Business Case and Intervention Summary
Intervention Summary
Title: Accelerating Sanitation, Hygiene and Water for All in Off-Track Countries
What support will the UK provide?
DFID will provide £35.5 million to expand UNICEF’s programme to accelerate access to
sanitation, hygiene and water for all, in off-track countries. DFID advisory staff will provide ongoing technical, policy and monitoring inputs. DFID will make £1.5m available for independent
evaluation of programme progress in delivering results1.
UK support will result in improved access for at least 5 million people to sustainable WASH
services in off track countries. There will be faster progress towards water-related MDGs in up
to 12 low income countries. UNICEF will propose countries identified through a resource
allocation procedure that takes into account numbers of people lacking access, country
income level, state fragility, extent to which country is off-track to meet the MDG targets, and
level of inequity in access to water and sanitation. The proposed countries will be agreed with
DFID before activities begin. This programme will also be supported by the Governments of
the Netherlands, Norway and Australia, as well as through UNICEF’s own resources.
Why is UK support required?
UK support is required to help accelerate progress towards meeting MDG target 7c (to halve
by 2015 the proportion of the world’s population without sustainable access to safe drinking
water and basic sanitation) in those countries where progress has been slow and to
complement related MDGs in boosting child survival. The support provided under this
programme is calculated from a detailed costing of what it will take to achieve the results
outlined below.
There is good evidence that sustainable WASH services improve health and nutrition2 and
could annually prevent 2.4m deaths and 7% of the global disease burden. The majority of
deaths from diarrhoea occur among children under 5 years old. Improved WASH can reduce
the burden on women and benefit the poorest populations. The latter disproportionately suffer
the highest levels of WASH-associated mortality and morbidity.
Progress towards the MDG target for sanitation has been slow, leaving it one of the most offtrack of all the targets. The MDG water target has been met at the global level five years
ahead of schedule. However this progress masks the considerable disparities that remain
both between and within countries.
1
The evaluation process will draw heavily on evaluations of DFID supported UNICEF programmes
such ICCDRB’s evaluation of the SHEWA-B programme in Bangladesh.
2 DFID Evidence Literature Review (2011/2)
1
At the Sanitation and Water for All High Level Meeting in April 2012 the Secretary of
State announced that the UK would double the number of people it will help gain access to
water, sanitation and hygiene promotion to 60m people by 2015. The Secretary of State also
announced a new strategic partnership with the Netherlands and UNICEF to accelerate
progress on sanitation and water for all in the most off-track countries.
Sub-Saharan Africa is the region which remains most off-track for both drinking-water and
sanitation while South Asia is off-track for sanitation and is the region with the most people
without access to any kind of sanitation facilities. This programme will focus on off-track
countries in these regions. The programme is designed to reduce both the number of people
who lack access to basic sanitation, estimated by WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP) to be 2.5 billion people currently, and the
number of people without access to drinking-water, estimated by the JMP to be 780 million
people currently.
DFID’s recent WASH portfolio review stated that DFID provided good value for money. This
programme is a key element in reaching the target of 60 million gaining access to sustainable
water, sanitation and hygiene promotion. This partnership will complement additional results
proposed for the bilateral programme at country and global levels. Country offices have not
been able to offer the full results required to meet the target given their need to achieve
existing results. No other multilateral partner has the ability of UNICEF to deliver the level of
ambition outlined in this business case within the available time and in a way that offers good
value for money.
What are the expected results?
Impact
The impact of this programme will be improved health, education and socio-economic
conditions of poor people in at least 12 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia with
particular emphasis on enhanced child survival and development.
Outcome
The outcomes of this programme will be improved access for at least 5 million people to
sustainable WASH services in off track countries including:
 at least 5 million people using sustainable sanitation facilities in off-track countries and
2.5 million people using sustainable water services;
 4.5 million people in the most deprived communities adopting as a habit the practice of
hand washing with soap and water after defecation;
 The removal of key institutional barriers to progress on improved WASH in priority
countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
Outputs
The outputs of this programme to be achieved by December 2015 are summarised in the
diagram below3:
3
Note: the diagram is for illustrative purposes and is not to scale.
2
Key:
Direct delivery
Enabling environment
0.9 Million people
provided with access
to an improved water
supply
5 million people reached
with hygiene promotion
messages
3.5 million People
provided with access
to improved sanitation
1.6 million People
provided with access
to an improved water
supply
1.5 million People
provided with access
to improved
sanitation





Through direct delivery by UNICEF, by December 2015, this programme will ensure
that at least 5 million people are reached with one or more water, sanitation and/or
hygiene promotion interventions including5 million people are reached with hygiene
promotion messages;
1.5m people gaining access to improved sanitation;
0.9m people gaining access to an improved water supply;
0.4m school children gain access to improved water, sanitation and hygiene in their
schools;
WASH sector enabling environments are strengthened and key knowledge gaps are
filled that improve WASH delivery in priority countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South
Asia.
Through its work on the enabling environment in the selected countries – by which is meant,
developing the capacity of Governments in 12 countries - this programme will , by December
2015, deliver the following additional results:
 3.5m people gaining access to improved sanitation;
 1.6 million people gaining access to an improved water supply;
The remainder of the programme to 2017 will focus on the sustainability of these gains and
habitual adoption of hand washing practices.
The additional results through work on the enabling environment will be achieved in the 12
target countries by strengthening policy, improving the ability of WASH institutions to support
3
sustained delivery of services, and designing or refining implementation strategies to achieve
sustainable results. This will result in delivery of additional sustainable services that would
otherwise not have been achieved.
DFID will work with UNICEF to enhance their measurement systems so that the impact of
work on the enabling environment can be measured and attributed. DFID will monitor through
annual reviews and through UNICEF’s own ‘Monitoring of Results for Equity System’ (MoRES)
approach. DFID will commission independent evaluations throughout the programme to
confirm what is working best to deliver results and to ensure timely corrective action where
needed.
4
Business Case
Strategic Case
A. Context and need for a DFID intervention
The WASH related burden of disease
1. Poor water, sanitation and hygiene are the major causes of diarrhoea and are the
cause of a large amount of preventable illness and deaths throughout the developing
world. Globally, 64.2 million Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) are attributed to
unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene practices4, of which 52.5 million (82%) are
in low income countries. The burden of disease falls heavily on children, with under
5’s accounting for 88% of the DALYs in low income countries (over 46 million DALYs).
Regionally the burden of disease due to unsafe water and poor sanitation falls heavily
on sub-Saharan Africa (46% of global DALYs) and South Asia (34% of total DALYs).
Slow Progress on the MDG Target for Sanitation
2. Progress against the MDG targets is monitored through the WHO and UNICEF Joint
Monitoring Program (JMP), which provides updated reports every two years - the
most recent being in 2012. According to the 2012 JMP report, 2.5 billion people, or
37% of the population of developing countries, have no access to improved sanitation,
making sanitation one of the most off-track of all the MDG targets5. Both sub-Saharan
Africa and South Asia are badly off-track on the sanitation target. Over one billion
people in South Asia (59% of the population) do not have improved sanitation facilities
and approximately 700 million still defecate in the open, and of these 600 million
reside in India6.
3. Most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are considered to be off-track
for sanitation7. The JMP 2012 report showed that only three countries in sub-Saharan
Africa (South Africa, Namibia and Botswana) are on track to meet the sanitation MDG
target, and that sanitation is the most off-track MDG target in Sub-Saharan Africa. In
sub-Saharan Africa the use of improved sanitation stood at 26% in 1990 and had
reached 30% in 20108. The proportion of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa without
access to basic sanitation will need to fall by 37% to meet the MDG target. This
means that on current progress it will take over 180 years from 1990 to reach the
target of halving the use of unimproved sanitation in this region.
4
DFID Evidence Literature Review (2011/2) citing Prüss-Üstün A, Bos R, Gore F, Bartram J (2008)
Safer water, better health: Costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote
health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
5 UNICEF/WHO (2012) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation UNICEF/WHO
6 Ibid.
7 Off-track is defined as having a coverage rate in 2010 which was either the same or lower than the
rate in 1990 or below 10% of the 2010 rate to meet the 2015 target
8 JMP 1990 ref; UNICEF/WHO 2012
5
Three-quarters of the world’s population without sanitation live in 11 Countries9
4. The progress seen to date has been to a large extent driven by expansion of
sanitation in China. The same has not happened in India, contributing to South Asia
being the region most lagging. Eleven countries contribute three-quarters of the global
population that lacks sanitation. Of these 7 are DFID priority countries, 4 are in subSaharan Africa (DRC, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Tanzania), and 3 in South Asia
(Bangladesh, India and Pakistan). In terms of proportion of population affected, subSaharan Africa and South Asia lag far behind the rest of the world, with many
countries in those regions having over 50% of their populations without access to
improved sanitation and having the highest proportions of people practising open
defecation (41% in South Asia, 25% in SSA). These data demonstrate the need for
targeted sanitation interventions in both Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia in
order to address the current lack of progress.
Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation 2012
Two-thirds of the world population without access to safe water reside in 10 Countries
5. Ten countries contribute two-thirds of the global population that lacks access to an
improved water source, of these 7 are DFID priority countries, 6 are in sub-Saharan
Africa (DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania) and 2 in South Asia
(Bangladesh and India). In terms of proportion of population served, Sub-Saharan
Africa, with Oceania, lags behind other regions. Sub-Saharan Africa contains the
majority of countries considered off-track to meet the MDG target. This indicates a
need to focus the provision of new access to drinking water on sub-Saharan
Africa.
9
JMP 2012, page 19
6
Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation 2012
WASH, poverty and inequality
6. Poor sanitation and high risk hygiene behaviours confine the poor in a vicious
cycle of poor health, environmental degradation, malnutrition, reduced productivity
and loss of incomes. For women and adolescent girls, the lack of privacy and dignity
have deleterious impacts on health and safety, self-esteem, education and well-being.
Even with progress being made to reach the MDGs, the poorest and the most
marginalised and vulnerable are being excluded.
7. The greatest inequities can be seen in off-track countries where urban/rural
disparities are greatest. For both water and sanitation services, there are
pronounced inequalities within many countries, with the people in the lowest
wealth quintiles typically achieving far less and far slower progress. For
example, the 2012 JMP report shows that the overall coverage rate of 55% for access
to drinking water in Sierra Leone masks the fact that access has been secured by
97% of the top wealth quintile of the urban population but only 10% of the bottom
quintile of the rural population. There is a need for WASH programmes to focus on
equity as well as overall lack of access to water and sanitation.
8. People in rural areas are five times more likely to be without clean drinking water and
more than twice as likely to have no access to adequate sanitation as those in urban
areas. Less than half the rural population in developing countries have access to
improved sanitation while over one fifth lack access to an improved source of
7
drinking-water. However, it is clear that rapidly increasing urban populations are
placing greater strain on existing facilities and that the urban poor are a very underserved group. Whilst a rural focus may be justified in WASH programmes, the
burgeoning needs of the urban poor also require attention.
9. Women and girls are affected disproportionately by lack of access to clean
water and basic sanitation and as a consequence spend a great deal of time each
day queuing for public toilets or seeking secluded spots to defecate, putting them at
risk from sexual and other violence. Women are twice as likely as men to fetch water:
time that cannot be spent on more productive economic or social uses. A World Bank
study in four countries demonstrated that girl's school attendance increased
significantly for every hour reduction in water collection. In Nepal, one study
suggested that attendance improved by over 30%.
Hygiene improvement is important but progress is slow
10. The adoption of good hygiene behaviours, particularly hand washing, has been shown
to have a major impact on health, particularly by reducing diarrhoeal disease. The
evidence for such impact is stronger than for water supply and sanitation and is also
identified as the most cost-effective health intervention at $3.35/DALY10. Hand
washing also helps reduce acute respiratory infections, although the evidence is less
strong. Progress in achieving habitual hand washing with water and soap at critical
times is reportedly limited. The focus on achieving hand washing with water and soap
after defaecation is considered an achievable, minimum standard.
Poor WASH performance impacts on other MDGs
11. Lack of access to safe water and basic sanitation undermines efforts to reach other
Millennium Development Goals. Diarrhoea kills 3,835 children every day around the
world, making it the second leading cause of death among children under five
globally11. Almost 90% of diarrhoea is caused by poor WASH12 and diarrhoea kills
more children than HIV/AIDS, malaria and measles combined13.
The impact of investing in improved WASH
12. Evidence shows that the sustained utilisation of safe drinking water and hygienic
latrines together with habitual hand washing with water and soap (after defaecation) is
effective at reducing diarrhoea and could prevent almost 1.4 million unnecessary child
deaths every year14.
10
Cairncross S. and Valdmanis (2006) Water supply, sanitation, and hygiene promotion. In: Disease
Control Priorities in Developing Countries (2nd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press. 771-792.
11Global burden of disease: 2004 update. World Health Organization. 2008.
12WHO (2004) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Links to Health: Facts and Figures
13UNICEF/WHO (2009): Diarrhoea: Why children are still dying and what can be done
14 DFID Evidence Review 2011/2 cites: Bartram J, Cairncross S (2010) Hygiene, sanitation, and
water: forgotten foundations of Health. PLoS Med 7(11): e1000367. doi:10.1371/
journal.pmed.1000367; Cairncross S, Hunt C, Boisson S, Bostoen K, Curtis V, Fung IC, Schmidt WP
(2010a) Water, sanitation and hygiene for the prevention of diarrhoea. Int J Epidemiol 39(1): 193205’; Cairncross S, Bartram J, Cumming O, Brocklehurst C. (2010b) Hygiene, sanitation, and water:
what needs to be done? PLoS Med Nov 16;7(11):e1000365.
8
13. Sanitation and hygiene promotion are considered to be two of the most effective
interventions for controlling endemic diarrhoea and are the most cost-effective public
health interventions (approximately US$3 per DALY averted for hygiene promotion
and US$11 for sanitation promotion) ranking higher on this basis than any other form
of health intervention (e.g. combating malaria, tuberculosis and HIV Aids) 15. However,
the level of intensity of the promotion process required to achieve positive sustainable
(habitual) behaviour change in different situations is unknown and significant variation
is found. This programme provides the opportunity for UNICEF, with its partners, to
carry out operational research to assess this intensity. DFID will also fund and
manage an independent evaluation which will assess the theory of change and the
outcomes achieved.
Table: Cost-effectiveness of different interventions against diarrhoeal disease (US$/DALY) 16
Interventions against diarrhoeal disease Cost-effectiveness ratio (US$ per DALY) averted)
Hygiene Promotion only
3
Sanitation promotion only
11
Water sector regulation and advocacy
47
Hand pump or stand post
94
Household water supply connection
223
Latrine construction and promotion
≤270
Oral rehydration therapy
132 to 2570
14. The estimated benefit-cost ratios of interventions to attain universal access of
improved sanitation are significant at 5.5:1 (i.e. the unit value of benefits, when
monetised, is 5.5 times greater than unit costs) globally and 2.8:1 and 4.6:1 for subSaharan Africa and South Asia respectively17. The estimated benefits-cost ratios of
interventions to attain universal access of improved drinking-water sources, although
less marked are also significant at 2:1 globally, 2.5:1 for sub-Saharan Africa and 3.7:1
for South Asia. WHO, in its latest report on the global costs and benefits of drinkingwater supply and sanitation interventions, estimates the global economic losses at
$260 billion annually, or 1.5% of the Global Gross Domestic product (GDP) 18. Overall,
WASH interventions have the potential to reduce the global disease burden (in Daly’s)
by 9.1% and global mortality by 6.3%19.
UK commitment to improving WASH
15. The UK government has set out its commitment to tackling WASH in a number of key
policy documents:
15
Laxminarayan, R., Chow, J., and Shahid-Salles, S.A. (2006) Intervention Cost–Effectiveness:
Overview of Main Messages. Chapter 2 in “Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries (2nd
Edition)”. Edited by Dean T. Jamison et al World Bank, Oxford University Press.
16 Jamison et al (eds) (2006) Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries (DCP2)
17 Ibid (Hutton and Haller)
18 Hutton G. (2012) Global costs and benefits of drinking-water supply and sanitation interventions to
reach the MDG target and universal coverage, WHO
19
Prüss A, et al (2002) Estimating the burden of disease from water, sanitation, and hygiene at global level. Environ Health
Perspect110(5): 537-42; Prüss-Üstün A, Bos R, Gore F, Bartram J (2008) Safer water, better health: Costs, benefits and
sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
9



‘DFID's Business Plan 2011-2015’ outlines how the UK will its honour international
commitments by helping to increase access to clean water and sanitation;
‘UK aid: Changing lives, delivering results’ (2011) states that the UK will provide
access to safe drinking water to 15 million people and improve access to
sanitation for 25 million people by 2015;
Improved access to safe water and sanitation is also critical to delivering broader
DFID & HMG objectives on girls and women, economic growth, security and
climate change.
16. In 2011, DFID commissioned a review to consider the results, impact and value for
money of our WASH portfolio to reveal where and how DFID may be able to deliver
even greater results for the world’s poorest people. The review found DFID’s portfolio
has provided good value for money with significant results against costs and that
DFID’s WASH portfolio represents good value for money given potential health and
economic impacts.
17. In response to the challenge to increase access to water, sanitation and hygiene,
Ministers announced that the UK would double its results to reach 60 million people
by 2015. In designing the scale-up it was agreed that the UK would focus on the
barriers that hold back universal WASH access:
 Ensuring that water and sanitation infrastructure is well maintained and
sustainable;
 Reaching the poorest in difficult to reach areas and those who have limited ability
to pay;
 Developing the evidence base on effective models for service delivery at
scale;
 Mobilising private sector investment and expertise;
 Building demand for sanitation and hygiene amongst the poor and facilitating
access.
18. Increased UK support to accelerating sanitation and water for all in off-track countries
will directly contribute to meeting MDG 7c, halving, by 2015, the proportion of the
population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.
The support will also contribute to:
 MDG 1 (eradicating poverty) – clean drinking water and improved sanitation are
instrumental in eradicating poverty and hunger;
 MDG 2 (universal primary education) – a significant number of school days are
lost due to WASH related disease;
 MDG 3 (gender equality) – women and girls bear the main responsibility for
collecting water and lack of sanitation can impact on girl’s school attendance;
 MDGs 4 (reducing child mortality) - the majority of the burden of disease
preventable by WASH is from diarrhoeal disease, the majority of deaths from
diarrhoea occur among children under 5 years old;
 MDG 6 (combating diseases) - there is evidence that improved WASH reduces
the prevalence of a number of neglected tropical diseases.
B. Impact and Outcomes that DFID expect to achieve
19. The long term impact of this programme will be improved health, education and
socio-economic conditions of poor people in up to 12 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa
10
and South Asia with particular emphasis on child survival and development.
20. The outcomes will be improved access to sustainable WASH infrastructure and
services in up to 12 off-track countries by 2017, resulting in:




5 million people using sustainable basic sanitation, living in Open Defecation Free
Communities;
o 1.5 million will result from direct investments from UNICEF
o 3.5 million additional people as a consequence of UNICEF support to
improving sector systems
2.5 million people using sustainable improved water supplies;
o 0.9 million will result from direct investments from UNICEF
o 1.6 million additional people as a consequence of UNICEF support to
improving sector systems
4.5 million people will adopt habitual Hand Washing with Water and Soap
(HWWS) after defaecation
400,000 school children will benefit from improved WASH facilities in schools.
21. The expected outputs which will be reported as part of our Departmental Results
Framework by December 2015 are:
 at least 5m people reached with one or more water, sanitation and/or hygiene
promotion interventions including:
o at least 5 million people reached with hygiene promotion messages
o 5 million people gaining access to improved sanitation
 1.5 million will result from direct investments from UNICEF
 3.5 million additional people as a consequence of UNICEF support to
improving sector systems
o 2.5m people gaining access to an improved water supply;
 0.9 million will result from direct investments from UNICEF
 1.6 million additional people as a consequence of UNICEF support to
improving sector systems
 Improved WASH facilities in selected rural health posts;
 Improved WASH facilities in 200 schools;
 WASH sector enabling environments strengthened and increased capacity in at
least 8 public and private institutions;
 Learning enhanced on key knowledge gaps for improved WASH programming in
priority countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
22. Operational research will be used to test key assumptions within the theory of change
and build in lesson learning to accelerate results and help address knowledge gaps20
for International WASH stakeholders. These key assumptions include:



Households change their behaviour as a result of sanitation and hygiene
campaigns;
Households are motivated and can afford to construct / upgrade their sanitation
facilities;
Local Government offices have the capacity to manage the inputs and scale up
20
DFID draft Evidence Paper: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, Section 10, Strengthening the
Evidence base
11





delivery of outputs on water supply and sanitation and hygiene;
Funds are made available, are used where there is most need, and for the
purpose intended;
The private sector has the potential to further develop capacity to construct and
rehabilitate water points;
Communities are provided adequate support to be able to operate and maintain
the improved water supply;
The service level provided for WASH is appropriate to deliver key health and
nutritional impacts;
On-going operational maintenance of the hardware and supportive supervision for
the behaviour change can be sustained provided the right systems are created
under the programme.
Theory of change
23. The Theory of change is set out below. By designing and delivering programmes that
focus on the development of and response to demand for improved WASH by poor
people and using affordable and appropriate technologies, sustained improvements in
access and behaviour will be achieved. UNICEF will use this approach to target the
hardest to reach and to ensure that behaviour change approaches and technologies
selected match and strengthen the ability and willingness of poor communities to
maintain these in the long-term.
Evidence underlying the Theory of Change
24. There is good global evidence, as summarised in the 2013 DFID evidence paper on
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, that investing in the outcomes detailed above –
improved access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene - will deliver the anticipated
impact of improved health and economic status, due to reduced morbidity and
mortality, productivity gains and time saving.





It is estimated that diarrhoea diseases are now the leading cause of child deaths in Africa. There is
good evidence that inadequate WASH contributes substantially to this mortality burden;
There is good evidence that the health impacts of WASH extend far beyond diarrhoea to include many
other important diseases including: acute respiratory infections, under nutrition, soil-transmitted
intestinal helminthic infection (ascaris, trichuris and hookworm), schistosomiasis, Guinea worm,
trachoma and certain non-infectious diseases associated with chemical water quality;
There is good evidence that improved hygiene can reduce the risk of acute respiratory infections (ARIs)
(pooled estimate 23% risk reduction); and there is suggestive evidence that diarrhoea (as a
consequence of inadequate WASH) increases susceptibility to ARIs;
There is good evidence that diarrhoea (as a consequence of inadequate WASH) contributes to under
nutrition;
There is anecdotal evidence and limited studies on the effect of WASH on education and gender.
Despite the limitations, what little evidence exists confirms the view that the non-health benefits of
WASH interventions are substantial.
25. An improved water supply facilitates hygiene by providing readily available water for
hand washing and reduces consumption of contaminated drinking water. Bringing
water near households also reduces the time taken to collect water, increases
productivity (particularly for women) and school attendance (especially girls) with
socio-economic benefits for the household and the community.
12
26. However, the evidence shows that water supply interventions alone do not directly
provide a barrier to faecal oral contamination. Sanitation promotion on its own
reduces diarrhoea diseases by about a third by blocking oral contamination through
ground/safe water, fingers, fields and flies. Hygiene promotion provides barriers to
faecal oral contamination from fingers and flies. Hand washing (with water and soap)
is proven to be a cost effective intervention that can reduce the incidence of diarrhoea
by 40% and acute respiratory infections (ARI) by around 20%, thereby addressing the
major causes of death among children under five. Health gains from sanitation are
greater than from water alone. The objective of this programme is to engage
households to improve their own sanitation facilities. Whilst investment in clean water
alone delivers benefits in terms of time saved and some health benefits, investing in a
combination of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions provides the greatest
health benefits.
27. The 2013 DFID evidence paper notes that local government in particular can often
play a more effective role in ensuring sustainable access to improved water and
sanitation by promotion or appropriate regulation rather than by direct investment. The
enabling environment activities of this programme aim to strengthen these
government roles, support development of community structures for operation and
maintenance and leverage investment in WASH improvement including community
and household investment.
28. The 2012 DFID Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Portfolio Review states that evidence
suggests that investment in policy and influencing represents good value for money
and that ambitious goals on scaling up water and sanitation services can only be
achieved when supported by a number of ‘enabling’ factors. The Portfolio Review
concludes that the effectiveness of government and donor spending is heavily
influenced by the quality of national policies and institutions responsible for WASH
and provides evidence of the importance of strengthening WASH sector systems or
‘service delivery pathways’ in order to maximise the value for money of government
and donor spending on WASH21. The Portfolio Review provides an example of a WSP
(Water and Sanitation Programme) project in India involving sanitation marketing at
community level and actions to improve the enabling environment at district, State
and national levels. The project was judged to be good value for money given the
degree of leverage achieved and numbers of people provided with access to
improved sanitation. Lessons from this programme on measurement of results
achieved can be applied to this programme.
29. A DFID-commissioned review of returns to investment in knowledge and innovation22
concludes that it is difficult to quantify the impact of investments on specific
populations but there is evidence that high quality and targeted support can influence
decision making which in turn has significant impacts on those populations.
30. Sustained functioning of WASH services is critical if the benefits derived from
improved WASH are to be realised. Some studies have suggested that even short21
WSP/AMCOW Country Status Overview 2 (CSO2)
Hutton, G (2011) Economic benefits of supporting deployment of global knowledge and innovation
for the
delivery of water and sanitation services. Dewpoint enquiry no. A0420
22
13
term interruptions in service are sufficient to undo all the health benefits derived from
improved WASH23. It is critical to invest in systems to support sustainability, given the
evidence of regular breakdown of even simple technologies, for instance studies from
the early 2000s point to up to 40% of hand pumps being out of order in Africa. 24
The Theory of Change (please see below)
23
24
Hunter et al 2009
Reed and Harvey 2004.
14
INPUT
OUTPUT
OUTCOME
IMPACT
Enabling Environment
Policies to encourage and promote sustainable WASH
Improvement
Water points constructed
Institutional strengthening – leadership, technical
competence, systems, trained staff
Support development of community structures to operate
and maintain local systems
Encourage development of viable financing for WASH
improvement
Develop partnership frameworks
Service Delivery
Improved access to low cost and innovative water quality
and quantity technology
Increased availability of household technologies and
materials
Increased capacity in public and private
institutions to enable sustainable WASH.
WASH in Schools – standards, monitoring coverage, engage
with programmes at school
Improved WASH facilities in rural health
posts
Encouraging improvements in WASH in rural health posts
Improved WASH facilities in schools
Behaviour Change for increased consumption of safe
water, sanitation and hygiene practices
Communication strategy
Social mobilization
Social marketing
Improved hygiene
practices
Reduced open
defecation
Reduced incidence of
diarrhoea
Increased consumption
of “safe water”
Reduced incidence of
other diseases
Improved sanitation facilities
Behaviour change and sanitation marketing for community
approaches for total sanitation
Improved access to information for communities and
implementers
Reduced child mortality,
morbidity and disability.
Improved socio-economic
status of the poorest.
Water points remain functional
Improved community awareness of clean
water, sanitation and hygiene practices.
Community participation
Advocacy
Hygiene improvement in schools
15
Reduced time spent
collecting water
Appraisal Case
What are the feasible options that address the need set out in the Strategic case?
Expand current bilateral WASH programmes in off-track countries
28. Current global analysis of progress against MDGs shows that 31 countries are offtrack on water and 58 countries are off-track for sanitation with 67 countries off-track
for water and/or sanitation25. Of the 29 countries supported by DFID, 13 are off-track
on water supply, 23 are off-track on sanitation and there are 12 countries off-track on
both.
Table: DFID 29 Countries’ progress against WASH MDG targets
Water
2010
% Total
Improved
Country
DFID WASH Focus Countries
India
Malawi
Bangladesh
Zimbabwe
Ethiopia
DRC
Mozambique
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Sudan
Tanzania
Zambia
DFID Countries without dedicated WASH
Occupied Palestinian Territories
Myanmar
Vietnam
South Africa
Indonesia
Yemen
Cambodia
Ghana
Nepal
Pakistan
Liberia
Uganda
Sanitation
2015
Target
Track
2010
% Total
Improved
2015
Target
92
83
81
80
44
45
47
58
55
58
53
61
84.5
70.5
88.5
89.5
57
72.5
68
73.5
69
82.5
77.5
74.5
On Track
On Track
Likely
Likely
Likely
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
34
51
56
40
21
24
18
31
13
26
10
48
59
69.5
69.5
70.5
51.5
54.5
55.5
68.5
55.5
63.5
55
73
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
85
83
95
91
82
55
64
86
89
92
73
78
78.5
91.5
85
83.5
65.5
76.5
88
92.5
-
Insufficient
data
On Track
On Track
On Track
On Track
Off Track
On Track
On Track
On Track
On Track
Insuff. data
92
76
76
79
54
53
31
14
31
48
18
88
89.5
66
62
54.5
53.5
55
63.5
50
Insufficient
data
Insuff. data
On Track
On Track
Likely
On Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
Off Track
72
71.5
On Track
34
63.5
Off Track
Somalia
29
50
Off Track
23
50
Off Track
Afghanistan
50
75
Off Track
37
50
Off Track
Kenya
59
72
Off Track
32
62.5
Off Track
Rwanda
65
83
Off Track
55
68
Off Track
South Sudan
Off Track
Off Track
Table: Summary of DFID’s 29 countries progress to achieve WASH MDG targets
Key:
Water
On-Track
Likely to achieve target
Off-track
Insufficient data
Sanitation
11
3
13
2
On-Track
3
Likely to achieve target
1
Off-track
23
Insufficient data
29
25
7
2
29
2012 Joint Monitoring Programme – Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation
16
29. As detailed in the tables above, 11 of the DFID countries are on track to attain the
MDG water target and an additional three countries; Bangladesh, Ethiopia and
Zimbabwe are listed in the recent joint monitoring programme report as likely to
achieve their respective targets. The sanitation picture is less positive with 23 of the
29 considered off-track on the Sanitation MDG target. DFID has long term
development WASH programmes in 12 out of the 29 focal countries and the planned
results will make a significant contribution to MDG attainment. However, 11 of DFID’s
countries without a WASH programme are off-track for sanitation and 6 are off-track
for water. The evidence of the negative impact on health, nutrition and education
related MDGs and the dissipating impact on DFID programmes and results is welldocumented26. The UNICEF programme provides the means to address the shortfall
in DFID countries that do not have WASH advisers without adding additional burden
to country offices.
30. 9 of DFID’s WASH country programmes (DRC, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan,
Zimbabwe, Zambia, India and Bangladesh) already channel WASH funding through
UNICEF under current operational plan results offers. Some DFID country offices
have been able to expand their WASH offers, notably Sierra Leone which can absorb
the expansion within its integrated MDG team as well as covering a new programme
in Liberia. But most country office teams have concluded that they cannot deliver
more on WASH because they need to focus their resources on delivering their
existing WASH and other results commitments. In some countries such as Nepal
which channels funds through the Gurkha Welfare Service there is concern about
absorptive capacity for further bilateral programming. It is therefore not considered
feasible to achieve the WASH target only through country office programmes. This
programme does however provide the opportunity to address urgent WASH issues in
DFID focal countries without an active WASH portfolio.
31. A number of options have been considered but excluded before detailed appraisal
because they could not demonstrate: adequate representation in neglected off-track
countries; a comparative advantage in providing timely, sustainable WASH services to
the neglected rural poor ‘at-scale’; the necessary independent management
capability; or, good value for money. These are briefly summarised below.
Provide earmarked funding to an alternative multilateral organisation that delivers
WASH services
32. Providing additional support through other multilateral channels was considered but
discarded on the grounds that although other multilaterals provide good WASH
services (as reported in the Multilateral Aid Review and the DFID WASH Portfolio
Review) they do not fulfil the exacting criteria required in this context. The criteria
include: efficient, timely, appropriate resource allocations; cost effective delivery
mechanisms; and a guarantee that first time access is complemented by sustained
level of benefit which extends beyond the life of the programme at the home, in the
school and at the health facility (integrated service delivery) :
The African Development Bank does not have as wide a representation or the
same level of technical staff in off-track countries as UNICEF. The inadequacy of
26
7
2012 DFID WASH Evidence review
17
technical support was also cited as a key barrier in realising the objectives of its
flagship programme the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative (RWSSI).
Where government processes are in need of strengthening there is reliance on
consultants unlike UNICEF which has its own dedicated staff representing more
cost effective delivery. The RWSSI has also struggled to deliver on time suggesting
it has limited efficiency in resource allocation. The RWSSI has yet to prove itself in
terms of long-term sustained benefit.
The European Union Water Initiative (EUWI) has been the subject of scrutiny by
member states. A recent audit summarised a general view that the initiative, “could
ensure better dialogue with final beneficiaries during the design stage and ensure
the projects implemented match their demands…to help build stronger ownership of
projects. The design stage should also ensure that financing will be available to
maintain the infrastructure provided in the long-term and that the technical options
selected offer the best value for money”. More widely, the Commission was
encouraged to improve the use of its procedures and the reporting of results
including a clear results framework for WASH projects. It was agreed that to attract
additional funding from DFID, the EUWI must undergo key shifts and in particular
must demonstrate more effective targeting of poor people in its programmes and
develop a clearer and more transparent results framework. The EU with its new
growth centred policy guidelines is currently conducting extensive in-country
consultation on future finance for the water sector with a remit to support water for
production. The EUWI is unlikely to be continued.
The World Bank is the largest provider of development aid to water and sanitation
in low-income countries and provides an important conduit for UK Aid to WASH.
However, analysis undertaken as part of the DFID WASH Portfolio Review showed
that IDA funding is better suited to larger scale more sophisticated water and
sewerage systems. These in turn are more suitable for the burgeoning number of
small and medium sized towns in Africa and Asia than the rural or peri-urban areas
where the poorest people mainly live.
The review noted that the comparative advantage of IDA funding is in water sector
policy and administrative management (including legislation, regulation, planning
and management as well as trans boundary management of water), large scale
supply and sewerage systems (water treatment, storage and distribution), and river
basins’ development (including dams and reservoirs). Achieving improved sanitation
and habitual safe hygiene practice at scale, in a timely fashion, in remote, neglected
rural areas is not a recognised comparative advantage for the Bank even where
there is rural sector finance such as Ethiopia and Tanzania.
33. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, accelerating Sanitation and Water for all in offtrack, neglected countries within the proposed timeframe, requires a fairly unique
blend of existing sector know-how. For DFID this is not a time for experimentation but
for working with the best available option to get the job done, to a good and
measurable standard. DFID has undertaken a rigorous review of its portfolio and
confirmed that UNICEF has the necessary experience, systems, skills and reach to do
the job emphasising cost efficiency and effectiveness in prioritising and allocating
resources; and tried and tested systems geared to deliver sustained benefit. An
additional benefit is the opportunity for in-country as well as cross-country learning
7
18
along the way. Analysis of per capita costs across DFID programmes with different
multi-laterals confirms that UNICEF’s aggregated range from £17 in Sierra Leone to
£37 in DRC (where a substantial latrine subsidy is provided) compares favourably
with World Bank in Tanzania and Ethiopia at £40 and £47 respectively with no latrine
subsidy. To this effect, UNICEF presents the best and most viable option for delivery
of this programme.
34. The option appraisal is therefore limited to whether or not the UK should contribute to
UNICEF’s programme to accelerate Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) in a number
of off-track countries:
Option 1: Support the Partnership with UNICEF
35. The UK would support a partnership to accelerate progress towards SWA in poor,
neglected, off-track countries. The UK would contribute £35.5 million to UNICEF to
deliver a programme that will deliver results in up to 12 countries. In this option
UNICEF will undertake two strands of activity. The first will be the management of
programmes supporting the delivery of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions
where UNICEF directly contract NGOs or private companies to undertake specific
activities linked to measurable results. These direct results are fully attributable to the
UNICEF programme. The second strand of activity is the support to strengthening
WASH policy, institutions and the development or refinement of implementation
strategies used by partners to ensure the sustainable delivery of WASH services that
would otherwise not have been delivered. This will include, for example, improving
hydro-geological surveys to identify suitable sites for wells; setting drilling procedures
and hand dug well standards; standardising and regulating approaches to demand
creation for sanitation (in particular Community and School Led Total Sanitation
Approaches); promoting best marketing practice in meeting that demand.
36. A strong focus at local government level will aim to improve decentralised operation
and maintenance of systems. Incentives and responsive finance to engage the private
sector might include community insurance systems. UNICEF, with its experience of
close work with UNILEVER and other large scale private sector companies, will bring
introduce commercial behaviour change models that have proved successful in other
countries A major component will be the establishment, as routine, of training in
planning, managing and monitoring WASH activities - to ensure that individuals and
institutions have the right tools for the job.
37. Building the enabling environment has been a routine activity for UNICEF WASH
teams and the results achieved through the process are estimated to be substantial
but without clearly defined matrix have proved difficult to measure. Attempting to
quantify such less direct results in focal countries is relatively new but important to
measuring UNICEF’s success in reducing country dependency on external resources.
Measuring such impact will be an increasingly important aspect of new approaches to
aid. Agreeing criteria and methodologies for attribution will be a learning process for
Governments, UNICEF and DFID. Getting this process right will be a key feature of
this programme and provide important lessons for programmes in other sectors.
7
19
Option 2: Do nothing
38. If DFID were not to support this programme it is unlikely that DFID would be able to
meet the results that the Secretary of State announced, as few if any other sector
actors have the reach and capacity of UNICEF to deliver significant results in a short
time.
B. Assessing the strength of the evidence base for each feasible option
39. The quality of evidence of UNICEF’s ability to directly deliver the expected outcomes
is strong. This includes evidence of the impact of the proposed interventions as well
as evidence of effective delivery by UNICEF. The quality of evidence of UNICEF’s
ability to improve the enabling environment and deliver measurable results is
medium.
40. There is strong evidence to support the fact that UNICEF is the best option to be the
implementing agency for a programme to accelerate access to sanitation, hygiene
and water for all, in off-track countries. This includes the UK Multilateral Aid Review
(MAR) assessment which gave UNICEF a positive assessment. This was reinforced
by independent country office reporting on UNICEF performance which highlighted
UNICEF’s unique position in supporting governments to deliver at scale.
41. In the MAR ranking process, UNICEF was awarded a rank of “very good” with
acknowledgement of its strong poverty focus and capacity to deliver international
development and humanitarian objectives most notably the MDGs. The review noted
UNICEF’s country penetration and its capacity to fill important gaps, reaching areas
not covered by other parts of the multilateral system. Although generally very positive,
the MAR highlighted some areas where UNICEF needed to take action. These are
briefly described below.
42. The MAR provided some examples of UNICEF’s reach in fragile states such as
Afghanistan and Yemen, as well as more stable countries, but a concern was raised
about the lack of specific policy or guidance for operating in fragile states or a
consistent approach to conflict-sensitive development. Under this programme
UNICEF will need to include fragile states in the list of priority countries and there will
be a need to monitor closely how they perform in these settings.
43. Concerns were also raised around UNICEF’s reporting and results framework, the
latter being considered weak at output level. There were questions about UNICEF’s
ability to report gender disaggregated data, and report on cost-efficiency of its
operations. It should be noted these are general rather than WASH specific issues for
UNICEF to tackle, but are noted as being important for DFID to pay attention to in this
programme.
44. There is evidence of progress on UNICEF’s reporting and results framework since the
MAR. The June 2011 Executive Board asked UNICEF, to include in its medium-term
strategic plan for 2014 – 2017, a complete results chain with expected results at all
levels. UNICEF have set up a ‘Peer Review Group’ on results, on which the UK is
represented, carried out virtual consultations, begun monitoring its approach to equity
7
20
at the country level (MoRES) and developed a new Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) system called VISION that will monitor and report on resource use. The MAR
Update Assessment for UNICEF will be undertaken during 2013 and will assess its
progress made in these areas.
45. This programme is an opportunity to work with UNICEF on this improvement process
within the WASH sector, and 20% of a results adviser’s time has been allocated for
this purpose. DFID will work with UNICEF to put in place a comprehensive results
monitoring strategy that uses UNICEF’s existing systems but introduces extra
measures (e.g. independent verification of government data on results) and ensures
that the UNICEF teams have the capacity to deliver the stated results in the specified
time. The system will need to count the number of people with first time access to
water, sanitation and hygiene by the end of December 2015 and will also measure the
extent to which this access is sustained beyond then. This programme will support
UNICEF to provide strategic follow up to 2017, to ensure that: systems are in place to
safeguard water point functionality; the construction and use of durable latrines that
people value and want to maintain; and that hygiene behaviours particularly around
hand washing with soap and water at critical times and the protection of drinking
water have become habitual.
46. For the component of support to the enabling environment, the contribution of
UNICEF’s activities to the results achieved will be estimated. A number of estimation
techniques are being tested in other programmes (including regression techniques,
contribution analysis and monitoring key indicators at each stage in the results chain).
UNICEF will work with DFID to apply appropriate techniques in this programme. The
work will be subject to regular stakeholder and peer review.
47. The MAR also noted limitations in how UNICEF address climate change,
environmental impact assessment and wealth creation. These issues are among
DFID’s reform priorities for UNICEF which also includes strengthening leadership and
delivery in humanitarian emergencies; and, monitoring and reporting of results at the
organisational level.
48. UNICEF is the largest UN organization implementing WASH programmes. According
to the annual report, over the last five years UNICEF’s support has helped an
estimated 100 million people gain access to improved drinking-water and 60 million to
sanitation, with a particular emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa. UNICEF has a good
poverty focus with over 80% of funds being spent on basic water and sanitation
systems targeted at poor people. Analysis in the MAR showed that UNICEF has many
examples of good levels of cost efficiency which are not always comprehensively
reported.
49. In 2011, UNICEF reported that the global UNICEF WASH programme supported an
estimated 29,000 communities, with a total population of 13 million in 48 countries, to
become open defecation free. Support to advocacy, capacity building and technical
assistance contributed to a rapid increase in latrine use, in sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia in particular. UNICEF also directly supported 6.8 million people to gain
access to water supply, with a further 15.1 million supported through humanitarian
interventions. UNICEF also supported efforts to improve the sustainability of water
supply systems, and continued to help mitigate arsenic, fluoride and other
7
21
groundwater contaminates. Support by UNICEF on water supply led to a 41% drop in
the global guinea worm case load from 2010 to 2011.
50. UNICEF continued to increase its support to water, sanitation and hygiene in schools
and in 2011 up to 4.5 million children benefited directly from this support. More than a
million schools celebrated Global Hand Washing Day in 2011. The campaign also
reached tens of millions of people with hygiene messages while stimulating increased
interest among national decision makers and prompting a shift towards
institutionalised promotion programmes.
51. UNICEF is DFID’s WASH27 partner of choice in many countries. DFID funds UNICEF
WASH programmes in Nigeria, DRC, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, India and
Bangladesh. The evidence of performance shows UNICEF is a strong, trusted partner
able to achieve large-scale results with a track record of well-targeted programmes
able to reach the poorest. For example, UNICEF is the implementing agency for the
Sanitation, Hygiene, Education & Water Supply programme in Bangladesh (SHEWAB). A recent Annual Review noted that the average cost of changing ten key
sanitation and hygiene behaviours (distributed over a 20-month period) was around
£1 per capita per year.
In the table below the quality of evidence for each option is rated as either Strong, Medium or Limited
Option
1
Evidence rating
Strong
What is the likely impact (positive and negative) on climate change and environment for each
feasible option?
Categorise as A, high potential risk/opportunity; B, medium/manageable potential
risk/opportunity; C, low/no risk/opportunity; or D, core contribution to a multilateral
organisation.
Option Climate change and environment Climate change and environment
risks and impacts, Category (A, B, C, opportunities, Category (A, B, C, D)
D)
1
B
B
52. The provision of water, sanitation and hygiene services and facilities has positive
benefits on environmental health. However, they may also have negative
environmental impacts when not designed, built or maintained correctly.
Environmental risks and opportunities
53. UNICEF has a policy on the use of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and
has procedures for determining whether an EIA is required. When EIAs are required,
the UNICEF guidance sets out how to determine the extent and scope of an EIA and
provides guidance on how their country teams should commission independent EIAs.
The systems appear to be robust, but it will be important for there to be regular
27
DFID also work through UNICEF for health, nutrition and education facilitating greater inter-sectoral
convergence around targeting and results. The proposed Nutrition programme in Yemen will have a
substantial WASH component.
7
22
checks that these procedures are being adhered to and that potential negative and
positive environmental impacts are being identified and acted upon. UNICEF will be
required to report on EIAs and the results from these in regular reports and will
form part of annual and other reviews by DFID climate and environment advisory
staff.
54. The key environmental issues likely to arise in this programme fall into three main
categories:
 Abstraction of water;
 Pollution from faecal and other waste disposal; and,
 Increased risk of damage from flood and climatic events.
Abstraction of water
55. The risk of over-abstraction of water must be considered when planning new water
supplies. In general this is unlikely to occur as a consequence of installing small-scale
point water sources (boreholes or dug wells) supplied by hand pumps, but can occur if
higher volume abstraction is planned (for instance where piped water supplies are
constructed). DFID will require that UNICEF programmes make a proper
assessment of the sustainable yield for all water supplies planned and to report
on this in annual and other reports.
56. Where UNICEF is focused on building overall systems and the enabling environment
rather than direct delivery, it is important that they work with partners to ensure
adequate precautions are in place and that water supply development is supported
through proper water resource assessments. DFID will require UNICEF to report on
how they have promoted water resource assessment and management as part
of annual reports. This offers a real opportunity for UNICEF to embed effective water
resource assessments into national planning systems.
Pollution
57. All sanitation and wastewater treatment systems can lead to pollution of the aquatic
environment. Given the focus of this programme, the main risks will be associated
with on-site sanitation rather than wastewater treatment of waterborne systems. If the
latter are deployed, then full EIAs will be required.
The provision of on-site
sanitation facilities can lead to pollution of groundwater where these are not properly
sited. In most cases the overall health benefits of providing sanitation will outweigh
the negative impacts of pollution as the lack of sanitation may cause a bigger pollution
problem. DFID will require UNICEF and their partners to assess the risk posed
by sanitation to the environment and report on how risks were managed.
58. The provision of hand washing facilities can increase environmental risks from poor
drainage and from solid waste from soap packaging. Poor drainage can lead to
standing pools of water and may encourage vector breeding. DFID will require
UNICEF to ensure that hand washing stations at schools have adequate
drainage and that in promoting hand washing at home, good drainage under
taps is also promoted. Solid waste from soap packaging can be expected to be
relatively limited, but DFID will require UNICEF to ensure there is adequate solid
waste disposal when providing facilities at schools and promote responsible
7
23
disposal among households.
59. The promotion of household treatment may, depending on the technology used, result
in the production of contaminated waste. This is particularly the case where treatment
is used to remove natural chemicals from water such as arsenic and fluoride. DFID
will require UNICEF to adopt and follow effective waste disposal protocols.
UNICEF should also support developing national systems to monitor waste disposal.
UNICEF can use this as an opportunity to promote cost-effective methods for waste
disposal that protect the environment but remain affordable. Where household water
treatment is designed primarily to improve microbial quality, then DFID will require
UNICEF to ensure the production of filters and chlorine-based systems and
apply environmental due diligence in manufacturing and disposal of waste
products.
Risk of infrastructure damage
60. In regions prone to flooding and other climatic extremes, risks to infrastructure exist
from extreme events. This is most obvious in relation to flooding and in particular the
permanent or temporary loss of WASH services. Some research suggests short-term
loss of access to services or short-term contamination is sufficient to reverse health
and other gains from long-term provision of services28. It is important that as part of
EIAs or other environmental assessments undertaken by UNICEF, assessments are
made of the risk to infrastructure from future flood or other climatic events. In areas
that are flood-prone, it is important that UNICEF invests in infrastructure better able to
withstand the impacts of floods and also in systems that permit very rapid buildingback of lost infrastructure, which may be crucial for the resilience of communities29.
Climate change risks and opportunities
61. Future climate change risks need to be factored into the planning and implementation
of WASH programmes. There are also opportunities for the programme to make sure
that it consciously takes low-carbon decisions and factors into the design the need to
be aware of and manage emissions30. WASH technologies and systems vary in their
resilience to climate change which emphasises the need for planning for adaptation
within the WASH Sector31.
62. As part of the design and planning process it is important that UNICEF consider future
climate changes in their programming. This will require them to consider what future
climate scenarios exist for the countries and regions selected and to factor this into
the choice of technology. This approach will require strategic thinking as precise
28
Hunter PR, Zmirou-Navier D, Hartemann P. 2009. Estimating the impact on health of poor reliability
of drinking water interventions in developing countries. Science of the Total Environment 407: 2621-4
29 As noted in recent research funded by DFID and undertaken by ISET on the 2010 floods in
Pakistan.
30 Rothausen SGSA & Conway D. Greenhouse-gas emissions from energy use in the water sector.
Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1147 e
31 See for instance: Howard G, Charles K, Pond K, Brookshaw A, Hossain R & Bartram J. 2010.
Securing 2020 vision for 2030: climate change and ensuring resilience in water and sanitation
services, Journal of Water and Climate, 1(1): 2-16; DFID and WHO. 2010. Vision 2030: The
resilience of water supply and sanitation in the face of climate change: Summary and Policy
Implications. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
7
24
predictions at very small scale are not reliable and building flexibility into systems is
required. UNICEF will also need to consider what changes in average temperature
will mean for extremes and therefore water demands. UNICEF needs to work with its
partners to develop systems at country levels that will support government and civil
society partners to take future climate change into their planning. In doing this, there
will be a need to ensure that these can translate into tools that communities can use.
UNICEF can link to programmes funded by DFID that include studies on WASH32.
63. It is important that UNICEF is conscious of the emissions that may arise from the
implementation of this programme. This will require factoring a consideration of
emissions into technology selection and it would be useful for UNICEF to consider
developing guidance for its country teams on how to do this. There are also emissions
associated with travel related to this programme. UNICEF should plan international
travel only when there are no alternatives for video or teleconferencing and to select
routes and classes of travel that offer the lowest emissions. They could also use this
programme as an opportunity to promote a carbon monitoring and off-set policy in
UNICEF.
C. What are the costs and benefits of each feasible option?
64. If the UK does not support this programme it is unlikely that DFID would be able to
meet WASH results commitments. Few, if any other, sector actors have the reach
and capacity of UNICEF to deliver significant results, in off-track countries, in a short
time.
65. The option appraisal focuses on whether delivering a programme through
UNICEF would result in an efficient and effective intervention to deliver
accelerated progress on SWA in poor, neglected and off-track countries.
66. It is not possible to quantify all costs and benefits before specific countries and
individual activities are finalised. The appraisal considers whether supporting UNICEF
will lead to sustainable results and deliver the greatest impact with the best value for
money. Value for money has been assessed in terms of UNICEF’s ability to deliver
economy (interventions at the right price and appropriate quality), efficiency
(delivering intervention in the right way), effectiveness (the right interventions to
deliver sustainable outcomes), and equity (ensuring that benefits are distributed
fairly).
67. UNICEF has clear objectives and a WASH strategy that resonates with DFID
priorities. The “overall objective of UNICEF in the area of water, sanitation and
hygiene(WASH) is to contribute to the realization of children’s rights to survival and
development through promotion of the sector and support to national programmes
that increase equitable and sustainable access to, and use of, safe water and basic
sanitation services, and promote improved hygiene”33.
68. At the country-level, UNICEF’s activities are determined in light of national sectoral
priority interventions, which interventions are being supported by others and
UNICEF’s capacity to deliver results. The UNICEF Country Teams work in different
ways depending on the environment. In some cases they directly fund the provision of
infrastructure and hygiene/sanitation promotion campaigns. They do this by working
32
For instance the ARCAB project in Bangladesh or more widely the CDKN
UNICEF water, sanitation and hygiene strategies for 2006-2015” (E/ICEF/2006/6) available at
http://www.unicef.org/wash/index_documents.html
33
7
25
through a range of local partners, ensuring the procurement of contractors is done
with a view to maximising value for money (economy). They maintain a strong quality
control function and only pay on completed services that have met agreed standards.
69. There is good evidence that all WASH investments can have significant health,
economic and development benefits and provide excellent value for money in all
contexts, with the economic value of returns greatly exceeding costs. The unit cost of
the various WASH interventions is country specific but UNICEF has a good record
of delivering interventions at low cost and of good quality. Unit costs achieved
within UNICEF programmes are generally considered to be highly cost-effective and
include34:







$7 per capita to provide access to sustainable basic sanitation and live in Open
Defecation Free Communities;
$12.4 per capita to provide access to sustainable water supplies;
$0.25 per capita to provide hygiene promotion programmes;
$6.25 per capita to provide WASH facilities in schools;
$18 per capita to construct a borehole (mechanical drilling);
$7 per capita to construct a borehole (manual drilling); assuming 500 people
served per borehole;
$10 per capita to construct a piped scheme; assuming 5,000 people served per
piped scheme.
70. These figures are taken from UNICEF’s overall global portfolio on WASH. There will
be variations in these costs depending on location, but UNICEF is confident that when
assessing across the full range of environments targeted in this programme, these
unit costs will be valid.
71. This compares favourably with declared NGO per capita WASH costs which range
upwards from $26 per capita depending on social, geographical and hydro-geological
factors. The same is found across the DFID country portfolio (largely implemented
through UNICEF where per capita costs for comprehensive WASH range from $26 in
Sierra Leone and $56 in DRC). DFID WASH per capita costs in countries not
channelling funds through UNICEF range higher from $61 in Tanzania, $71 in
Ethiopia up to $76 in Mozambique. In Nepal, where DFID works through the Gurhka
Welfare Service, the difficult terrain and distances to villages which necessitate
complex and expensive logistics push the per capita price up to $122. The unit costs
listed above are for a basic WASH package. The programme will be using operational
research to establish what level of intensity is required to ensure services and positive
behaviour change can be both achieved and sustained at-scale.
72. UNICEF is committed to delivering cost-effective interventions. For instance they have
helped to reduce water well drilling costs in Sub-Saharan Africa through the
development and application of the Code of Practice for Cost-Effective Boreholes (for
machine-drilled boreholes) and support for the professionalization of the manual
drilling sector (comprised mainly of small-scale private companies and
entrepreneurs). This has led to significant cost reductions in Mozambique and
Zambia. For example under the ‘One Million Initiative’ in Mozambique, UNICEF
34
7
Provided by UNICEF and based on historical unit costs achieved in UNICEF programmes.
26
achieved a reduction of 31% in the unit cost of a borehole from more than US$13,000
in 2008 to less than US$9,000 (mainly though changes in contract procedures)35.
73. UNICEF WASH programmes include direct implementation, capacity building,
advocacy and technical assistance. A large cadre of field-based professional staff
and strong relationships with partner country governments improves the capacity of
partner governments to deliver and sustain appropriate WASH services. UNICEF’s
programmes are therefore tailored to the context and the needs of each country,
important for driving efficiency.
74. The strong focus on strengthening the enabling environment, through strengthening
country ownership and developing institutional capacity, is important for delivering
technical efficiency in UNICEF programmes. In terms of strengthening service
delivery, UNICEF is very active in capacity development at the national, regional and
district level in a number of areas (procurement, management, planning,
implementation and monitoring and evaluation). At community level a demand based
approach is applied where the communities will take leadership in planning, preparing
proposals, implementation and post-completion maintenance and management of
their water, sanitation and hygiene programmes.
75. Strengthening the enabling environment at national level is also a critical element of
UNICEF WASH programmes. UNICEF works in over 90 countries to improve water
and sanitation facilities, with strong relationships with many partner country
governments and alignment with their national WASH strategies. In a number of
countries, due to their fragile nature, UNICEF is one of the few active agencies on the
ground with the capacity to work with Governments and implement programmes. This
close alignment with national plans and strong relationships with national
governments allows UNICEF to customise their strategic approach according to
specific country issues.
76. Monitoring and evaluating programmes to assess outcomes and learn lessons is
essential for improving the effectiveness of WASH interventions. Designing
programmes and activities using the best available information and knowledge is a
guiding principle of the UNICEF Water Strategy36. A network of regional offices and
UN headquarters provide technical support to countries programmes, maintain
oversight of programming quality, monitor and measure results consistently across
countries and regions, and ensure knowledge and learning is put into practice to
continuously improve programming effectiveness.
77. As part of UK support to this programme there is a requirement that UNICEF will
invest in systems to ensure sustainability of WASH services. This will include periodic
sustainability audits across delivery programmes through the lifetime of the
programme and strategically timed impact evaluations after the programme.
78. UNICEF supports Community Approaches to Total Sanitation (CATS) with the goal of
eliminating open defecation and is committed to undertake a cooperative evaluation of
CATS programming. This will enable lesson learning and build a closer partnership
with other partners engaged in CATS (including the World Bank, Water and Sanitation
Programme, Plan International and many others). These activities will support more
35
UNICEF WASH Field Note October 2011, available at
http://www.rwsn.ch/documentation/skatdocumentation.2011-12-21.2247027239
36 Ibid
7
27
effective programming and improved value for money.
79. The allocation of resources among countries, and the targeting of resources to
countries with the greatest need will be important for allocative efficiency. As
the DFID WASH Portfolio Review (2012) notes, good resource allocation according to
need is a necessary precondition for achieving VfM. Ensuring this programme is well
targeted towards off-track countries and towards reaching poor people in these
countries will be a key element of this programme.
80. UNICEF’s focus on poor countries matches the UK’s approach of well-targeted
funding in the sector towards the poorest people in the poorest countries. Despite
UNICEF supporting over 190 countries, around 46% of total UNICEF funds and
around 77% of aid to the water sector37 is allocated to DFID priority countries.
UNICEF’s aid to WASH is concentrated to sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia where
the needs are greatest. Of UNICEF’s aid to basic drinking water and basic sanitation,
on average 62% is allocated to sub-Saharan Africa and 30% to South & Central
Asia38 39. This is more concentrated than the allocation of all UNICEF resources (46%
to sub-Saharan Africa and 16% to South & Central Asia).
81. The support that UNICEF provides to the water sector is focussed on SWA activities.
For example, the percentage of total UNICEF funds to the water sector that are
directed to basic drinking water and basic sanitation is 81% (a similar percentage in
sub-Saharan Africa and in South Asia)40. In the high priority countries listed in Annex
2, around 85% of the funds to the water sector that UNICEF provides support SWA
activities.
82. Under this programme the use of UK funds will be restricted to off-track countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and for activities in UNICEF’s regional offices
and HQ required to support the achievement of results in the focus countries.
UNICEF will select countries on the basis of a detailed country selection procedure
detailed below (see Annex 1 for further details). The final selection of countries will be
agreed with the DFID WASH Policy Team before work commences which will present
opportunities for working in DFID focal countries with off-track WASH results.
83. A key element of the country selection process is need. The programme countries
will generally have low water and sanitation coverage and progress rates, with
resulting high diarrhoea morbidity and child mortality rates. They shall be off-track to
meet the MDG water and sanitation target and may be in recovery from emergencies
and classified as fragile states. UNICEF’s resource allocation model for WASH
funding for countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia will apply the following
criteria and weightings related to need:

Absolute number of rural population without access to improved water and
sanitation; countries ranked 1 – 10 (ranked highest to lowest) assigned score of
3; countries ranked 11 – 20 assigned score of 2; countries ranked 21 – 30
37
DFID own estimates. Source of data is the OECD DAC CRS database, available at www.oecd.org.
Figures are the 3 year average (2008-2010).
38 OECD DAC CRS database, average over 2008-2010, average share of total disbursements to
basic water and basic sanitation to each region.
39 DAC South Asia region that includes, among others: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Burma, and Nepal.
40 DFID own estimates. Source of data is the OECD DAC CRS database, available at www.oecd.org.
Figures are the 3 year average (2008-2010), total funds to basic drinking water and basic sanitation
as a percentage of total funds to the water sector.
7
28



assigned score of 1;
Countries ranked by GNI/capita; scoring as per above (ranked lowest to
highest); World Bank data used;
Fragile states; score 1 for on list; 0 if not on list;
Countries off track for sanitation and water; score 1 point if off track in each
sub-category;
84. A second key element of the country selection process is equity. All of the
countries that will be chosen will have significant coverage disparities both
between rich and poor, and between rural and urban populations. Some countries will
also have very significant geographic coverage disparities.
85. UNICEF’s resource allocation model for WASH funding for countries applies the
following equity criteria and weighting to achieve equity by targeting the poorest and
most vulnerable children;
o Inequity; country scores 2 points if in the “very high priority” category; 1 point if
in the “high priority” country
86. UNICEF has put in place a corporate Monitoring of Results for Equity System
(MoRES) that supports a focus on equity in UNICEF programming. This identifies
and measures progress UNICEF makes in tackling key bottlenecks (the enabling
environment, demand and supply issues, quality and sustainability). The systems are
being applied to all areas of UNICEF programming to ensure results reach the
poorest and most vulnerable.
87. The outputs of the allocation model will not be applied without further review to
ensure that results for the poorest people are maximised. Departures from the
model outputs would be based on the following criteria:
o To take advantage of strategic opportunities to achieve quick results;
o Where UNICEF funding can leverage further funding from other donors and
partners (including government);
o To take account of alternative funding for WASH in countries such as the
presence of major DFID programmes or programmes funded by donors and
national governments;
o To support countries where Sanitation and Water for All compacts are being
implemented with the likelihood of achieving catalytic change;
o To adjust for force majeure (e.g. emergencies).
88. This structured but flexible approach allows UNICEF to target those countries where it
can offer the best result and allocate resources efficiently. It will also allow funds to
be allocated to increase results from on-going programmes, thereby avoiding costs of
setting up new programmes and benefitting from economies of scale and scope. It
would also allow DFID funds to be used in countries with large needs where DFID has
no country presence (e.g. in parts of West or Southern Africa).
D. What measures can be used to assess Value for Money for the intervention?
89. As outlined in DFID’s WASH Portfolio Review Evidence paper water, sanitation and
7
29
hygiene interventions are highly cost effective and compare favourably with other
health interventions. DFID will assess value for money in the programme through a
number of measures.
90. By commissioning independent impact evaluations, DFID will be able to measure the
health impacts of the interventions delivered and translate these into a cost per
DALY41 measure.
91. In addition, DFID will also assess the unit costs for water and sanitation interventions,
both where UNICEF directly provides services and where they focus on the enabling
environment. This will give a good indication of programme efficiency. Through the
use of operational research DFID will assess efficiency and economy for each
programme and make improvements in delivery that will improve value for money.
92. The programme log frame includes a number of indicators that support quantification
of the value for money of this intervention. These include:
Outputs (Related to VFM)
Sanitation
 Number of communities that have become Open Defecation Free;
 Number of communities that remain Open Defecation Free: after 6 months; 1
year; two years (beyond period of DFID support);
 Unit cost per capita of providing access to sustainable basic sanitation;
Water Supply
o Number of people gaining access to sustainable improved water supply;
o Unit cost per capita of providing access to sustainable improved water supply;
o Percentage of time system functional;
o Number of boreholes/piped schemes constructed (mechanical and manual
drilling);
o Number of people served per borehole constructed (mechanical and manual
drilling);
o Unit cost per capita of constructed borehole/piped scheme;
Hygiene Promotion
 Number of people covered by hygiene promotion activities;
 Number of people reported to be and observed to be washing hands with soap
and water before contact with food
 Unit cost per capita of providing hygiene promotion and achieving a habitual
behaviour change;
School WASH
 Number of WASH facilities in schools;
 Unit cost of providing WASH facilities in schools;
Outcomes (related to VFM)
 Proportion of population using improved sanitation facility (disaggregated by
41
Disability adjusted life year (DALY) measure of disease burden, reflecting the years lost due to illhealth, disability or early death.
7
30


wealth and residence);
Number of communities that have become and remain Open Defecation Free
areas;
Number of cases of diarrhoea in children (disaggregated by sex, wealth and
residence).
E. Summary Value for Money Statement for the preferred option
93. It is recommended that the UK provides £35.5 million to UNICEF to accelerate
progress towards sanitation and water for all in up to 12 poor, neglected and off-track
countries. This budget has been arrived at following a detailed costing exercise by
UNICEF based on the achievement of the results (and summarised in management
case) that offers per capita costs that compare favourably with available
comparators).
94. In doing so, this programme will make a considerable contribution to the UK
Government’s commitment to double the number of people it reached with assistance
in water, sanitation and hygiene promotion from 30m to 60m people globally by 2015.
7
31
Commercial Case
Indirect procurement
A. Value for money through procurement
95. The MAR assessed UNICEF as ‘satisfactory’ in terms of cost and value
consciousness. DFID’s strong working relationship with UNICEF enables constructive
negotiations to achieve the most favourable terms.
96. DFID have challenged UNICEF on the costs of this programme and had several
rounds of negotiation on the unit costs for delivery of this programme and on staffing
and other costs. DFID is confident that it will have reached a reasonable level of cost
for the results obtained. DFID will continue to challenge UNICEF to ensure that all
costs DFID are charged are directly linked to the delivery of this programme through
regular reviews and will tie on-going support to demonstration of performance. This
creates an incentive for UNICEF to perform well on the ground.
97. UNICEF has clear procurement guidelines in place but did not, at the time of the
MAR, routinely report on unit costs and pricing achieved (savings) from its
procurement activities. However in May 2011 UNICEF published details of the prices
it pays for vaccines for the first time and this is expected to continue and be extended
to a wider range of commodities.
98. UNICEF Supply Division (SD) oversees UNICEF’s global supply and logistics
operation. The organisation procured a total value of $1.9 billion in 2010, 90% of
which was for goods (although the value of services being procured is increasing).
UNICEF buys about 5,000 different products annually, focused on emergency
response and development.
99. UNICEF is largely decentralised and in principle the Country Office has primacy in
procurement. However, exceptions around the purchase of certain specialised goods
(those which require specific technical expertise to procure or where it is considered
strategically important to influence the supply market) means that in practice a lot of
procurement is carried out centrally.
100.
Given UNICEF’s responsibilities for MDGs 4, 5 and 6, around 80% of its
spending is on health and requires technical experts and strong quality assurance for
procurement. By undertaking this procurement centrally UNICEF is able to use its
buying power to influence the market and achieve better prices for certain products.
UNICEF’s Supply Division is also sometimes asked to support country offices to
undertake local procurement.
101.
HQ and Supply Division procurements are subject to international competition.
Local buying is subject to national tendering, but country offices can tender regionally
where appropriate. UNICEF has developed strategies for buying major individual
products; it is making greater use of category management approaches; it places
achievement of best value for money as an over-riding objective; and it does try
actively to reduce the unit costs of products. Winning tenders are usually selected on
the basis of the lowest priced acceptable offer, unless it is considered more efficient to
work with one supplier. This helps create incentives for suppliers to offer good value
7
32
for money but also requires assessment of performance by UNICEF. However, there
is no overall procurement strategy or system for setting procurement savings targets.
102.
Complimentary to DFID’s explicit role in conducting regular audit and
monitoring of unit costs and procurement activities, DFID will expect UNICEF to adopt
a zero tolerance approach to any emerging evidence of fraud or corruption which
comes to light through internal checks or whistle-blowing processes, immediately
halting funding where corruption is suspected and ensuring a comprehensive
investigation is conducted. Through monitoring DFID will challenge UNICEF to
demonstrate that they are following this approach.
103.
UNICEF leads the work on reviewing procurement practices in One UN country
offices as part of wider work on establishing a Common Scheme for Vendors to the
UN system. Eighty per cent of UNICEF’s procurement is done in collaboration with
other UN organisations and works with UN partners, NGOs and others to avoid
duplication, joint procurement takes place where possible. UNICEF’s aim is to transfer
procurement capacity to partner governments.
7
33
Financial Case
A. What are the costs, how are they profiled and how will you ensure accurate forecasting
104.
DFID will provide funding of up to £35.5m over the five year period 2013-2017 to
UNICEF and in addition make £1.5 million available for an independent impact evaluation as
per the budgets detailed below showing costs broken down by output and by components.
UNICEF Budget for DFID’s contribution by Output
OUTPUT 1
5 million people gain
access to improved
sanitation
Investment
Total
Unit cost
USD per
capita
Total
(USD)
Direct
1,500,000
7
10,500,000
Indirect
3,500,000
2.7
9,520,000
Total
5,000,000
Funding per
results in
USD
In Uk Pds
Exch. rate:
$1 = £.645
20,020,000
12,930,217
36.40%
15,284,000
9,871,401
27.80%
5,200,000
3,358,498
9.50%
2,500,000
1,614,663
4.50%
%
20,020,000
OUTPUT 2
2.5 million people will
gain access to improved
water supplies
Direct
850,000
12.41
10,548,500
Indirect
1,650,000
2.87
4,735,500
Total
2,500,000
Direct
10,000,000
0.25
2,500,000
4,500,000
0.6
2,700,000
400,000
6.25
2,500,000
15,284,000
OUTPUT 3
10 million will be reached
by hygiene promotion.
Indirect
OUTPUT 4
400,000 school children
will benefit from improved
WASH facilities in
schools
OUTPUT 5
WASH sector enabling
environments strengthened
and learning enhanced
Technical support,
knowledge management
and quality control for
programme delivery
lump sum
3,946,000
7.20%
5,261,216
lump sum
4,200,000
7.60%
51,150,000
33,035,995
UNICEF recovery cost (7%)
3,850,000
2,464,000
UNICEF Total
55,000,000
35,499,995
Program total cost
Impact evaluation
1,500,005
GRAND TOTAL
37,000,000
93.00%
7.00%
105.
In Output 5 - Technical support, knowledge management and quality control for
programme delivery will be the primary driver behind developing the enabling environment in
the 12 countries which will be targeted with DFID support. The components are detailed in the
following extract:
7
34
Table:_ extract explaining cost breakdown of Output 5
OUTPUT 5 (Breakdown)
# of
units
Units
Unit
rates
Cost
WASH sector enabling environments
strengthened and learning enhanced
Technical support for country Policies
development/review in 12 countries through
regional, countries and HQ support
12
251,833
3,022,000
support to countries to develop and improve
ODF elimination plan
6
54,000
324,000
Support to country capacity building
12
50,000
600,000
3,946,000
3,946,000
7.20%
4,200,000
7.60%
Technical support, knowledge management
and quality control for programme delivery
Support to country monitoring systems:
Technical assistance, software, training and
country dialogues
12
75,000
900,000
Plan for operation and maintenance in
selected 4 countries
4
37,500
150,000
Best practices monitoring, check and
sustainability
12
50,000
600,000
6
425,000
2,550,000
Active operation research in countries
4,200,000
106.
Output 5 covers: the provision of technical support for WASH policy review, strategy
development and capacity building in the 12 countries through support from the UNICEF team
at country, regional and HQ levels. It will include the development and improvement of the
ODF elimination plan, the sanitation marketing strategy and general training needs as
identified during the country WASH planning process. It will also cover technical support,
knowledge management and quality control for programme delivery including: support to
country monitoring systems: technical assistance, software, training and country dialogues. It
will include the development of viable operation and maintenance systems; the management
of operational research; and the monitoring and capturing of best practice (particularly around
ensuring sustainability) to maximise cross-country learning.
Table: UNICEF Budget for DFID’s contribution by component
Costs
Unit
# of units
Unit rate
(in USD)
Costs
(in USD)3
Per
1. Staff
1.1 Salaries Human resources to support enabling environment
1.1.1 5 staff in 5 countries and 1 in HQ for 3 yrs
1.2 Per diems for missions/travel
1.2.1 Abroad (HQ and RO support to countries)
1.2.1.1: Senior Advisers (7daysx5 trips in 3yrs)* 5 advisers
Per year
30
208500
6,255,000
Per diem
525
350
183,750
Subtotal Staff
6,438,750
2. Training /Capacity building process
2.1 Seminar/conference participants
Per diem
2.11: 10 Training of the local NGOs in CATS, Water supply
training, Wins and Hygiene promotion 400 per country in 12 countries
Per diem
7
35
48,000
100
4,800,000
12%
2.2 Costs of conferences/seminars
2.2.1 Districts coordination meetings
2.2.2 Districts and communes information meeting
Per seminar
58
1,200
69,600
Per seminar
900
200
180,000
2.3 Support to Monitoring in countries
MORES roll out in countries
0
12
Per country
25,000
300,000
5,349,600
Subtotal training
10%
3. Travel
3.1. International travel
3.1.1: UNICEF Regional and New York Mission
Per flight
75
3,000
225,000
Per travel
8,640
250
2,160,000
2.2.1 UNICEF Transport Costs to the field (flight and material)
Per travel
864
1,200
1,036,800
1.2 Local (UNICEF staff and partners)
1.2.1: UNICEF Field visit and missions (24
timesx5daysx3years)x12 countries
1.2.2: Partners Mission in the Field (24times*5 days*5 people*3
years)x12 countries
Per diem
Per diem
4,320
350
1,512,000
Per diem
21,600
100
2,160,000
3.2 Local transportation
2.2.1 Partners and animators and health workers Transport Costs
to the field (flight and material) for CATS, Hygiene promotion (HWTS)
7,093,800
Subtotal Travel
13%
3. Equipment and supplies
3.1 Furniture, computer equipment
3.1.1: Office Computer Kits including (Laptop, Desktop, printer,
stabiliser and scanner, Photocopier camera ) For UNICEF and
partners
Per kit
12
4,800
57,600
1,800
2,000
3,600,000
Units
300
3,000
900,000
Per kit
25
5,100
127,500
330,000
7
2,310,000
3.2 Machines, tools…
3.2.1 Procurement of hand pump for the low cost boreholes
Per pump
3.2.2 Equipment for low cost bore hole (5 per district in 5 districts
per country)*12 countries
3.2.3: Quality control and mapping equipment (water analysis kit,
Chronometer, GPS) 2 per district in 5 district per country in 12
districts
3.2.5: Material for self-water supply options to support to families
unit
6,995,100
Subtotal Equipment and supplies
13%
4. Local office
4.1 Maintenance contribution
per year
36
27,000
4.4 Other services (tel/fax, electricity/heating, maintenance)
per year
36
9,000
972,000
324,000
1,296,000
Subtotal Local office
2.36%
5. Consultancies :Other costs, services
5.1 Publications
5.1.1 Sanitation
5.1.2 Water Publications
Per manual
12
30,000
360,000
per publication
12
30,000
360,000
Per study
6
100,000
600,000
Per study
12
50,000
600,000
Per
research
3
350,000
1,050,000
5.2 Studies, research
5.2.1 WASH interventions Unit cost
5.2.2 Best practice on impact / outcome monitoring
5.2.3 Research in 3 main areas: Improving performance on
sustainability, social norms and Measuring results (direct and
indirect).
2,970,000
Subtotal Other costs, services
6. Contracts
6.1: Construction mechanical boreholes
6.3: Construction Manual Boreholes
6.5: Limited piped schemes
Per
borehole
Per
borehole
Per bore
hole
6.6: IEC material
Per site
6.7: CLTS triggering for sanitation and sanitation marketing
Per sites
7
36
700
9,000
6,300,000
500
3,500
1,750,000
50
50,000
2,500,000
1
498,619
7,000
1,000
7,000,000
all
5.40%
6.7: Provision WASH packages in schools
6.8: provision WASH in Health centres
6.9: Social media outreach
Per school
Per health
centres
Per
country
400
4,500
1,800,000
100
8,100
810,000
12
50,000
600,000
Subtotal Contract
21,258,619
39%
7. Subtotal costs
51,401,869
93%
8. Recovery costs 7%
3,598,131
9. Totals
55,000,000
100%
107.
Budget item 3 – “Equipment and supplies” relates to the procurement of hand pumps, borehole
kits and office supplies. Equipment costs are primarily dedicated to water supplies as the sanitation
and hygiene promotion work relies on training and facilitation skills to develop the enabling
environment and evoke behaviour change at community level.
108.
Budget item 6 - “Contracts” (39% of the budget) relates to physical works that will be
contracted out according to UNICEF’s tender process. This will include: construction of mechanical
boreholes, construction of manual boreholes, construction of limited piped schemes, IEC materials,
CLTS triggering for sanitation and sanitation marketing; provision of WASH packages in schools;
provision of WASH services in Health centres and social media outreach.
109.
The 7% Cost Recovery Rate is the standard management rate charged by UN agencies for
each programme delivered for a bilateral donor. It pays for the administration or management of the
projects and programmes for which the cost recovery rate is applicable, including all back-office costs
incurred by HQ in supporting the programmes at a country level. These costs typically include
services and administrative units, as well as their related system and operating costs e.g. project
development and appraisal, general oversight and monitoring, financial administration. It should be
noted that from 2014 the cost recovery rate for UNICEF (and UNFPA, UNDP) will be increasing to 8%
as a result of the review agreed by the Board. Projects already agreed at 7% will remain at this rate for
the duration of the project even if this is beyond 2014. UNCD is engaged with the agencies on this
and will be issuing an updated guidance note within DFID on cost recovery in due course.
DFID will retain an element of payment by results within this programme, keeping back
10% on an annual basis that will only be paid on demonstration of results achieved. DFID will
make two payments each year, with 10% held back pending demonstration of results and
paid in the first payment in the following year. This will start from the second payment in 201314 to allow UNICEF to make sufficient progress. For 2013/14, UNICEF will receive £14.4m;
for 14/15 £16m and 15/16 UNICEF will receive £5.1m.
110.
111.
DFID will liaise closely with UNICEF to ensure that they apply strong value for money
principles to these components, particularly in the areas of procurement of equipment and
travel where significant cost savings can be secured by applying the central objectives of
UNICEF’s procurement policy. In addition, DFID will continually monitor UNICEF’s
expenditure in these areas to ensure that it is fully accounted for and maximises the potential
of this funding to be economic, efficient and effective.
UNICEF will use its position as an important global purchaser and market participant to
influence market dynamics to ensure value for money and transparency. Value for money will
be achieved not only by making decisions on the minimum purchase price but also on the
maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the purchase, while transparency will come from
recognising the importance of market efficiencies, accountability and trust. At a more practical
7
37
level, UNICEF will drive value for money in its procurement practices by championing pricing
transparency; securing economies of scale through large volume procurement; and by
utilizing its broad and diverse supplier base to identify best price.
B. How will it be funded: capital/programme/admin?
112.
The funding will be paid from DFID’s programme budget via the WASH team in Policy
Division.
C. How will funds be paid out?
113.
The allocations will be released in semi-annual payments to reduce the possibility of
payment in advance of need. DFID will make the initial £8 million payment on signature of the
arrangement, in mid-2013. In Dec 2013 DFID will pay £6.4 million, with the following payment
in mid-2014 being £9.6 million and the December 2014 payment again being £6.4 million. In
mid-2015 a final payment of £5.1 million will be made. This proposed schedule facilitates the
10% payment by results component.
114.
When DFID do not see sufficient results having been achieved DFID will continue to
withhold payment until UNICEF can demonstrate the results have been achieved. In addition,
continuation of funding for each year will be dependent on a positive annual review for each
year. DFID will also build in a break for a medium-term review into the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) between DFID and UNICEF.
115.
DFID manage the risks of double accounting by UNICEF of these project funds and
core funding from DFID and/or country office MoUs with UNICEF by requiring a detailed
annex to their annual WASH report setting out how DFID funds for this programme were
disbursed. DFID will also require an audited set of accounts within 12 months of the close of
the project.
116.
To ensure no payment in advance of need DFID will monitor UNICEF’s balance for this
project, scrutinizing the mandatory semi-annual financial statements in advance of releasing
each disbursement. The general practice of non-profit organisations, including the UN
community, is to maintain a level of liquidity equivalent to 3-6 months expenditure. The UK
commits to being a good donor and to meeting the schedule of payments set out in our MoU,
helping UNICEF to manage its reserves.
D. What is the assessment of financial risk and fraud?
117.
In terms of Due Diligence there are three main points of reference for evidence on
UNICEF’s processes. These are the MAR review, the procurement Capability Review and
the UNICEF Fiduciary Risk report.
118.
UNICEF scored well on these reports and therefore appears to be well covered
globally and thus DFID can have confidence in their ability in managing our funds and risks of
fraud. DFID will, however, need to consider whether DFID will do in-country due diligence
assessments once DFID have agreed which countries UNICEF will work on this programme.
119.
There are significant financial risks associated with the delivery of this programme.
Risks include potential fraud, inflated costs of implementation and mismanagement of
finances in projects operating at a country level and in relation to both regional and global
7
38
support from UNICEF. At a country level, there are risks that UNICEF has insufficient
oversight and control over implementing partners leading to raised costs, theft,
misappropriation of funds by managers and poor quality work or work that does not benefit
the original target populations, all leading to DFID either paying too much for results, or falling
short of results. There are also risks of nepotism and corruption in the awarding of contracts
and recruitment of staff and consultants. For regional and global support the main risks are
that DFID are charged for support that is not provided by UNICEF or that there is nepotism or
corruption in the recruitment of staff or awarding of contracts.
120.
These risks will be managed by UNICEF who will ensure that they follow their own
systems of contracting and financial monitoring and accounting. Through the introduction of
the VISION organisational enterprise resource management system, UNICEF have now
joined other parts of the United Nations system in complying with the International Public
Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) for greater accountability and oversight.
121.
DFID will require detailed accounts of expenditure by UNICEF throughout the project
that shows what funds have been spent and how both at international and country levels to
demonstrate that funds have been used for their stated purpose and that any fraud or other
financial risks have been minimised through robust financial management procedures. The
VISION system will be a particularly important tool in this respect as it contains a strong
element of monitoring and reporting on resource use, including procurement.
E. How will expenditure be monitored, reported, and accounted for?
122.
UNICEF’s expenditure at an organisational level is monitored through the UK’s
engagement at Executive Board meetings and bilaterally with UNICEF as required. These
functions are carried out by both officials in the UK and also at the UK’s Mission to the UN in
New York.
123.
UNICEF also provides a range of reports to monitor its performance against each
specific programme. The main reports are:
 Biannual Financial Report and Audited Statements. These provide details of all income
and expenditure in the biennium, including details of fund balances and reserves held at
the end of the financial year; expenditure on programmes and on administration /
management; and expenditure by region and country. These statements are audited by
UN’s Board of Auditors and the last financial statement for the biennium ending 31 March
2009 received an unmodified audit opinion (i.e. there are no substantial issues to
address). An interim financial report and statements are provided in the intermediate
years;
 Annual Report on the Evaluation Function and Major Evaluations in UNICEF; Annual
Report on Internal Audit Activities; Audit Advisory Committee Annual Report. These
provide an overview of UNICEF’s programmatic performance, the risks facing the
organisation and the steps needed to address any weaknesses;
 The Annual WASH report will provide details of UNICEF’s performance in the programme
and will include an Annex specifying the results attributable to DFID;
 DFID will require an audited final set of accounts within 12 months of the programme
closing.
124.
7
DFID will expect to receive a copy of the annual WASH report with a dedicated annex
39
detailing progress and results attributable to DFID and this programme specifically. DFID will
also expect copies of the others reports for us to monitor progress and the audited statement
of accounts within 12 months of the programme closing.
Management Case
A. What are the Management Arrangements for implementing the intervention?
125.
DFID has adequate staff resources to provide proportionate management and
oversight of UK taxpayers’ funds. An A2 Water and Sanitation Adviser from the WASH
Policy team will dedicate 25% of their time to act as the institutional lead for UNICEF,
including providing programme and management oversight. They will be supported by a
B1 Deputy Programme Manager (DPM) who will be responsible for programme and
financial management, including Blue Book compliance, project reviews, briefings and
payments. All programme management activities will be carried out in accordance with
DFID procedures and oversight requirements. An A2 results adviser will commit 20% of
their time to improve the measurement and reporting of results, particularly with respect
to enabling environment work. In addition, DFID will utilise as far as possible Country
Office advisers drawing down part of their 10% cadre contributions to monitor and
provide feedback on performance of UNICEF.
126.
UNICEF will implement the programme at the country level, with regional and
global support. This is summarised below:

UNICEF will be managing and implementing the project through its global network of
country offices, with support and oversight from regional offices;

UNICEF country offices are primarily responsible for delivering results at a national
level including planning country interventions, entering into key programme
partnerships, contracting local service providers, procuring supplies providing
technical assistance and training to national organisations.

UNICEF Regional offices will provide oversight (quality control), technical support
and backstopping and facilitate the sharing of knowledge between countries in each
region. Regional Offices may also achieve economies of scale by contracting
services that are required by multiple countries within a region. These would, for
example, relate to knowledge management and monitoring.

UNICEF HQ provides overall policy guidance, maintains oversight of the whole
portfolio and facilitates global learning and knowledge exchange on high-priority
issues. UNICEF HQ will be the primary point of contact for DFID in managing this
support, and will be responsible for reporting on this funding.
127.
UNICEF will report on its country allocations for WASH in its WASH Annual
Report. With regards to DFID’s funding, UNICEF will submit to DFID an Annex of this
report on actual allocations of DFID funds, with an explanation of any deviations from
the country selection model outputs.
128.
The UK Mission to the UN (UKMis) in New York is the focal point for face to face
engagement with UNICEF, with guidance on policy being provided from HQ. UKMis will
take the lead on issues where discussions are sensitive and a face to face meeting is
7
40
required to ensure appropriate oversight. UKMis and the WaSH policy team will work
closely on engagement with UNICEF and other stakeholders.
B. What are the risks and how these will be managed?
Risk
Description
Likelihood
Medium
Impact
High
UNICEF’s assumptions
on beneficiaries
reached through
strengthening the
enabling environment
overestimate results.
Medium
Medium
UNICEF does not have
the technical capacity to
deliver the WASH
results in the most offtrack, neglected (hardto-reach) countries earmarked for the
partnership. This might
force UNICEF to focus
on countries already
over-subscribed and
unlikely to deliver.
The infrastructure and
services provided are
not sustainable leading
to loss of access by
beneficiaries.
Medium
Medium
DFID will mitigate this risk by ensuring that UNICEF
country choice reflects genuine technical capability to
deliver results at scale noting that UNICEF will allocate
additional resources (from the regional level) where
required. DFID will agree with UNICEF in advance of
any activities being started the countries where this
programme will fund WASH activities. In this
negotiation DFID will require UNICEF to demonstrate to
us they have the capacity or it can be brought in
quickly, to deliver the project in that country.
Low
High
DFID will manage this risk by requiring regular reporting
by UNICEF on actions they have taken to build
sustainable systems and require regular audits of
sustainability. Where these show an unacceptable level
of non-functionality DFID will agree with UNICEF new
actions required to ensure increased sustainability and
functionality.
5
Security and conflict in
identified countries
means that UNICEF
cannot reach intended
beneficiaries
Medium
Low
6
If the agreed
partnership is not
forged with the
Government of the
Netherlands and
UNICEF, there is a
reputational risk for
DFID
Low
High
DFID will work with UNICEF on the selection of
countries and regions within countries so that DFID
closely monitor the situation in each of the countries
they work. DFID will also retain flexibility in the
programme to allow UNICEF to switch programming to
other countries in need of support where conflict or
security issues mean the closure of a programme in a
country
This risk will be mitigated by ensuring that there is ongoing dialogue with the Dutch and UNICEF to select a
number of priorities, off-track countries for joint funding.
1
Poorest people living in
‘hard-to-reach’ hydrogeologically challenging
areas often require
higher levels of
investment (higher per
capita costs) meaning
results are lower than
expected.
2
3
4
Table: Risk Matrix
7
41
Mitigation
DFID will mitigate this by monitoring closely the
progress made by UNICEF towards meeting the agreed
results taking action promptly as soon as any potential
problems are identified and by conducting timely,
independent impact evaluations in early 2015 to
facilitate follow-up action. Actions may include asking
UNICEF to re-focus funding on particular countries
where results can be achieved more rapidly or requiring
them to deploy greater human and technical resources
into the programme.
DFID will manage this by working with UNICEF to
ensure that their methodology is robust and where the
use of more robust methods suggests results will be
lower, agree with UNICEF what they will do to keep to
results targets within the budget and their own
resources.
Impact
Likelihood
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
1
4,6
2,3
5
The overall risk rating for this project is considered to be Medium.
C. What conditions apply (for financial aid only)?
Not financial aid
129.
D. How will progress and results be monitored, measured and evaluated?
130.
As part of this business case DFID has developed a logical framework (log frame)
which will be used to monitor progress annually. The log frame sets out the impact,
outcome and outputs described in the Strategic Case alongside indicators which
describe how these will be measured, baselines, milestones and targets for tracking
progress. DFID will work with UNICEF to put in place a comprehensive strategy for
monitoring against the logical framework, utilising UNICEF’s existing systems and
identifying and addressing any additional requirements for effective monitoring. This will
include monitoring through annual reviews and UNICEF’s own monitoring of results for
equity system (MoRES) approach (which includes checks on samples of results claimed
and annual sustainability assessments). Verification of results achieved will take place
including independent monitoring by other organisations such as NGOs and spot-checks
and supervision by DFID advisors.
131.
The baseline for the indicators in the log frame will be the July 2012 Joint
Monitoring Report and results will be based on information from UNICEF’s own
development results framework which is part of the Medium Term Strategic Plan
supplemented by additional monitoring as necessary to ensure that results reported are
robust. Given that improving results is a reform priority for UNICEF, DFID will only
utilise indicators from UNICEF’s results frameworks where they are sufficiently robust
and include both baselines and targets and will work with UNICEF on improving these
measures.
132.
The log frame will be reviewed and scored annually to monitor what progress is
being made. The log frame also clearly sets out the weights to be applied to each
outcome indicator and output to calculate the annual score.
133.
Annual reviews will assess progress through information provided by UNICEF in
a range of different reports (e.g. its Annual Report and audit reports) and information it
provides directly to DFID. This data is of sufficient quality to use as evidence for annual
reviews. DFID will also seek feedback on UNICEF’s performance in a range of
countries and from DFID advisers who work with UNICEF in the field. Further
information on performance from evaluations undertaken regularly by independent
evaluators throughout the programme will also be used to improve performance. In
addition, WASH Policy team staff and other DFID advisers will carry out spot-checks
using their 10% cadre time to incentivise staff engagement.
7
42
134.
The first annual review will assess UNICEF’s progress against the milestones set
out in the log frame. At the mid-point a more comprehensive review will be undertaken
before a decision about continued funding and funding levels.
135.
The log frame itself will be re-assessed at each Annual Review and indicators,
milestones and targets will be updated as appropriate to reflect, for example, the midterm review which may result in revised reform priorities. UNICEF will also be
developing a new Strategic Plan for implementation from 2014 and this will mean that
targets for indicators in its own results framework will need to be updated at that stage.
136.
Direct Results will be tracked through UNICEF’s MoRES approach,
supplemented by additional independent monitoring, and reported through WASH
Annual report. UNICEF will use MoRES to measure results in programmes where they
directly fund the construction of infrastructure and promotion. Where UNICEF work is
focused on the enabling environment, results will be calculated by attributing to UNICEF
a proportion of overall results (which may be at local or national level) on the basis of
evidence of the contribution of UNICEF’s activities to results achieved. To date UNICEF
has made estimates based on its previous experience but they recognise the need for
much stronger mechanisms for calculating results from their enabling environment work
and are committed to building this in to the approach to monitoring and evaluation for
this programme. DFID will work closely with them on this, drawing on work by WSP,
existing DFID WASH programmes and others on the use of a range of techniques (such
as regression techniques, contribution analysis and monitoring key indicators at each
stage in the results chain) for measuring the impact of activities to strengthen the
enabling environment.
137.
DFID will also require UNICEF to undertake and report on regular sustainability
audits over the lifetime of the programme and subsequent to it to provide data on
whether installed services continued to provide access.
138.
The Annual report will include an Annex showing the results attributable to DFID’s
support. As part of this support, UNICEF will be required to undertake and report on
spot-checks to assess the sustainability of WASH facilities and services supported
under this programme. DFID will also require structured feedback from beneficiaries in
the annual WASH reports from UNICEF informing DFID’s annual review process.
139.
DFID WASH leads from Policy Division and Country Offices will undertake at
least annual spot-checks of progress in a sample of countries to provide independent
assessment of progress. This will include collecting feedback from beneficiaries of this
programme. It will also include scrutinising financial and other data to test value for
money from UK Aid.
140.
DFID will also commission an independent evaluation of progress against the
baseline. A number of key process and outcome indicators will be examined such as the
prevalence of diarrhoeal disease, stunting and time spent on WASH activities. Particular
emphasis will be placed on equity and UNICEF’s success in reaching out to the poorest
in the most under-served areas, and on sustainable behaviour change (particularly hand
washing with water and soap after defecation). DFID will design the evaluation process
to strengthen the feedback loop and improve programme performance. This will also
collect data on value for money indicators.
7
43
141.
DFID will work with UNICEF to refine key focus areas for operational research.
This will complement UNICEF’s MoRES approach which is designed to identify where
greater impact, efficiency and effectiveness can be achieved and to promote crosscountry/cross-regional learning.
Evaluation
142.
DFID will commission an independent impact evaluation of this programme to
provide a transparent measure of the programme’s performance. DFID will use the
findings at mid-term to help improve performance should this be needed.
143.
In addition, UNICEF operates a decentralised evaluation function with a central
Evaluation Office (EO) performing a coordination role as well as undertaking global
evaluations. UNICEF Country Representatives are responsible for in-country
evaluations in accordance with norms established by the EO; Regional Directors are
responsible for regional evaluations; and HQ Directors are responsible for evaluations of
global policies and initiatives for which they are accountable. The EO fosters the
professionalisation of the evaluation function, develops approaches and methodologies
for evaluation, and maintains the institutional database of evaluations. UNICEF has also
initiated a ‘Global Evaluation Quality Oversight’ system under which UNICEF’s
evaluations are independently reviewed and rated against UN Evaluation Group (UNEG)
/ UNICEF Evaluation Report Standards. Reports meeting the satisfactory rating are
made available in UNICEF’s Global Evaluation Database (GED).
144.
The MAR recognised that UNICEF had made progress on evaluation, for
example by taking forward recommendations to establish a predictable evaluation
budget, provide additional interventions to strengthen and support field offices and to
improve RBM throughout the organisation. However, further work is required to
increase the independence of evaluations, maintain the proportion of the overall budget
spent on evaluation and mitigate the impact of staff turnover. In particular, there remain
concerns about the inconsistency of management responses to evaluations and more
consistent use of evaluation materials in guiding strategic decisions is needed.
145.
DFID will manage this risk by ensuring that fully independent evaluations of the
programme are commissioned through a contract directly managed by the WASH Policy
Team. DFID will ensure greater management response to evaluations by making acting
on recommendations a key condition of continued funding within the programme. DFID
have experience of using programme improvement plans with UNICEF, for instance in
Zambia, where reviews have identified the need for strong management action to be
taken and DFID has made continued funding contingent on those actions. DFID will
employ the same approach within this programme.
Quest No of logframe for this intervention: 3986614
7
44