Selon les principes du Workpackage 7 du projet Washtech, chaque pays devrait suivre l’évolution du degré d’utilisation du TAF/TIF et  l’importance de l’outil pour les acteurs du secteur de son pays. La documentation de cette évolution se fera sous forme d’interview, pour mettre aux différents acteurs de raconter l’histoire de leur premier contact avec l’outil TAF et comment cet outil pourrait changer leur manière d’évaluer les technologies d’eau et assainissement. C’est dans cet esprit que pour le compte de l’année 2012, deuxième année du projet, 10 histoires ont été collectées au Burkina suivant les domaines de changement prédéfinis par l’équipe du projet. Ces domaines de changement sont : La reconnaissance de la nécessité du TAF pour le secteur

 L’implication des acteurs étatiques dans le projet et la promotion du TAF   L’implication des municipalités au niveau décentralisé. La compréhension du TAF par les Alliances d’apprentissage, les centres de recherché, etc.

 Comment ces histoires ont été sélectionnées?

Réunie le 10 janvier 2013,  l’équipe du projet WASHTECH ainsi que les membres des Alliances d’apprentissage du projet ont tenu l’atelier de revue des MSC stories/interview collectées durant toute l’année 2012. L’atelier à réunie l’équipe de recherche de WASHTech Burkina ainsi que les partenaires et l’institution qui doit abriter le TAF à savoir la DIEE. L’atelier était animé par la communicatrice du projet qui dans un premier temps a  présenté les domaines de changement suivant lesquels les histoires ont été collectées

Au total 10 histoires ont fait l’objet du classement selon les critères suivants :

Qualité du son et de l’image

Clarté de l’expression

Lien pertinent avec le domaine de changement

Pertinence des propos  avec le projet WASHTech et le TAF

Après avoir pris connaissance de ces critères, les participants ont passé en revue les histoires.

Ce document revient sur les raisons qui ont poussées au choix de  telle ou telle histoire comme étant l’histoire qui illustre le grand changement : « most significant change ». Il propose également une transcription  de la totalité de l’histoire choisie.

Domaine 1 : La reconnaissance de la nécessité du TAF pour le secteur Dans ce domaine, nous avons collecté quatre histoire. Celle de Maxime Somda, ancien chef du service suivi-évaluation du PN-AEPA a été retenue comme l’histoire qui présente un lien pertinent avec le TAF. En effet en sa qualité de chef de service de suivi évaluation, Monsieur Somda a une grande expérience de l’introduction des technologies HAEP. Cependant d’outil qui permettent de mesurer leur durabilité, il n’en trouve encore dans le secteur. C’est pourquoi il reconnait que le TAF est le seul qu’il connaisse actuellement comme outil d’évaluation des technologies. Il reconnait du même coup toute la nécessité de cet outil pour le secteur et pour son service qui a en charge le suivi évaluation des technologies HAEP. En grand connaisseur des technologies, il aborde d’un air clair  et précis l’utilité du TAF pour le secteur.

Ce qui fait que son interview ait été retenue comme « most significant change » dans ce domaine.

Interview Maxime SOMDA, chef de service suivi-évaluation à la  DGRE

« L’outil tel que présenté, représente  un intérêt particulier pour nous. C’est une nouvelle expérience que nous allons voir ici. Dans notre pays il manque vraiment un suivi annuel des technologies. Cet outil  va nous aider dans le cadre des choix de technologies dans le domaine de l’eau et assainissement. Mais aussi pour la maintenance  et pour les approches IEC concernant les thèmes sociologiques. On a besoin d’être sûr que les installations que nous avons dans notre domaine sont adaptées à notre environnement. Et je crois que le TAF peut nous aider à voir l’impact positif ou négatif des technologies que nous installons tout azimut sur notre environnement»

Domaine 2 : L’implication des acteurs étatiques dans le projet et la promotion du TAF.

L’interview de monsieur Boureima Koanda, ingénieur à la Direction de l’Information et des Etudes sur l’Eau a retenu l’attention. M. Koanda a la certitude que le TAF sera utilisé, voir approprier par son institution par ce que l’outil propose une approche participative dans l’évaluation des technologies. En cela son interview a été retenue comme « most significant change ». C’est aussi là tout le sens de la désignation de la direction où il travaille (la DIEE) comme hôte du TAF après le projet.

Boureima KOUANDA, agent à la Direction des Etudes et de l’Information sur l’Eau

« Par rapport au TAF je pense que c’est un outil très intéressant, ce, d’autant puisque à notre niveau on peut vraiment s’approprier de l’outil pour  évaluer les différentes réalisations que nous avons sur le terrain  en matière de  mobilisation de ressource en eau. Que ce soit les eaux de surface ou les eaux souterraines, il y a beaucoup de technologies qui sont utilisées. Ces technologies ont souvent des projets pilotes, mais souvent il ya d’autres qui sont introduites sans études préalables. Pourtant, c’est vraiment intéressant que ces technologies soient évaluées avant d’être valorisées. En plus, je pense que ce nouvel outil n’est pas aussi compliqué à utiliser. Ce qui m’a beaucoup intéressé, c’est la démarche participative avec laquelle on évalue la technologie. Une telle approche permet de bien évaluer vraiment la technologie de manière consensuelle. A ma connaissance aucun autre outil dans le secteur un propose une évaluation aussi  exhaustive des technologies que le TAF»

Domaine 3 : L’implication des municipalités au niveau communal WASHTECH

Djibril TONDE, un agent d’hygiène assainissement  à la mairie de Koudougou est l’un des très engagé en promotion des meilleure technologies d’assainissement. Cependant, jusqu’à son implication dans le projet washtech, il ne savait pas comment déterminer la meilleure technologie. Il n’avait pas de moyen de suivi des technologies. Dans on interview, il salue la conception d’un outil comme le TAF et pense pouvoir faire la promotion de l’outil lors des rencontres communales.

Interview Djibril TONDE, agent d’hygiène assainissement  à la mairie de Koudougou

« Avant le TAF nous n’avions pas un moyen de suivi des technologies à ma connaissance. Mon premier contact avec un système scientifique comme on le voit actuellement, c’est vraiment avec EAA et WaterAid qui vient de présenter le nouvel outil TAF. Actuellement avec les acteurs tout est mis en œuvre  pour suivre la technologie. Avec la nouvelle technologie nous arrivons à évaluer  l’impact des technologies à partir du TAF. La valeur ajoutée est que ça nous a permis de connaitre que pour introduire une technologie  il faut avoir l’avis de plusieurs personnes. Partant donc de là, si j’ai une nouvelle technologie  je vais suivre la procédure de l’outil TAF. Nous pouvons introduire le TAF dans le cadre de  concertation communale,  régional, mais aussi les rencontres du conseil municipal. »

Domaine 4 : La compréhension du TAF par les Alliances d’apprentissage, les centres de recherche, etc.

Madame Noellie Poda, de la fondation 2ie est issue d’un centre de cherche et est membre de l’Alliance d’apprentissage de WASHTech. Ayant déjà un contact avec l’outil TAF notamment lors des ateliers de notation des différents tests, elle est convaincue de l’utilité de l’outil pour les centres de recherche. Elle ose aussi faire des propositions pour améliorer l’utilisation de l’outil qui ont été pris en compte par l’équipe de projet. C’est en cela que sont interview est retenu comme « most significant change »

PODA Noelie Doctorant au 2ie

« J’ai pris part à la notation des technologies avec l’utilisation de l’outil TAF, alors, je pense que c’est un bon outil, mais qui gagnerait à être amélioré pour permettre une plus grande utilisation par un plus grand nombre d’acteurs. Harmoniser peut-être l’interprétation des résultats ou bien l’interprétation des notations serait une bonne chose pour les institutions de recherche par exemple qui auront un partenariat avec d’autres institutions. Sur la base de l’outil utilisé on pourrait faire une comparaison des résultats et cela pourrait améliorer pas mal de choses dans le secteur de l’assainissement. Etant de la fondation 2ie c’est vrai qu’on n’est pas dans la création de technologies de l’assainissement. Nous, nous sommes plutôt dans le traitement des déchets qu’on a collecté, mais c’est un outil qui pourrait être utilisé dans l’évaluation de ces technologies qu’on met en place. Par exemple, présentement j’ai un collègue qui travaille dans le traitement des bouts de vidange. Il veut mettre en place une technologie de traitement de bouts de vidange qui soit moins couteuse et applicable dans nos pays. Alors, avoir un outil pareil pour évaluer l’efficacité de sa technologie et voir comment la technologie pourrait être acceptée par les uns et les autres serait une bonne chose. Mais il faudrait certainement faire aussi en sorte que l’outil lui permette aussi de voir si vraiment il a abouti à quelque chose d’utilisable, d’applicable. »

« Toute certitude est par essence contradictoire avec la philosophie de la recherche», nous dit Pierre Joliot dans son œuvre intitulée La recherche passionnément. Convaincus de cette réalité, les géniteurs du projet de recherche Washtech ne sont pas rigides sur leurs propositions. C’est pourquoi ils ont bien voulu faire amender les travaux faits dans le document annexe 9 du TIF, afin d’être sûrs que le produit fini tiendra compte des réalités de chaque pays pour y être efficace à l’atteinte des buts de la recherche. Les points focaux du Burkina Faso (DGRE, DGAEUE, DIEE, IRC, ONEA, EAA et Wateraid) ne se sont pas fait prier pour assurer cette tâche. En trois jours, ils ont pris du temps pour lire entre les lignes, pour déchiffrer ensemble avec la plus grande minutie, la liste générique sur les tâches  de chaque acteur dans le processus. Ténu en plénière, le débat était ouvert à tous les participants, chacun devant apporter sa contribution à l’amélioration du document. Et dans l’optique d’une bonne compréhension des concepts de base, une lecture préalable du TIF a été faite à tour de table suivi d‘explications des présentateurs que sont M. Wozuamé Kossi de WaterAid et M. Coulibaly Yacouba de EAA/Burkina.

Sur la base de l’objectivité et de la connaissance des rouages dans le domaine de l’EAH (Eau, Hygiène et Assainissement) au Burkina Faso, les participants ont réussi à finaliser le document à leur niveau. Tout le travail ne s’est pas effectué, un autre atelier prévu en fin mai 2013 avec Skat, le concepteur même de l’outil, permettra d‘achever tout au niveau national. Au cours des échanges, les participants ont aussi vu la nécessité d’apporter des éclaircissements sur la différence qu’il y a entre le TIF et ‘’La toile d’araignée’ une autre technique d’évaluation des approches. Des recherches ont été fournies par une participante puis présentées au dernier jour afin de lever toute confusion. Pour l’instant, aucune technologie telle le TIF n’est encore existante dans le secteur de l’eau et de l’assainissement au Burkina Faso. « Mais très bientôt, ce sera une réalité qui soulagera le secteur », selon les termes de Ouédraogo  Moussa, agent de la DGAEUE et participant à ces ateliers.

Introducing the TAF

André Olschewski (Skat) and Benedict Tuffuor (TREND Ghana) gave a general introduction to the Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) in a special session on the enabling environment. The session included a presentation on another tool, the Sustainability Monitoring Framework developed by the Dutch WASH Alliance.

Both presentations prompted a discussion about the number and variability of sustainability and how all these tools fit together. The presenters stressed that both tools fit in wider thinking around sustainability in the sector. Even though the tools are being developed in parallel, they both attempt to simplify the analysis of complex, variable data.

Moderator Stef Smits (IRC) mentioned that IRC’s Triple-S programme has started to map sustainability tools to see which already exist and where the gaps are.

Participants pointed out that both tools did not address the ultimate sustainability of interventions in terms of the level of service received by users over time.

Using the TAF to evaluate the the Urine Dry Diverting Toilet (UDDT)

The second WASHTech presentation, by Yacouba Noël Coulibaly (WSA), described how the TAF was used to evaluate the Urine Dry Diverting Toilet (UDDT) in Burkina Faso. A participant mentioned that the TAF looked like a top-down, technology driven approach. The presenter countered that the TAF is about sustainable services, and is not technology driven. Technology is only the entry point.  To validate the TAF as a tool, it has been tested in 3 countries (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Uganda) by evaluating 17 existing technologies.

Pre-launch of the TAF and TIP

A small but enthusiastic audience witnessed the pre-launch of the TAF and Technology Introduction Process (TIP) on 12 April. Jo Smet (IRC) and André Olschewski facilitated this side-event, with the support of Benedict Tuffuor and Yacouba Noël Coulibaly.

The event included a general presentation by Jo Smet on both tools, the above mentioned TAF presentation by André Olschewski and Benedict Tuffuor, the video on Solar Water Pumping in Uganda, and a poster session with three TAF case studies.

The poster session generated most questions. Clarification was given about the different user groups and how some institutes like NGOs and governments could have double roles as both provider and investor/facilitator.

Fig 1. Taken from the WASHTech presentation by André Olschewski and Benedict Tuffuor

Questions were asked about weighting and if there was a clear go/no go based on the number of “red” traffic lights when interpreting TAF results (see fig. 1). Presenters explained that different options can be discussed, e.g. if a producer asks more than a user can pay – subsidies, lower unit costs or lower service levels can be proposed.

It was stressed that investment models need to be taken into account: are government subsidies available and to what level, or is a market based approach required that relies fully on private financing .

The traffic light scoring results need to be explained well: why has that colour been chosen and what do you need to do?  When does a TAF result point to a promising technology, a possibly promising technology or one that should not be considered? Yellow and red scores could turn green and it may be worthwhile to have follow-up actions to make that happen.  Therefore follow-on workshops could be arranged to resolve these issues.  Raising the technology score or changing the status of a technology to promising, can be implemented for any of the three perspectives: user, manufacturer or government/regulator.

Replication

Several options to spread the TAF/TIP process and tools were discussed. The presenters mentioned that WASHTech partner WaterAid is considering to introduce TAF/TIP in Tanzania. A participant from Catholic Relief Services (CRS) said he interested in presenting the TAF at a forthcoming CRS workshop in East Africa. Another participant suggested WASHTech should link up the International Network on Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage (HWTS).

The final versions of the TAF and TIP will be available as open source tools by the end of 2013.

He outlined the five agreed domains of change as follows:
i) Recognition of the need for something similar to the TAF: Do stakeholders share the project assessment of the situation that led to the idea of developing the TAF?)
ii) Awareness of the existence of the TAF: Do stakeholders know about the existence of the tool we are promoting? If not, why?
iii) Awareness of the existence of WASHTech Ghana: Do stakeholders know what the WASHTech Ghana project is trying to achieve and perhaps the role they might play in it?
iv) Understanding of the TAF, especially EHSD, MMDAs, CWSA, CSOs: Do stakeholders realise the components of the TAF, the way it is supposed to be used, and the current level of development of the TAF? The potential applications of the TAF in their work or in the WASH sector in Ghana?
v) Use of the TAF – embedding TAF in EHSD, CWSA and MMDA processes: Do stakeholders have evidence about seeing the TAF in use, either by themselves/their organisations or others? Do they have interesting feedback from experience that could inform the way the TAF is put in practice, pointing to limitations and opportunities?

Mr. Wumbei then proceeded to explain the assignment at hand to the project LA. He indicated that the stories were collected after the following carefully designed question was put to each of the story tellers:
“Imagine that you bump into a former colleague in town who asks “How are your rural water technologies going these days? Is it still the case of simply no guidance and everyone promoting any type of technology?” Share your experience of WASH Technology introduction up to date; your observation of any changes (attitudes, way of thinking, etc.) in the WASH sector with regards to WASH technologies”.

The stories were collected through video interviews and transcribed to facilitate the review process. The LA members reviewed the 15 shortlisted stories from the 24 overall stories collected over the period, 2012 to select the one most significant change story per domain of change. It is significant to note that the project LA had earlier in the year shortlisted 15 from the 24 stories collected.

At the end of the review process, the stories by Patrick Apoya (private provider); Theodora Adomako-Adjei (government – CWSA); Martin Derry (local NGO); Kweku Quansah (government – EHSD-MLGRD); and Charlotte Engmann (government – CWSA) were the most significant change stories selected for domain’s 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.
The LA members opted for the above stories after a brainstorming session that got heated at some points. Some of the comments for each of the stories selected per domain of change included the following:

Domain 1 – Comments on Patrick Apoya’s story

The story traces the history of technology introduction in Ghana to the point of need for something similar to the TAF; in a way, the story shares the project assessment of the situation that led to the idea of developing the TAF; it indicates recognition of the need for TAF; and that the coming into being of the project, has triggered a certain level of consciousness of technology issues in him and others; looks forward to seeing that the identified technology gap of assessment bridged; finally, he believes this development can lead to innovations in the sector

Domain 2 – Comments on Theodora Adomako-Adjei’s story

Most significant change story for domain 2; the story gives clear indication of awareness of the existence of the TAF; precise and logical narrative, describing the aspects of change expected and opportunities offered by the introduction of the tool; feels really convinced TAF process is seriously the direction we (sector) should all go.

Domain 3 – Comments on Martin Derry’s story

The most significant change story for Domain 3; indicates awareness of the existence of WASHTech and what the project is trying to achieve; mentions the need for set guidelines taking local context into consideration; feels impressed about the coming into force of the project and feels that is even long overdue.

Domain 4 – Comments on Kweku Quansah

The most significant change story for Domain 4; story indicates understanding of the TAF, especially by him coming from the EHSD-MLGRD; indicates awareness of the components of the TAF, the way it is supposed to be used, and the current level of development of the TAF; states the potential applications of the TAF in his work; that the project has been an eye opener on technology issues

Domain 5 – Comments on Charlotte Engmann

Touches on the use of TAF and embedding TAF in sector processes; points to evidence of usefulness of TAF and some aspects already been applied though it is yet to be accepted; talks about past practices which she described as semi-formal, and has expressed hope for a reawakening of CWSA with the advent of the TAF; she highlights the gaps of the past that seem to have answers in TAF; indicates that the project has concentrated their minds in aspects that were until now ignored; mentions the broader nature of the TAF, which focuses on users, distributers, producers, etc.; she indicated that the TAF has come to stay! – members felt this statement was significant considering where she was coming from, “… because if we tell all these beautiful stories and cannot find the TAF in the end, then what is the use?” stated a member of the LA; she also mentioned that, with WASHTech, even though the TAF is yet to be approved, they (CWSA) now know what to lookout for in the introduction of new technologies.

After the review exercise, members were so impressed with the MSC tool and the review process, stating that the tool was useful in triggering reflection of the impact of the project and the review process really deepens understanding. Some members openly expressed interest in the tool and declared that they will consider recommending it to their organizations for monitoring. Others were of the opinion that the tool could be useful for monitoring community activities; and that it was a very good monitoring and learning method.

These stories of change were collected by Abu Wumbei and Seyram Asimah of TREND from sector stakeholders, mainly at the Mole Conference 2012 in Tamale, the project scoring workshop in Accra, the project pilot regions of Upper East and Volta regions of Ghana, and at the national level learning alliance platform (NLLAP) meetings in Accra.
The WASHTech project uses the MSC stories to monitor the process of change in the adoption of the TAF and other WASHTech instruments in conjunction with other monitoring and impact assessment activities. This is to better understand the project progress and the barriers behind uptake, and to reformulate ways of addressing the issues of concern.

Find the five selected MSC stories (unedited) below:

The selected five MSC stories:
-Transcribed by Seyram Asimah

Domain 1 – Story by Patrick Apoya

My name is Patrick Apoya, chairman of Skyfox Limited, a technology company in the WASH sector in Ghana. The WASH sector in Ghana has experienced some checkered history or developments since 1990 as far as technology is concerned. Of course there was that era where technology was not regulated. NGOs, government, whoever had any technology that could provide water or sanitation, you were free to implement; little regulation. There was no common framework that people fit into and the operational issues were handled by the different suppliers. That contributed a lot to the sustainability challenge and to the maintenance challenge because first it affected skill. So, if I’m a dealer of spare parts, there was no way I could stock spare parts of 70 different technologies that are in operation because there was no economies of scale, there was no efficiency in getting involved. So you had the providers themselves being forced to find ways of stocking the spare parts and to be responsible for the maintenance directly because you could not access it from the open market. Now with the coming into being of the Community Water and Sanitation Division then, it was one of the first challenges they identified. They attempted to standardize and to limit the different types of technologies that were within the sector – water side as well as the sanitation side. For water after examining over 10 different technologies that were in existence then, they actually tried to select those that fit a certain criteria. The criteria that was consistent with the national community water and sanitation programme then, that wanted to move away from central rehabilitation units, or moving rehabilitation units from a central source to decentralized management of facilities such that communities will be able to handle them, manage them and maintain them on their own. Which means that they had allowed the private sector to purchase spare parts and to secure services and this forced them to be able to select those 4, to standardize them so that at least there will be sanity and there will be a way for regulating. It has worked well to some extent because the penetration of the private sector and getting involved to deliver certain services has also improved. But after 10-15 years of that policy, now there are also questions about “is it not too limited to have just 4 or 5 technologies approved then in sanitation, also just about 4-5 technologies approved?” Now we have Mozambique toilet, this toilet, that toilet… but the question is about a framework to see whether something which was not available then to have been tested at the time that that decision or that policy was being implemented and is now available – whether there is a framework that can be used to test that technology to see whether it qualifies to be added or not added. And when it is to be added it means it also has to be consistent with the principle of COM, that is, Community Ownership and Management; and that has been a gap because the process attracted heavy donor funding especially with the World Bank, and that is no longer available, and in the absence of that, to get experts to come and do that, go to India, go to where to do those kinds of standardizations, we now need a certain cost effective framework that we can apply at a very low cost by local experts that will not require maybe an MSc, a PhD, or a very high level person to be able to test the framework. It is two years ago that with the support of our European donors we were able to introduce a project called the WASHTech. It is actually a platform that looks at developing a framework, testing a framework, and seeing whether it is possible for the sector to adopt it as a very rapid appraisal tool of any technology that is going to be introduced newly outside what we have considered as standard technologies. First it will answer the question of are we not now too limited with the choices that we are using as well as the issue of we don’t also want proliferation in a manner that is not guarded. So, that actually has been the major breakthrough when it comes to technology adoption and deployment in the country. For some time, the pilot initiatives have been ongoing, they have been sharing with the sector, a lot of people have appreciated. Personally, I was a bit not too conscious about technology issues, but with the introduction of the project, it has opened a certain consciousness in me about, first that those options that we are dealing with are rather too limited. Even though it has been there, I didn’t see the gravity of it. But I’ve also seen that even with the limited introduction, because it is too limited, NGOs are still finding ways to push their things because they still feel that there should be room for innovations, and the fact that the state has no room to explore innovations does not mean that NGOs do not have that room because if you use state funds, it means you are obliged to go with the four options, but with NGOs who are always looking for new things and better ways of doing things, definitely, want a lot and limited just to those options; and so having come from NGO side, I’ve found that difficulty but I just felt that, well, the only way to do it is to just go and do our own thing and let the state do their own thing. But now with the introduction of WASHTech, we now see there is a way to still fit within the national framework and still also test the innovations and that has also been something that the state has also accepted. It’s like a negotiation – if we cannot get it this way, then the midway for both of us is to agree that any innovations that is coming should be taken through the same standard test and if it meets certain conditions – environmental conditions, technological conditions, political conditions, social conditions, from the user point of view, from the provider point of view, from government’s point of view, all the factors that needs to be taken into consideration when you introduce something so it doesn’t turn out to be a burden. Because some NGOs also just want to achieve their project objectives and move. It should not be a case that when you are moving, you are actually leaving a burden for the state or for the assembly, and that consciousness now has grown. Not just about me, but a lot of players in the sector who were in the same difficult situation now feel this is the comfortable situation that we can all buy into and I believe that with that level of consciousness, if we all rally behind the WASHTech project, I believe once we all have the framework, nobody is going to be disgruntled about why my technology was passed and this person’s technology was not passed because there is something objective.

Domain 2 – Story by Theodora Adomako-Adjei, CWSA

I’m Theodora Adomako Adjei. I work with Community Water and Sanitation Agency as the extension services coordinator. I‘ll like to say that in CWSA, when it comes to water, specifically water technologies, you can’t just come in with any technology option. It has to be taken through some processes to ensure that it will be sustainable. That idea is there. But I think with the introduction of WASHTech, it is sort of bringing the assessment of technologies before they are introduced into the sector to the fore. It is putting it in focus and for me, even though I wouldn’t support any technology that has just been introduced into the system without going through the right procedures or through the right approach, with the introduction of the WASHTech framework from which I have been involved, it has really convinced me seriously that that is the direction we should all go because it gives us the opportunity, 1) to introduce the right technologies; 2) to ensure that the implementation aspect of it has been done properly; and the last but not the least, is to be able to address the sustainability issues before its introduction.

Domain 3 – Story by Martin Derry, PRONET North

My name is Martin Derry, I’m the director of a local NGO in the Upper West Region called PRONET North that specializes in general development with water and sanitation as an entry point. My experience with WASH technologies since 1995 has been that there has been relatively little regulation in terms of the introduction of new technologies. And I say little regulation because there appears not to be any set criteria by which new technologies are tested that also provides a basis for introducing new technologies. So we find ourselves more in a situation where everything can come in depending on who is supporting or sponsoring whatever programme, and so I’ll say it is a relatively unregulated field. There might be benefits to that but there is obviously a down side in the sense that in some fora, we have had occasion where people have complained about the usability of some of the facilities and technologies and also there have even been instances where the maintenance has not been up to scratch because whoever introduced the technology was even no longer available to give advice and did not necessarily train users about the use. So in my view, the issue of WASHTech is long overdue. There is definitely a need to have a set of guidelines and specifications that practitioners will all ascribe to, and will be at least be educated on so that the criteria for introduction of new technologies is then clear for everybody and whoever wants to come on board at least has this criteria that they need to measure up to. As someone working on the ground however, my suggestion will be that in all these things, in setting criteria, we do not lose sight of the local context. Especially, the indigenous knowledge systems and the existing technologies that predated modern day programming. I believe in this way, it will increase acceptability and also ensure that any users especially at community level really embrace such technologies, but I believe that WASHTech is definitely a good idea.

Domain 4 – Kweku Quansah, EHSD-MLGRD

My name is Kweku Quansah. I work for EHSD of the MLGRD, Accra, Ghana. WASHTech introduction in Ghana opened our eyes, especially our sector players to the various technological options that have worked, and those that have not worked those that are very promising in the country. It gave us a clear indication as to which of the technologies should we really put a lot of emphasis on and those that are not promising at all that we don’t need to waste resources and energy on. One of the things that came out clearly was the fact that at least we should be able to have a laid down protocol, guidelines that will sort of inform us when new technologies are being introduced into the country. For the sanitation sector, at least we have the national technical working group on sanitation and as part of our TOR, we evaluate every sanitation technology that comes into the country and by introducing WASHTech into Ghana, it gave us some level of strengthening our criteria and our evaluation processes. For example, whenever a technology is introduced into the country, we meet as a group, we ask the one introducing it to do a quick presentation to us of the benefits advantages and disadvantages of the project, and also, we look at its importance in the local conditions of this country and for the past few years we have evaluated a number of them. Some, ranging from low technologies to very high technologies like waste to energy. What happened is that these people will take on board some of the suggestions that the group gives them and more or less try to improve. Most of the things that we see around sanitation have enriched some of the guidelines. For example, an entrepreneur wanted to introduce a new technology and by looking at it and advising him, I think he thought he could bring a better technology and these are some of the advantages of WASHTech, especially for those of us in the sanitation sector. It has helped our coordination, it has given us the opportunity to critically look at the options available, options being introduced, vis a vis our local conditions and to advise appropriately. For us, we now know some of the technologies we should promote and those that we should not really waste a lot of time on.

Domain 5: Story by Charlotte’s Story

My name is Charlotte Engmann. I work in the Community Water and Sanitation Agency. I would like to say in the past, the past 25 years up to now, the introduction of wash technologies has followed a limited though semi-formal path. You invite the person to come and give a presentation, you ask questions, you form a committee, you look at the literature and the presentation, you agree to pilot it in two or three areas and then after six months to a year or more than a year, maximum 18 months you decide. You visit the areas, write a report and decide whether to adopt the technology or not. It may be even sometimes just in one area. Since the introduction of WASHTech, we have gone through a lot of processes in the sector. We had to decide which technologies to test, we had to decide how the scoring should look like and what sort of field work should be done, who should go into the field and one of the things it has done is to concentrate our minds in the sector especially those of us in CWSA and EHSD as to the importance of having a systematic method for introducing technologies and asking the right questions. So now when somebody approaches us with a new technology, though we don’t have the TAF in place yet, we are far more serious about what we do because we realize that when we make a mistake, then we are going to multiply that mistake for years. So I’ll say finally that it has concentrated our minds, it has shown us what we should do and it has also shown us that in the field work we shouldn’t forget the users. We shouldn’t forget the users. Ours is a community managed process and the users are our most important clientele but we also have seen through the scoring and through the use of the TAF the importance of distributors which we hitherto overlooked as opposed to only producers. So I’ll say that WASHtech is a very useful project and process and it has come to stay and be embedded in the sector.

Members of the WASHTech learning alliance at the meeting had to respond by further explaining and updating stakeholders on the project and the TAF. Abu Wumbei of the WASHTech Ghana team explained that the TAF was indeed a tool that could be used to assess the said HWTS technology, but that the tool was currently being tested on some selected technologies; and that these will enable the fine-tuning of the tool to suit the local situation and context. Thereafter, according to him, the tool will be in full operation; owned and managed by sector institutions like the CWSA and EHSD-MLGRD; and that the NLLAP platform will be part of the process.

After a series of awareness creation through multi-stakeholder consultation, distribution of project leaflets, sharing at various sector platforms and through the media; it appears stakeholders are beginning to appreciate and recognise the need for a tool similar to the TAF.

Considering the assessment of the situation that led to the development of the idea of a TAF and the gap it seeks to fill in the sector, it is pertinent for sector institutions and stakeholders to embrace the tool, develop the interest in finding out what the WASHTech Ghana project is trying to achieve with the tool and perhaps the role they might play in it.
It is also imperative for sector institutions like the Environmental Health and Sanitation Directorate of the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (EHSD-MLGRD), Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA), Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs), and Civil Society Networks to understand the components of the TAF, the way it is supposed to be used, the current level of development of the TAF, and the potential applications of the TAF in their work.

Finally, it is crucial for the sector to ensure that the TAF is embedded in the processes of the EHSD-MLGRD, CWSA and MMDA. This is the task the project team has to ensure. The plan for institutional stakeholder consultation is far advance and the regular engagement with national stakeholders on platforms like the NLLAP and RLLAPs are currently on-going. The use of the tool by these institutions could generate interesting feedback from experience that could inform the way the TAF is put into practice, pointing to limitations and opportunities.

For more information on the WASHTech project and the TAF visit the project website: www.washtechafrica.wordpress.com .

Abu Wumbei/RCN Ghana

Solar powered pumping for domestic supply has great potential in Uganda if the following issues are adequately addressed:

• Scheme operators and beneficially communities should provide adequate security measures to protect solar panels from theft. In addition, communities using solar water powered pumps and bore holes should be able to access loans from banks or financial institutions for replacement of highly expensive scheme components in the event of their failure or theft.
• Since there are many counterfeit solar technology products on the market, there is need for tight government monitoring of registered suppliers to ensure counterfeit parts are not sold. It’s these products which rapidly fail, impacting on public confidence in solar water pumping technology.
• There is also need to enhance solar technical capacity in the Ministry of Water and Environment and the regional Technical Support Units (TSU). The solar pump scheme operators also need to be trained in preventive maintenance so that they can carry out simple repairs in time.

Watch the video about WASHTech and the assessment of solar pumping in Kanungu district, Uganda here: http://youtu.be/MS8DUfhFOmg

Read about the the assessment of solar pumping in Kanungu district, Uganda in this briefing note 

Présentation du TAF à la Direction de suivi évaluation du PN-AEPA

Après des travaux d’ensemble avec les trois pays d’expérimentation que sont le Ghana, l’Uganda et le Burkina Faso, c’est le temps pour chaque pays de passer à la dernière étape seul. Cette étape consiste pour chacun d’eux de repasser au crible les propositions d’ensemble en les adaptant au contexte de son milieu à lui. C’est dans cette perspective que la représentation burkinabé a sollicité auprès des institutions travaillant dans le domaine de l’eau et/ou de l’assainissement chacune la désignation d’un point focal afin de poursuivre en équipe la suite de la recherche qui concerne spécifiquement maintenant l’établissement du Guide pour l’introduction des technologies HAEP (GTI).  La rencontre de ce mardi 19 mars 2013 est la première des points focaux Burkinabé. Cette rencontre qui a vu la participation de quatre institutions notamment EAA, DGRE, DIEE ; IRC-BF et WaterAid a servi de cadre d’échanges sur un planning national de travail. Mais avant d’y arriver, les participants ont d’abord fait un rappel sur l’état d’avancement du processus des travaux du projet de recherche. Au départ du projet de recherche, chacun des trois pays d’expérimentation a choisi six(06) technologies pratiquées chez lui. Ces différentes technologies d’Hygiène, d’assainissement et d’eau potable ont été toutes évaluées par le TAF pour voir leur durabilité et applicabilité sur diverses dimensions dans les trois pays distinctement. Une étape de base nécessaire dans le processus est donc déjà fait pour laisser la place à la phase de l’élaboration du Guide d’Introduction des Technologies(GTI) qui favorise la capacité à mettre de nouvelles technologies appropriées à l’échelle de manière efficace. Selon Wozuamé Kossi, de WaterAid/Burkina, « tout se passe jusqu’à présent dans le cours normal des prévisions. » Des soucis s’il ya, il répond : « non, pas de soucis majeurs, parce que nous pensons que d’ici là on peut finaliser l’engagement qu’on a eu par rapport à ce projet. Nous avons trouvé l’Organisation qui va héberger le projet, donc la seul chose qu’on peut dire souci c’est comment assurer que cette organisation puisse porter de façon durable cet outil-là, que l’institutionnel tel la DGRE, la DGAEUE, puisse s’approprier ce produit-là ». A ce titre, le TAAF a déjà été également présenté à la direction de suivi évaluation du PN-AEPA composé de la DGRE et la DGAEUE.

Selon le calendrier de travail adopté lors de cet atelier pour la suite des travaux de l’équipe nationale, tout doit prendre fin d’ici au mois de mai. La fin sera marquée par une formation d’au moins trois(03) jours au Burkina en juin avec le SKAT, un bureau d’étude suisse.

On the 9th of April (Wednesday), a presentation on WASHTech will be delivered. On Friday the 12th of April (9.30-11.00), we are organising a WASHTech pre-launch event, which will be facilitated by André Olschewski, SKAT and Jo Smet, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.

Join us for a discussion about how the “Technology Applicability Framework” (TAF) and  “Technology Introduction Process” (TIP) can help you identify and address blockages for sustainability, scalability and performance of a technology in a given context.

WASHtech consortium meeting (by J. Beale)

Over the past years, project teams have put considerable effort towards engaging country stakeholders in developing and testing the ‘TAF’, the methodology for participatory technology assessment.

Now, the project has an important task ahead of further embedding the methods and tools, monitoring change and communicating our our research findings and recommendations.

From assessment to applicability
The TAF is now referred to as the Technology Applicability Framework (formerly Technology Assessment Framework), emphasizing applicability of a specific technology in a certain context instead of generic or context-free assessment.

Research teams in the three countries have undertaken three rounds of testing and validation of the Technology Applicability Framework with a wide range of stakeholders. During a 3-day research review meeting, findings from the third round of TAF testing were shared and teams agreed on final adjustment to the methodology.

Making sure the TAF is used
Country teams have made steps towards ‘embedding’ the methodology: in each country at least one organization has committed itself to to gradually adopt and promote the framework beyond the duration of the project. These ‘host organizations’ will receive capacity support to apply the TAF and adapt the participatory review process in other contexts.

Until now, a systematic approach for assessing the performance and applicability of a technology in a certain context has been lacking. There is a lot of interest in the methodology.

In 2013 the teams will make an extra effort to widely share the TAF and the Guidance on Technology Introduction (GTI) in Ghana Uganda  and Burkina Faso, and at regional and global sector events.