaceto come together and address these issues. The main attitudinal shift

| 9

in this domain appears to be concerned with bringing about a moreformalized procedure behind technology assessment and introduction.

In terms of knowledge, project participants described how the WASHTechproject had increased their awareness and knowledge around certaintechnologies, usually through their engagement in project scoringworkshops or the actual testing of the tools in the field.

Procedure behind technology Assessment and IntroductionThe procedure behind technology introduction can be grouped into twobroad categories. One being the ministry of Water and Environment asthe primary contact when a new technology is to be introduced into thecountry (Since 2010, the Appropriate Technology Centre (ATC) is nowresponsible for dealing with all matters concerning WASH technologiesand therefore the case will now be referred to this body which fallsunder the Ministry of Water and Environment (MoWE). The second oneidentified is the importance of conducting a pilot study of thetechnology but this process is often bypassed and technologies aresimply introduced without testing. The WASHTech processes oftechnology assessment and introduction seems to represent changes tothe practices within Uganda’s WASH sector. The tools and associatedactivities however have yet to be officially approved and written intogovernment policy. The procedures of assessment and introduction whichhave been bought by the WASHTech project represent a more formalizedand step by step approach.

Control, Coordination and MonitoringAlthough there are standards and guidelines around WASH technologieswithin the sector, there are no formal processes behind having atechnology assessed and it appears the surveillance aroundtechnologies being introduced is generally week. Regarding the actualapproval of technologies within the sector, there is no certificationof technologies carried out to demonstrate that they are fit for usewithin the sector and comply with government standards and guidelines.However, a certification process is under development and as the

P a g e | 10

representatives from the ATC explained the WASHTech tools could play arole in such a process in the future.

Role of WASHTech tools in the sectorStakeholder’s perceived the tools developed by WASHTech to have adefinite place in the Uganda WASH sector. WASH Stakeholders thoughtthe tools could benefit technology assessment and introduction in thesector in a number of ways;

making the process of assessment and introduction more explicit so actors have a step by step process to follow

ensuring technologies introduced are sustainable and applicable to context

enhancing understanding of end beneficiaries’ perspective on technology

provide opportunity for other stakeholders such as NGOs and private sector to become involved in decision making around technology use in the country

have a potential role in certification of technologies by the ATCas well as useful in monitoring technology performance

1. Background and Introduction

The water and sanitation sector is not short of new and emergingtechnologies, but despite many projects piloting them, hardly any havebeen adopted into national strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa, nor havethey been widely taken up by private enterprise. Yet someinappropriate technologies have been taken up widely and have not

|11

delivered the expected service. Kimera and Achiro 2011, suggest thatWASH technologies were haphazardly introduced into the Uganda sector,with the circumstances surrounding these processes being unclear andlacking a specific procedure. In fact, technology introductionscenarios in the WASH sector during the last forty years aresurrounded with unclear processes. A key constraint to reaching thesector targets therefore appears to be the lack of systems to assessthe potential of a given technology and the inability to take newappropriate technologies to scale. The respective problems are wellrecognized within the Ugandan sector, something which was exemplifiedby the Ministry of Water Environment (MoWE) establishing theAppropriate Technology Centre (ATC) in 2010. The ATC, managed by(WASHTech) project partners NETWAS, is mandated to carry outassessments on WASH technologies as well as oversee their introductionand monitor performance.

The WASHTech project, starting in 2011 and ending in December 2013,therefore came at a timely moment for the Ugandan sector as it aimedto further address these issues through action research in thedevelopment of tools for assessing technologies and aiding theirintroduction and scale-up. The first tool, and the one which made upthe majority of the action research component of the project, was theTechnology Applicability Framework (TAF). This tool requires datacollection around six different dimensions of a technology including;economic, social, environmental, legal, technological andskills/knowhow. The tool seeks the perspective of stakeholdersinvolved in implementing technologies and identifies three main groupsof actors; the users of the technology, the producers or providers andthe regulator or investors. Data are collected by field teams andanalyzed in scoring workshops involving stakeholders from differentareas of the sector including government, NGOs, private sector andresearch institutions. The participatory approach aims to assist therigorous assessment of a technology and whether or not it isappropriate for use in a given context. The TAF was also developedusing a participatory approach, engaging key stakeholders in thesector to attend scoring workshops, applying the tool to new andexisting WASH technologies being used in Uganda. Stakeholders were

P a g e | 12

able to provide feedback for the development of the tool during threerounds of testing on technologies which been selected throughconsultation with key stakeholders. The second tool developed byWASHTech is the Technology Introduction Process (TIP) and aims toidentify all the key stakeholders involved in introducing a technologyand make their various roles and responsibilities explicit, thusfacilitating the scale up of appropriate technology.

In order to measure the changes brought about by WASHTech in Uganda,NETWAS in conjunction with project partners Cranfield University,conducted an impact assessment study to measure the progress of theproject in Uganda. This end of project impact assessment is part of awider monitoring and evaluation work package of the project. Abaseline knowledge attitudes and practice study was also conducted atthe start of the project in order to gauge the situation of technologyassessment and introduction in the sector. Monitoring of projectoutcomes has also been carried out throughout the project timeline,using a Most Significant Change methodology (Davis and Dart 2004).This report has drawn from both of these monitoring and evaluationcomponents in addition to the key informant interviews conducted aspart of this impact assessment study. The terms of reference outlinedin the projects description of work document demanded that this impactassessment covered the following aspects:

Assess the changes in capacity, attitudes and knowledge amonglearning alliance members and Technology Applicability Framework(TAF) user’s (including project partner’s themselves).

Gauge the degree of adoption of the technical validation tool andits ease of use

Identify new potential users of the TAF and those adopting orconsidering adoption of the recommendations

|13

2. Methodology 2.1 Sampling and Data Collection

This study adopted a purposive sampling strategy. A list ofstakeholders involved in various project activities was generated bycountry partners NETWAS. Participants were selected on the basis thatthey had at least some experience of the WASHTech project with theemphasis on obtaining the views of those who were both directlyinvolved in project activities such as field testing of the tools andcore working group meetings and those who had been involved to alesser extent (e.g. those having a technology of their interest testedby the project). The study aimed to gain the perspective of actorsfrom different areas of the WASH sector in Uganda including; privatesector, national and local government, Non-Government Organisations(NGOs) and research institutions. Once potential study participantshad been identified they were asked if they would be able to providean interview between the 1st of July 2013 and the 10th of July 2013. Allbut one of the proposed participants was able to attend either aninterview in person or a telephone interview during this period.

The study involved semi-structured interviews, making use of aframework of questions developed by principle investigators fromCranfield University (UK) with input from NETWAS. Questions variedslightly according to the area of the sector which the intervieweeworked in but covered the same broad areas which included:

The current procedures behind technology assessment/introductionand any changes which may have resulted from the WASHTech project

Knowledge and attitudes of technology assessment and introductionprocesses

Knowledge and attitudes of technologies assessed by WASHTech andwhether any changes had occurred in this area as a result of theproject

Control, coordination and monitoring of technology assessment andintroduction in the sector and whether there had been any changesor plans for changes as a result of the WASHTech project

P a g e | 14

Stakeholder’s perceptions of WASHTech tools The level of embedding of WASHTech tools within the sector Key strategies to ensure benefits of project can be maximized

2.2 Analysis

A total of 11 interviews took place (9 in person and 2 telephoneinterviews/average duration 24 minutes 33 seconds). All interviewswere recorded and transcribed verbatim. NVivo 10 software was utilizedfor data management and analysis. Interview transcripts were codedaccording to the main subject areas identified above. Further codingof project outcomes, the mechanisms behind these outcomes andimportant contextual factors influencing outcomes was conducted.Causation coding methods were applied to track whether reportedoutcomes could be attributed to project interventions. The analysismade use of the projects theory of change documentation to establishsome of the expected outcomes of the project. However, the analysiswas open to the coding of additional project outcomes as they emergedfrom the data. The results from the baseline situational analysisstudy were also used as a reference as to whether any changes inpractices, policy, attitudes and strategies in technology assessmentand introduction had taken place.

Once data had been coded framework matrices were developed for themajor themes to emerge from the data. This enabled analysts to comparereporting of project outcomes between the different actorsinterviewed. A phase of data reduction was conducted to further theanalytical process. Analytical memo writing was conducted throughoutthe coding and analysis process. The results generated by the analysiswere cross checked between principle researchers and researchers atNETWAS and triangulated with other sources such as projectdocumentation, government and development partner reports.

|15

3. Findings

3.1 Knowledge and Attitudes

3.1.1 Attitudes to Technology Introduction

Key informant interviews conducted in Uganda; show that the WASHTechproject has raised the issue of technology assessment and introductionon the WASH sector agenda. Although these issues have been always beendiscussed and many WASH actors were aware of problems with informalintroduction and inadequate assessment of technologies, the projecthas acted as a platform, providing stakeholders the space to cometogether and address these issues. The main attitudinal shift in thisdomain appears to be concerned with bringing about a more formalizedprocedure behind technology assessment and introduction. For example,the representative from the Ministry of Water Environment (MoWE)explained how the project had changed the way they are thinking aroundthis subject area.

“Of course we are graduating; we are graduating because with the advent ofWASHTech. I think we gain a lot of insight on how we can improve water not beingreally very formal, as far as introducing technology is concerned. Now with thecoming of WASHTech and with the development of the TAF, we are graduating andtrying to see how we can make it more formal now and it is more explicit.”[Representative of MoWE]

The development of the TAF and its introduction to actor’s in thesector, was commonly cited as being an important mechanism forbringing about the desire for a more standardized step by stepprocedure.

P a g e | 16

A further change in attitude reported by interviewees was therealization of the importance in obtaining the end beneficiariesperspective on WASH technologies. Participants in the study remarkedthat previous mistakes with technology introduction may have beenavoided if their perspective had been routinely sought in the past.Indeed, the interviews revealed one example of where this change inattitude had already resulted in actors modifying their practicesaround technology introduction. A company manufacturing the rope pump,who had been involved in the WASHTech project, explained how theproject had put them in touch with the users which would notordinarily happen as NGOs usually installed their products. Theserepresentatives of the private sector explained how the project pavedthe way to becoming more open to their user’s and this in turn hadhelped them to identify issues with operation and maintenance and theinstallment of the pumps. As a result, they were now making efforts tomake sure users are able to contact them when they had issues withtheir pumps.

3.1.2 Knowledge

In Uganda, the technologies tested were the solar water pump, Urinediversion dry toilet, the U2 hand pump, Ferro cement tank and the ropepump with the aim to evaluate the suitability and usefulness of theTAF in scaling up technologies in Uganda. Project participants described how the project had increased theirawareness and knowledge around certain technologies, usually throughtheir engagement in project scoring workshops or the actual testing ofthe tools in the field. Several interviewees gave examples of learningmore about specific technologies such as the rope pump. Rope pumpmanufacturers involved in the project, suggested that previously somedistrict offices knew relatively little about the technology and insome cases were not even aware it was being used in their district.The project has been opportunity to raise awareness about the

|17

technology and in some cases they felt that people’s attitudes towardsthe technology had improved.

The assessment of technologies currently being used within the UgandanWASH sector by the project has in certain cases, helped participantsto identify issues with technologies and barriers to scaling them up.During interviews project participants were asked whether the testingof the technologies with the TAF had bought up any issues withtechnologies. The Ecosan latrine was often given as an example; thetechnology was generally considered to be a good sanitation technologyhowever, the marketing and sensitization around the technology hadbeen poor. A representative from the Technical Support Unit of theMoWE provided the following example of how the tool had helped them toidentify barriers to scaling up the Ecosan latrine:

“Actually the tool was very useful because it helped to identify the real issues andground why the technology has not caught up with the market. Yeah we found thatactually that the marketing of the technology is still lacking. People still don’tunderstand the technology before. They don’t understand how it operates, its benefitsin full and so on. It’s the few who have understood that have actually taken their owninitiative to go ahead and adopt and even implement in their homes” [Technicalsupport unit MoWE]

3.2 Sector Practices and Procedures

3.2.1 Current Procedures Key informant interviews explored the procedures behind technologyassessment and introduction and whether any changes or plans forchange had come about as a result of WASHTech project. Regarding thecurrent procedures, the majority of interviewees identified the MoWEas the primary contact when a new technology is to be introduced intothe country (who now refers to the ATC established in 2010). However,many of the interviewees explained that the contacting of theministries is not routinely done by NGOs and technology developers.

P a g e | 18

Similarly, most actors identified the importance of conducting a pilotstudy of the technology but again, this process is often bypassed andtechnologies are simply introduced without testing. One localgovernment official explained how the actual selection of technologiesto be used on certain projects is often determined by whatevertechnology is favoured or promoted by the implementing NGO.Representatives from both the MoWE and the ATC explained how there isnot really a standardized or formalized route documented, regardingthe introduction of technology. Technologies within the sector arehowever, supposed to be compliant with national standards andguidelines stipulated within ministry documentation. The MoWE works incollaboration with the Uganda National Bureaux of Standards to try andensure that these standards and guidelines are adhered to,particularly regarding hand pumps being used within the country.

3.2.2 Changes to Procedure

At this point, it is important to emphasize that although the WASHTechprocesses of technology assessment and introduction may representchanges to the practices within Uganda’s WASH sector, the tools andassociated activities have yet to be officially approved and writteninto government policy. Until this integration into government policytakes place, the official processes will, for the most part remain thesame, particularly for national, regional and district governmentbodies.

Many of the stakeholders participating in the study recognized thatthe procedures of assessment and introduction which have been boughtby the WASHTech project represent a more formalized and step by stepapproach. These interviewees also realised the potential this had interms of ensuring technologies are rigorously assessed. Again,stakeholders felt that past mistakes could have been avoided if such aprocess had been in place before. Regarding the actual criteria usedby the TAF and whether these things were generally considered in thepast, interviews generated a variety of responses. Some stakeholdersreported that similar aspects of user friendliness and cost were

|19

previously considered during piloting but again they are not asstructured or they did not go into as much detail as you would find inthe TAF tool. Other stakeholders suggested that this kind of method ofassessing technologies was completely new to certain actors and neededfurther sensitization for it to be fully taken up. Another aspectwhich was frequently commented on was that the TAF sought tounderstand the end beneficiary’s perspective as has been explained inthe previous section. One of the elements of the TAF is that it asksfor three different perspectives on the technology in question, one ofwhich is the perspective of the end beneficiaries or users of thetechnology. This new approach was considered to be an importantdevelopment in technology assessment.

“Before the relationship between the technology producers and the user’s ended withthe implementing NGO but now we are able to visit the sites during the testing andmeet the people which are using their technology. This has enabled us to identify theproblems with their technology and try to address them.” [WATCOM]

It is clear the actual procedure behind applying the TAF tool whichwas used during the testing phase, is quite different in its approachwhen compared to the procedures which are currently employed. Thewhole method of assembling a team to conduct field testing and thenreporting back to a workshop, consisting of many different actors fromdifferent areas of the sector, represents a marked difference in thelevel of human resources, finances and time required to conduct anassessment. Several interviewees expressed their concerns about thecosts associated with adopting such an approach. These stakeholderswere unclear about how the additional costs of applying this method ofassessment could be covered and had reservations as to whether itwould actually be possible to implement.

3.3 Control Coordination and Monitoring

P a g e | 20

Key informant interviews covered the areas of control, coordinationand monitoring around technology assessment and introduction withinthe sector and whether any changes had taken place in this domain.Although there are standards and guidelines around WASH technologieswithin the sector, as has been explained previously, there are noformal processes behind having a technology assessed and it appearsthe surveillance around technologies being introduced is generallyweek. Many stakeholders seemed to think that some technologies areintroduced without consultation with the authorities. Someinterviewees reported that technologies may only come to the attentionof the authorities once they have been shown to be promising. Indeed,a private sector organization participating in the project describedhow previously they would just “flood the market” with theirtechnology and had not sought approval from the authorities. Anotheractor from the private sector explained how he didn’t think there wasany control of technologies and this is demonstrated by theintroduction of certain technologies which clearly don’t work. Many actors thought a formalization of introduction and assessmentprocedures, as proposed by the WASHTech project, had the ability toenhance control and coordination within the sector, by providing aneasily identifiable step by step process which would be more explicitand transparent. Regarding the actual approval of technologies withinthe sector, there is no certification of technologies carried out todemonstrate that they are fit for use within the sector and complywith government standards and guidelines. However, the interviewsrevealed that a certification process is under development and as therepresentatives from the ATC explained the WASHTech tools could play arole in such a process in the future.

“That is the trajectory that is where we want to go. We want to reach a stage whereby the ATC can certify that this technology has been tested and it’s good and therefore it can be promoted. That is a long term thing; we are not doing it yet. That’s where we intend to go. So what she is saying is that for us to be able to do certification the TAF under WASHTech will be a very significant tool in that process.” [Representative of ATC – MWE]

|21

However, this is only one aspect of ensuring adequate assessment oftechnology prior to its introduction. The other area which clearlyneeds to be addressed is the control of non-governmental stakeholderswithin the sector. These stakeholders firstly need to be aware of anyofficial processes and secondly need to be encouraged to engage withlocal government authorities to ensure they are compliant with suchprocesses. Indeed, the WASHTech project has already provided oneexample of how the interaction between different areas of the sectorcan enhance control and coordination. Government organizations, NGOsand private sector organizations, all took part in WASHTech workinggroups and workshops. This has provided key stakeholders with aplatform for interaction around the subject of assessment andintroduction. One interviewee from the private sector explained howthis interaction had helped them to become aware of standards andguidelines around water technologies. Their company manufacturers therope pump, one of the technologies tested during the project. Theirengagement in the project meant they were put in touch with the UNBSthrough project partner’s NETWAS. The UNBS in turn directed theirattention to the guidelines pertaining to non-networked watersupplies. This is a clear example of how bringing stakeholderstogether from different areas of the sector can enhance coordinationand subsequent control. The other area where project participants thought the tools could beapplied is in the on-going monitoring of technology performance in thesector. Interviewees explained how the monitoring of technologyperformance had not been taking place previously. A governmentrepresentative from the MoWE explained how the WASHTech project hadbought this issue of monitoring technology performance to the fore.The previous system of using standards and guidelines, did not takeinto account the performance of technologies after their introduction.Another, government actor thought that in their current form the toolsactually suite the assessment of existing technologies better becauseuser perspective is an important component of the tool and it is hardto gain user perspective on a new technology. Other stakeholderssuggested that the application of the TAF tool to technologies alreadybeing used in the sector was a demonstration of how they can be used

P a g e | 22

for monitoring technology performance and identifying areas forimprovement.

3.3 Stakeholder’s perspectives on the tools

Almost every stakeholder interviewed commented on the relevance of theWASHtech tools within the sector. Interviewees perceived the toolshelping with technology assessment and introduction in a number ofways:

Make the process of assessment and introduction more explicit so actors have a step by step process to follow

Ensure technologies introduced are sustainable and applicable to context

Enhance understanding of end beneficiaries’ perspective on technology

Provide opportunity for other stakeholders such as NGOs and private sector to become involved in decision making around technology use in the country.

Potential role in certification of technologies by the ATC Potential role in monitoring technology performance

Stakeholders had a variety of opinions about who would be the mainusers of the tools. Certain interviewees thought the ministrydepartments would definitely be the main users of the tool. The ATCfor example explained how they have been tasked by the MoWE to see howthey can take this tool forward. Representatives from the ATCenvisaged the tool being used by district local government wateroffices as these are generally the people that are responsible foroverseeing the implementation of water projects. The MWErepresentative agreed that the tool is predominantly a tool forregulation and as such, would be most useful for governmentauthorities. They explained that it would not be appropriate forprivate developers and NGOs to assess their own technologies. Otherinterviewees explained how it could be used by all stakeholders withinthe sector but mentioned that NGOs are of particular significance

|23

because they’re often the ones implementing water and sanitationprojects and bringing in new technologies. Some interviewees feltthat private sector players could also use the tool in the developmentand improvement of their technologies.

Although project participants were generally of the view that theWASHTech tools could benefit the sector for a variety of differentstakeholder’s, there were some concerns about the tool and itsapplication. There was a consensus view among stakeholders that theWASHTech tools and particularly the TAF is a bit too bulky and heavyto use in its current form and there is a need to adapt and generallysimplify the tools before they are ready to be disseminated throughoutthe WASH sector. Other interviewees thought there was a need for acomputer based tool. It was suggested that the TAF is a bit cumbersomein document form and work within the sector is generally migratingtowards using an IT based approach. A computer based application wouldcertainly facilitate the sharing of information around the testing andmonitoring of technologies within the sector. However, there is acareful balance between making the process efficient and accessible toall whilst maintaining the necessary rigor which is evidently one ofthe main benefits of applying such a tool.

As mentioned previously, there is also some concern that the processesbehind applying the tool are too demanding of time, human resourcesand financial resources. A representative from the MoWE thought thatthere was not a need to tie the testing to a scoring workshop where somany stakeholders from different areas of the sector are involved.However, one interviewee from the private sector also provided a validpoint that the success of the tools in conducting a rigorousassessment of technologies is very much dependent on the quality oftheir application. This actor explained how it is one thing having atool to assist with assessment but if the tools are not used or notused properly then the problem is not being solved. The Ministry ofWater and Environment is currently looking for a way to reduce on thenumber of people involved in the technology testing process byempowering districts to play government in assessing technologies.

P a g e | 24

This is partly to reduce on the bulky process of technology assessmentand costs incurred.

During interviews, participants were also asked to identify anypotential negative impacts of the project or the application of thetools. The only real concern among interviewees was that the toolcould either slow down the uptake of technology or even blockpotentially successful technologies from being applied to suitablecontexts. The rationale behind this argument being that if anassessment by the TAF provided a particularly negative verdict on atechnology, this may prevent the technology from being tried out inareas where it could actually be appropriate.

With regards to the technology introduction process or TIP tool, lesstime has been dedicated to developing and raising awareness of thistool during the project. The tool was being developed by Europeanpartners SKAT foundation and was only introduced to stakeholders inUganda a month or so prior to the interviews taking place.Consequently, certain stakeholders were not aware of the TIP tool andthose who were aware had relatively little experience of actuallyusing or applying it. Subsequent to the interviews taking placeWASHTech partners have been working closely with the MoWE to develop aTIP tool which is specific to the Ugandan sector.

3.4 Embedding

The project has attempted to embed their interventions within thesector through a variety of means. Firstly, the project assembled acore working group of key stakeholders from different areas of thesector to take part in project activities including workshops and coreteam meetings. The project has also invited additional stakeholdersoutside of the working group to participate in scoring workshops andworking group discussions. Key actors such as ministry officials andregional government officials from technical support units have alsobeen asked for their input towards developing tools. The tools havebeen presented at other working groups within the sector such as the

|25

joint sector review, the joint technical review and UWASNET. Finally,the WASHTech project targeted the ATC as an institution to host thetools beyond the project timeline.

Certain contextual factors favor the uptake of the WASHTech tools foruse in the sector. Firstly, the recent formation of the AppropriateTechnology Center in 2010 means that there is an institution withinthe MoWE which is mandated to test and monitor WASH technologies inthe country, making them the ideal institution to host the tool. As arepresentative from MoWE explained, the project came at an opportunemoment. However, the future of the ATC is not certain since the ATC isa three year project initiative which will come to the end in 2013 andagreements need to be finalized before it’s future as an autonomousinstitution within the MoWE is cemented. Secondly, the Ugandan WASHsector has recently undergone restructuring, introducing institutionalframeworks such as the Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network(UWASNET), to enhance control and coordination within the sector. Thisfacilitates the dissemination of the WASHTech tool in the sector.Lastly, the tools fall in line with the current policy climate inUganda to ensure regulatory frameworks are put in place to address theneeds of marginalized groups including; women, children, and disabledpersons. This is demonstrated by the human rights council resolution-human rights and safe drinking water and sanitation agreement of 2010.This should mean interventions such as those developed by the WASHTechproject where emphasis is placed on the social issues aroundtechnology introduction, are currently high on the government agenda.

During interviews, key stakeholders were asked about the likelihood ofthe tools being used within the sector, in the future. Almost all ofthe interviewees explained how the future application of the toolsdepended on government adoption of the tool and the subsequentinclusion in their policy documentation. This is due to the fact thatsector activities are dictated by sector guidelines, produced bycentral government. Stakeholders at the decentralized level conducttheir activities according to these sector guidelines. There is aprocess behind introducing items such as the WASHTech tools togovernment policy and this can take some time. The tools will have to

P a g e | 26

be presented to a policy committee, who will decide upon whether toaccept or reject their inclusion. The views of the central governmentrepresentatives from the ATC and the MoWE are obviously of greatsignificance regarding this matter and both of these intervieweesthought the tools would eventually be accepted and used in the sector.

“Yeah, I think so. We think the TAF is something we are going to take up actually. Youknow we have had cases where people have told us to give them a comment onwhether they should use a certain technology yes or no and not had a tool but now wethink that this tool is the one we can use so that we can test it and then we are able totell people whether it is something that should be taken up or not. So the impact isthat we would like to change the way that we assess technologies to use this as a tool.”[Representative from ATC - MoWE]

Whilst the prospect of the tools being taken up by government appearsto be promising, several actors explained how the project had beenrelatively slow to include the government in the project and this hadultimately hindered the embedding of the tools within the sector.

“Whether the project was successful or not depends on how you began you see. So atthe beginning I think the involvement of other stakeholders like the ministry who is thelead agency was very poor, you get it. Now I can’t say it has negative impact but atleast it has dragged the process slower because now the project is ending when wehave not completely finalized the process of [the] TAF and the GTI. Because if theministry was involved from the beginning and other stakeholder’s were fully involvedfrom the beginning then at least by now we would be saying ok by the end of theproject some of these tools and ideas could have already have been approved by thepolicy committees.” [Representative from MWE]

The same interviewee explained how it is incredibly important forprojects seeking to influence policy within the sector, understand howthe government ministries operate. The suggestion was that if projectsrequire participation from ministry officials the easiest way toensure bye in from officials is to enter into memorandums ofunderstanding. This allows officials to dedicate adequate time towardsproject activities and create budget lines to cover projectactivities. Such agreements also help to create accountability in

|27

those who have agreed to take part in the project and increase thechances of eventual government adoption.

The interviews revealed that there remains work to be done in terms ofraising awareness of the WASHTech tools within the sector. Awarenessamong actors outside of the immediate participants of the projectworking group is still relatively low. Aside from the TSU’s and localgovernment officials involved in the testing of the tools, moststakeholders at the decentralized level are not aware of these tools.Further, despite considerable efforts to engage the different areas ofthe sector including NGOs, some actors felt that NGO participationwithin the project has been relatively low so far. As a governmentofficial commented, this is likely a limitation of budget as theproject has not had the budget to involve all key stakeholders withinthe sector. The Ugandan WASH sector is by no means short of platformsto share information throughout the WASH sector. Sector player’sidentified UWASNET as being an important framework for reaching out toall the NGO’s in the sector. The joint technical review meetings andjoint sector review meetings were further platforms identified fordissemination of the tools. Project partners have been disseminatingproject information at these forums whilst the project has been takingplace but now the tools have been finalized, certain actor’s believedthere needs to be another push to try and raise awareness in thesector.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusions

The WASHTech project represents an opportunity to understand thecontext in which a technology is to be introduced and on the spotindicates possible intervention areas that should be addressed for thespecific technology to succeed. Thus, the sustainability of atechnology hangs on the comprehensive analysis of the context. The

P a g e | 28

stakeholders in the WASH sector in Uganda recognized that the decisionmaking tools would be a useful step in technology introduction andparticularly appreciated the chance to interact with end beneficiariesand obtain their perspectives on a technology. The interviews alsorevealed that the tools provide an opportunity for the sector to adopta formalized, documented and explicit procedure to follow intechnology assessment and introduction. This in turn, has the abilityto improve control and coordination around the WASH technologies beingimplemented in the sector. The project has demonstrated how applying aparticipatory approach to decision making, involving stakeholders fromdifferent areas of the WASH sector can also enhance coordination.However, in order for the WASHTech interventions to realize their fullpotential, all stakeholders in the sector responsible for introducingtechnologies need to be guided through these procedures. The futuregovernment approval and adoption of the tools is obviously a key stepin ensuring this takes place. There is also a clear demand for raisingawareness of the tools in the sector and building the capacity of allthe potential users of the tools. This will certainly require thechampions of tools within the WASHTech core working groups to continuetheir work beyond the project timeline to ensure the tools are trulytaken up and adopted sector wide. With the ongoing application of thetools in the sector there is the potential to improve sustainabilityand performance of decentralized WASH services and therefore greatlyreduce the sector expenditure in this area of service delivery.

4.2 Recommendations

Interviews explored the actions required to take the project forwardand ensure the tools are taken up within the sector. Stakeholdersidentified several areas which could be concentrated on to assist inthe ultimate uptake and use of the tools:

|29

AdvocacyThe future of the WASHTech tools within the sector hinges upon theirintegration into government policy and procedure. Stakeholderstherefore emphasised the importance of advocacy work, engaging withgovernment bodies to try and make sure this process is carried out.However, policy change can take some time and it appears unlikely thatthe tools will be included in government policy before the end of theproject in December of this year. This highlights the importance ofsustained engagement with ministry officials beyond the projecttimeline. Without this taking place there is a genuine risk that thesetools could be forgotten about and all the efforts of the project willhave been in vein.

Awareness and disseminationCertain actors felt that there is a definite need to raise awarenessand disseminate the tools within the sector. Interviewees seemed tothink it was particularly important to increase awareness among NGOsas these are potentially the people who will be using the tools andmany NGOs particularly at the district level aren’t aware of thepresence of such tools and these are potentially important users.Interviewees commonly expressed the importance of accessing theplatforms such as UWASNET in reaching this target audience in thesector.

TrainingSo far, the only stakeholder’s familiar with the application of theWASHTech tools are those which have been directly involved in thefield testing and the associated scoring workshops. Interviews haverevealed that in some cases, stakeholders believed the tools can bequite complex and heavy to use. There is therefore a definite demandfor building the capacity around the application of the tools forthose who will eventually be responsible for their implementation.This will require the organization of workshops and training sessionsfor these actors.

P a g e | 30

Deciding protocols and proceduresGovernment officials remarked that there are still some decisions tobe made about exactly how the tools would be implemented and by whom.As mentioned previously, there is a feeling that the proposed methodof conducting scoring workshops with large numbers of stakeholder’sfrom different parts of the sector is too costly. These are allimportant factor’s to decide and will presumably have to be finalizedbefore a proposal is presented to the ministerial policy committee.

Further testing, piloting and adaptation Several interviewees implied there was a need for further refinementof the TAF tool to make it easier to use, before it could be appliedby all actors in the sector. The tools also need to be adapted foruse on different technologies and by different actors in the sector.One suggestion could be for other stakeholders such as localgovernment officials and other WASH sector NGOs to be bought into theprocess of further adaptation of the tools. This could only serve toincrease the ownership and adoption of the tools within the sector andensure tools are suitable for use by these actors. A privatetechnology developer also suggested that there is a need for anindependent assessment of the tools for further quality assurancebecause so far the testing has been organized by project partners andmembers of the working group and therefore lacks subjectivity. Onerepresentative from a TSU thought that scaling the tools up to alldistricts at one time may be too greater task. This actor suggestedthat it may be better to conduct a kind of pilot of the tools withinselected districts first before it is scaled up to the other districtsin the country.

|31

References

Kimera and Achiro, 2011, Baseline study on stakeholder knowledge attitude and practice (kap)

Patrick Kahangire, 2012, Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness of Learning and Reflection Processes in and between the Different Coordination Platforms in the Uganda WASH Sector

Sector Performance Report 2013, Ministry of Water and Environment

Alison Parker, 2011, Africa wide water, sanitation and hygiene technology review WASHTech - Deliverable 2.1

P a g e | 32

Annexes

ANNEX 1: List of Interviewees

Name Designation DateInterviewed

Dr. Isaac Mutenyo Coordinator AppropriateTechnology Center (ATC)

04.07.13

Ms. Juliet Abaliwano WASH specialist FrenchDevelopment Agency

04.07.13

Mrs. Jane Mulumba Country director,International ResourceCentre for Water andSanitation (IRC)

03.07.13

Eng. Ereemye David Chairman Uganda WaterOfficers

09.07.13

Eng. Dr. NyekoOgiramoi Paul

Principal Engineer, RuralWater Department, Ministryof Water and Environment.

04.07.13

Eng. Dr. MusaaziKizza Moses

Technology for tomorrow/Makerere University

05.07.13

Technical Support Unit1 ,5

10.07.13,10.07.13

Mr. Johnnie Wasswa Managing director ,WATCOM,

02.07.2013

Ms. Voila BwanikaSemyalo

Liaison Officer UgandaRain Water Association.

03.07.2013

|33

Who is involved in WASHTech?

WASHTech is a consortium research project comprising national and international NGOs, academic institutes and training centres in Africa and Europe.

WASHTech in Africa is spearheaded by the following institutions:In Burkina Faso:

Water and Sanitation for Africa (WSA) (formerly known as CREPA), Burkina Faso

WaterAid Burkina Faso In Ghana:

Training, Research and Networking for Development (TREND), Ghana Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Ghana WaterAid Ghana

In Uganda: Network for Water and Sanitation (NETWAS), Uganda WaterAid Uganda

European partners include: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre (The Netherlands) Cranfield University (United Kingdom) Skat Foundation (Switzerland) WaterAid (United Kingdom)

WASHTech is coordinated by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre in The Hague.

P a g e | 34

This publication is the result of research funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7-Africa-2010 under Grant Agreement Number 266200

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Technologies (WASHTech) is a project of the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme in

Africa