Process and Progress
WaterAid's work in Uganda has been through three distinct phases since the organisation's involvement first started in 1983. It has gone from the direct implementation of projects, to working through NGO partners and, most recently, WaterAid has pursued a more District focus in line with the national agenda to decentralise. WaterAid's principal mandate is to promote and encourage community-managed and integrated hygiene, sanitation and water projects.

WaterAid's current approach builds on its 1997 strategic reorientation based on the development of partnerships with 11 NGOs working in 10 Districts. Guided by its most recent Country Strategy (1999), WaterAid continues re-focussing its activities providing a higher quality of support to a smaller number of Districts.

WaterAid's efforts will continue to focus on partnership development with District administrations, NGOs and the private sector, while transferring some of the WaterAid management and technical capacity to District level. WaterAid continues to build on its reputation as a leading NGO in the water sector, assisting the government in co-ordinating the various actors working in water and sanitation. It aims to strengthen its in-country advocacy at a national level to promote and encourage community managed and integrated approaches to water supply, hygiene and sanitation projects.

WaterAid is currently focusing on Mpigi (Central) and Katakwi (Eastern) Districts. The organisation is considering the possibility of working in the less stable Northern areas, perceived to have the worst access to basic services.

Hygiene and Sanitation Promotion
WaterAid's official policy is that water, sanitation and hygiene promotion activities should be carried out in an integrated manner. Though water is the main focus of the programme in Uganda, sanitation and hygiene promotion are increasingly focal points of activities at programme, project, community and District/sub-country levels.

Hygiene and sanitation promotion are largely undertaken by Water and Sanitation (WATSAN) Committees and Voluntary Community Workers (VCWs). Local leadership such as Local Counsellors (LCs) also operate as central contacts at community level, though WATSAN Committee members and VCWs usually work independently of LCs and health workers.

The work of WATSANs and VCWs is generally effective, though not without room to grow. Some WATSANs and VCWs feel that their roles are not defined with sufficient clarity or that the area they must cover is too vast. Concern is sometimes raised about the type of person being selected for key promotional positions. Sadly, communities appear more willing to receive messages from outsiders than from community members themselves, as indicated by the relative success of students from the School of Hygiene who enter communities with promotional messages.

To varying degrees, partner NGOs are supporting primary school hygiene education and sanitation by training teachers, parents and encouraging child-to-child methodologies. While this strategy is effective where it exists, it is not widespread. In some schools, there appears to be no specific programme on hygiene and sanitation, only rules and regulations and sanitation prefects.

Toolkits are widely used by communities and NGOs in the promotion of hygiene and sanitation, especially for the collection of baseline data. Baseline information is used by communities to understand key problems and to a lesser extent to recognise and strategically respond to risk behaviours. Toolkits are comprised of a range of tools and methodologies, which include: Sanitation Ladder, Faecal-Oral Transmission Route, Hygiene Behaviours, Gender Role Analysis.

Kits are distributed to WATSANs and VCWs who are trained to use them to varying degrees of effectiveness and proficiency by partner NGOs, themselves trained by WaterAid. WATSANs and VCWs in turn communicate key messages to the community, mainly by using the pictures in community meetings, focus groups and home visits. House to house visits are the primary medium through which hygiene and sanitation messages are communicated by WATSAN Committees, VCWs and health assistants. Though the home is an ideal place for these messages to be communicated, the process is arduous and time-consuming.

Unchanged for some time, the promotional materials are being used to teach hygiene rather than foster community participation in risk assessment and reduction. At times, they are used insensitively, particularly where images of open defecation are portrayed, or they contain confusing messages. Still, picture-based toolkits, as the primary source of promotion, have helped to generate a great deal of awareness around hygiene and sanitation issues.

In cases where LCs, Water Committees and VCWs participate in baseline data collection, there is a particularly strong awareness of hygiene issues. In a few limited cases, WATSAN Committee members and VCWs lack valuable knowledge about simple latrine technologies. Sometimes schools and institutions are not included in the baseline data collection even though it is widely agreed that they offer a great opportunity for water, sanitation and hygiene promotion at community level.

Though there is sometimes a sense among partner NGOs that hygiene and sanitation are add-ons to the water-supply programme to fulfil conditions of grants, many communities have shifted from no or temporary latrines to more permanent structures. An increasing number of houses also have latrines with covers for fly control. There are encouraging numbers of 'SanPlats' (smooth concrete latrine slabs with lids) and tippy taps for hand-washing as well as awareness of the safe water chain. The promotion of the use of a 'smoker' to disinfect latrine pits and burn off bad odours has been quite successful. It is a complementary selling point for people who are put off latrines because of the smell.

Other important perceived sustainable changes include: improved hygiene, cleaner houses, improved utensil racks, safer water, people washing jerry cans, improved health, less frequent visits to the hospital and fewer episodes of diarrhoea. In some villages in Katakwi, the community formed digging groups and families shared latrines. While community members are clearly pleased to have the added privacy, convenience and safety of latrines, their behaviour also seems to prove the hypothesis that community commitment to new behaviours decreases when local NGOs pulls out.

Recommendations:
In an effort to improve the impact and effectiveness of hygiene and sanitation promotion, it is recommended that:

~..	The election of WATSAN Committee members and VCWs receives close attention. Memorandum of Understanding should be developed to clarify roles of WATSAN Committee members and VCWs. WATSANs and VCWs should be encouraged to plan and work jointly with LCs and Health Assistants and undertake joint follow-up;
	.
~..	Baseline information should be part of a wider process of community empowerment and mobilisation. Baseline data should be collected with an acute awareness of its particular uses in the project cycle. New guidelines should be developed for inclusion of baseline data in the manual;
	.
~..	Artistic skills within the WaterAid office need to be employed in the field based on PRA training to develop toolkits, conduct art workshops, develop hygiene booklets for schools and help develop other creative methods such as drama and song. Some tools need to be corrected, others expanded or adapted locally;
	.
~..	House to house visits are used as a tool for the reinforcement of targets agreed through group discussion and for helping individual families overcome constraints to their active participation;
	.
~..	Innovative sanitation responses are pursued which are sensitive to local conditions, such as promoting the Mozambique dome slab. Options for institutional latrines suitable for markets and schools should also be included in the 'promotional ladder';
	.
~..	Latrine promotion is synchronised with the community seasonal calendar;
	.
~..	WaterAid encourage a stronger focus on reducing risks associated with child excreta through promotional methods which centre on safe disposal and hand-washing after contact with children's stools;
	.
~..	Early adopter of safe behaviour ('positive deviants') such as those who are already routinely washing their hands with soap after contact with stools, could act as peer informers.

Sustainability
The Uganda programme promotes the development and use of relatively low-cost and socially acceptable water technologies: spring protection, shallow wells and rainwater harvesting. WaterAid and partner NGOs assist communities in choosing and implementing technology options for use in their villages.

Communities participate with partner organisation technical staff in siting water sources. The land on which the majority of water sources are located belongs to individuals and there are no formal agreements, though communities appear unconcerned. Protected sources are commonly located where there was an unprotected source accessed by communities without prior interruption by landowners.

Community involvement in water source construction is recognised to be high. However, the quality of construction is variable and supervision is sometimes inadequate to assure consistency of water quality, particularly in the case of shallow wells. Water quality testing is not carried out before or after the protection of water sources. Most WATSAN Committees have formal and informal rules that govern the operations of water sources though it is often difficult to implement them. LCs and WATSAN Committees are reluctant to take disciplinary action against violators.

Most of the water sources are well maintained, with fences and grass, though a few challenges remain. It is sometimes difficult for communities to secure 'local' materials which are not necessarily 'locally available', including valuable spare parts. Spring aprons are commonly eroded having had insufficient time to cure and set. Though partner NGOs have trained and used pump mechanics to service water sources, there are no village-based technicians for maintaining the protected springs.

It sometimes happens that communities are reluctant to complete contributions and construction, as in the case of rainwater harvesting systems. Communities are generally unwilling to collect funds for O&M before breakdowns occur given a community inability to foresee maintenance needs and the inadequacy of management systems for community funds. There are also cases of individuals making contributions on behalf of the community, stifling community ownership.

Though there are Water Committees in place, their tenure of office is not clear. The Committees are active in mobilising people to clean water sources, ensuring pumps are serviced on schedule and meetings are held. However, Committees have experienced a progressive loss of morale, especially at the end of the implementation period. Water Committee members liaise with LCs in construction of the water facilities. LCs are particularly involved in the mobilisation of communities to participate in the construction of water sources.

In KDF project areas, Children's Water Committees have been formed, composed of two girls and two boys per water source. Children's Committees were also formed in schools with protected water sources. They are effective in maintaining and policing the water source, encouraging hygienic behaviours. In some cases, children have been too fierce and the Committees suffer from a high turnover of members and lack arrangements to co-ordinate with the Water Committee.

While communities are benefiting from protected water, the universal coverage approach of partner organisations has resulted in a situation where no attempt has been made to specifically target the most vulnerable. Some people in the communities are unable to access safe water either due to infirmity or poverty. Some villages and/or households do not have their water sources protected because they fail to meet the co-financing obligations. Other villages do not get water because the technologies promoted are not technically feasible in their locations.

The promotion of safe and effective excreta disposal systems has been carried out as part of the wider picture-based, hygiene promotion package. The traditional unimproved pit latrine is the most commonly promoted sanitation technology because of feasibility, affordability and the zero subsidy policy. However, the technology suffers from termite damage and loose or unstable soil.

Some work has been done to promote 'SanPlats' though the issue of subsidy evokes mixed responses. Donors have created false hopes in the past by heavily subsidising 'SanPlats' for a select few who manage to access them. This has damaged the capacity of partner NGOs to create sustainable, community-run systems for production and distribution.

WaterAid Uganda accounts staff are currently developing a system of budget monitoring for use by partner NGOs. To date, a majority of funds are being spent on overall partner NGO running costs and development, with the main project cost being the water supply. Software accounts for about 20% (with a fairly high proportion being consumed by the baseline survey). Given the zero subsidy policy for sanitation, this is a reasonable percentage of project funds to be allocated for hygiene and sanitation promotion.

There is evidence of high dependency on the part of NGOs and it is questionable whether the project cycles and participatory processes allow sufficient time and rigour for communities to empower themselves. Too much is done in too short a time to achieve physical outputs which are sustainable. Further, the results of baseline surveys are not retained in the community, adding to community dependency on partner NGOs.

Partner NGOs do not undertake monitoring except in taking occasional visits to water sources. WaterAid monitoring has decreased in the last year as the new policy of District capacity-building evolves and responsibility for follow-up shifts to local government. Partner NGOs are self-monitoring through quarterly reports and planning meetings but there are no real examples of effective community-based monitoring systems in operation.

Recommendations:
In an effort to develop the sustainability of the Uganda programme, it is recommended that:

~..	Technical supervision by partner organisations, WaterAid and Local Government technical staff is strengthened to assure quality of construction, proper maintenance and follow through, partially through the regular use of supervision reports;
	.
~..	Efforts are made to ensure that design specifications as per the manual are adhered to and water sources are properly sited. The District Health Department should ensure that water from protected sources meets basic safety standards;
	.
~..	Commissioning of water sources should be done immediately after construction to cut costs, allow the users to reflect and learn from the participation process and discuss arrangements for O&M;
	.
~..	The notion of local materials is revisited;
	.
~..	Consideration is given to the impact of privatising O&M for water sources and of greater private sector involvement in developing a market for spare parts;
	.
~..	All community contributions to the project are made before the implementation of the project to ensure completion. A reasonable monetary value should be attached to local contributions;
	.
~..	Artisans in the community are trained in spring maintenance;
	.
~..	The roles and tenure of Water and Children's Water Committees are reviewed, with particular reference to composition and sustainability. Children's Water Committees should be replicated by other partner organisations, while the children themselves should participate in the formation of committees. Mechanisms for co-ordination and feedback between the Water and Children's Committees should be developed;
	.
~..	WaterAid develop booklets for schoolchildren in association with KDF partners;
	.
~..	periodic performance reviews of the committees are undertaken, identifying training needs;
	.
~..	A means of assessing vulnerability is developed along with a means to assist the most vulnerable in securing safe water. Cross-sharing and graduated cross-subsidy might be appropriate here;
	.
~..	Sanitation technology options driven by communities together with those developed under the Environment Health Division (including the feasibility of promoting ecological sanitation) are piloted;
	.
~..	WaterAid promote consistent policy and encourage piloting of different approaches within the policy framework (supported by donors) before it goes to scale;
	.
~..	WaterAid consider piloting sustainable and creative financial mechanisms for affordable technologies;
	.
~..	WaterAid and partner NGOs revisit the project cycle and allow more time for community empowerment, hygiene and sanitation promotion;
	.
~..	In the interest of transparency and accountability, quarterly meetings have District inclusion and circulate meeting venues among partners themselves;
	.
~..	WaterAid assist partner NGOs develop picture-based monitoring systems as an integral part of baseline assessment and promotion, incorporating results of a 'Looking-back study', that communities may plot their progress against their own objectives; and
	.
~..	To stimulate better performance for partner organisations, performance markers become the basis for funding.

Partnership
Stemming from changes in WaterAid policy, partnership between WaterAid and local NGOs or institutions has gone through three main phases, characterised by changes in the relationship and roles of partners.

In the 1980s, WaterAid implemented projects directly with communities. In 1993, WaterAid became non-operational, supporting communities through partners. The change in WaterAid?s development approach impacted on its relationship with its partners. WaterAid ceased to maintain direct relationships with communities, such that implementation and follow-up were left to partner organisations. During this period, WaterAid retained its funding and monitoring roles.

Subsequent to a 1996-1998 review of its work, WaterAid assumed a reorientation of its partnerships. A greater number of partners have since become involved in WaterAid projects, including NGOs, sub-counties and communities, and the roles of some existing partners have changed.. The re-orientation of WaterAid's work has also resulted in a reduction of the geographical coverage of the programme to three Districts and a few sub-counties within the Districts.

There are four main aspects to WaterAid's relationship with partners: funding, capacity-building, networking and project implementation. There are clear systems in place for the management of these relationships which include consultations, meetings, reports and the use of Memoranda of Understanding. Sometimes partnership issues are discussed during workshops and seminars.

The roles of different partners are clear and effective, though will require modification as WaterAid further develops its District focus. WaterAid has distanced itself from the communities and is closer to the government. It has shifted from project implementation to lobbying and advocacy using partners' field of experience. It is responsible for funding, capacity-building of partners and facilitating networks for partners. For instance, WaterAid has enabled its partners to join the District and National NGO Forum and WES committees.

Partner NGOs implement and follow-up programmes and submit reports to WaterAid and the District. They build the capacity of communities, raising the status of communities by facilitating the availability of clean and safe water, the construction of latrines and hygiene promotion. They also train local masons (fundis). The District conducts supervision and monitoring. Partnership between NGOs and the sub-county is still weak though a direct link is evident between NGOs and communities. In the future, WaterAid hopes that most activities at community level will be integrated within the local government planning process in a synchronised manner.

WaterAid has supported partner NGO in the development of flexible and effective management systems, particularly financial and reporting systems. This has helped them gain credibility and recognition from other donors. The Districts already have well-established, bureaucratic, government management systems in operation. Both NGOs and Districts are rather poor at documenting their activities, whether through minutes or reports. Recognising this, WaterAid assisted NKD in producing a Manual on Spring Protection, making it possible for its experience to be shared with other partners.

Districts have relatively clear and consistent mission statements, strategic objectives, strategic plans and annual plans. While partner NGOs have strategic objectives, they lack strategic plans for implementation and do not appear to have annual plans of operation. When WaterAid came into partnership with heavy funding support, partners found themselves implementing WaterAid?s Strategic Objectives, having abandoned their original activities. To some extent, WaterAid has influenced its partners to drift from their original vision and development approach. This is true of both WEDA and KDF, and also seems to be the case with some other partner NGOs. There are clear imbalances between WaterAid and its partners as well as between partners. These stem from differences on matters of access to resources, levels of organisational maturity, the nature of the projects themselves, the experience and abilities of partners to negotiate, as well as WaterAid policies.

WaterAid's relationship with WEDA is a case in point. At times, WaterAid is involved in some of the more sensitive decisions the organisation has to make, without needing to go through the partner NGO's Board. The partnership management practised between WEDA and WaterAid needs careful handling, otherwise it might undermine the WEDA co-ordinator's accountability to the Board of Directors. Current partnership arrangements can easily shift the loyalty of staff of partner organisations from their Board of Directors to WaterAid.

WaterAid's policy of phasing out some of its partners has prompted them to develop new sources of funding. Some NGOs have gone to their Districts or other donors. They are also in the process of establishing links with embassies, multilateral and bilateral organisations, including UNICEF, DFID, the World Bank and others. Partner NGOs are also collaborating with one another and jointly applying for funding to implement projects. As for Districts, they mainly have links with different donors like bilateral and multilateral organisations through the Central Government. This diversity of funding is critical to the process of partners moving away from donor dependence.

Recommendations:
In an effort to secure and strengthen partnerships developed through the WaterAid Uganda programme, it is recommended that:

~..	Partner NGOs consider ways to develop their relationship with the District in an effort to synchronise strategic and annual plans. Memoranda of Understanding between them should clearly state the processes and roles of each, as well as the implications of WaterAid's phasing out of programme support and partners phasing in and taking over the programme;
	.
~..	WaterAid assist partner NGOs to strengthen their management systems regarding financial, personnel and programme development policies;
	.
~..	WaterAid streamline capacity-building within the programme through the timely provision of appropriate equipment (transport) and skill development (software) to both NGOs and districts;
	.
~..	WaterAid, the District and partner organisations have an implementation schedule for the scoping study and needs assessment recommendations;
	.
~..	WaterAid and its partners update partnership guidelines on a regular basis, perhaps annually, clearly identifying partner relationships;
	.
~..	WaterAid and Districts help partner NGOs find funding from other donors and train them on fundraising skills;
	.
~..	WaterAid link up with UNICEF's strategic school sanitation and hygiene initiative and develop guidelines for partners wishing to work with schools;
	.
~..	WaterAid assist partner NGOs and Districts in the acquisition of documentation skills and facilities;
	.
~..	Partner NGOs develop strategic plans and prepare annual plans. Partner NGOs should revisit their visions, mission statements and strategic objectives;
	.
~..	Partnerships are managed by different parties and stakeholders on the basis of consensus and not driven solely by donors. Relationships should be entered into in a transparent and positive way, with parties clearly stating their perceptions, intentions and hopes for the partnership;
	.
~..	NGOs are encouraged to develop their own culture and identity so as not to become entrenched in their dependence on a single donor. Before any partnerships are entered into, Terms of Reference need to be prepared to ensure consensus on roles, functions and responsibilities. Where possible, contracts between donor organisations and local implementing NGOs should be for at least two years,
	.
~..	WaterAid proactively work with NKD on reinterpreting, developing and sustaining their partnership to safeguard gains made to date, in a climate of mutual respect and understanding; and
	.
~..	A 'think-tank' is developed which should link up key stakeholders in government (environmental health and health promotion), local NGOs, WaterAid, other donors and the School of Hygiene so that all could critically assess and share their experience and respond most effectively to local needs.

Gender
Gender was not analysed and presented as a distinct dimension of the evaluation. There are however components of the evaluation which consider gender issues and which are worth highlighting given that mostly women (with the assistance of children) bear the burden of fetching water for their families, and that the Uganda programme itself seeks to respond to gender parity and justice.

The structures of the Uganda programme since WaterAid undertook its re-orientation has resulted in greater emphasis being placed on gender. WaterAid partners now have more women staff than ever before. Partner organisations have encouraged water users to form local management structures for each water source which includes both men and women.

Toolkit elements which focus on gender issues in particular include: Gender Role Analysis, and Audience Segmentation –

Gender Segmentation.
Analysis of the programme stemming from the effective use of these tools has raised the following concerns:

~..	Gender Role Analysis: The results of gender role analyses are not mainstreamed into the design of health and sanitation promotion, but do consider responsibility for water point construction.
	.
~..	Audience Segmentation – Gender Segregation: Work has begun to mainstream gender issues in WaterAid and partner work with particular success in staffing and increasing recognition of the importance of changes to attitude as well as policy. However, much work remains to be done in Uganda, as is the case with WaterAid and its structure globally. In particular, promotional work does not particularly differentiate between women and men, leading to missed opportunities for women?s voices to be heard.

Recommendations:
Towards promoting gender equity in WaterAid Uganda projects, it is recommended that:

~..	Gender discussions are held at quarterly meetings and visits to encourage field staff to work with women's groups when considering aspects of risk assessment and hygiene promotion; and
	.
~..	Greater gender awareness training and analysis is undertaken, with the long-term development goal of a workable gender strategy for WaterAid Uganda.