From: Pierre-Yves ROCHAT, ACF, WASH Advisor / Paris

ACF-France

WASH sector

Field visit report

Zimbabwe

February 2009

Date: 06 March 2009

From: Pierre-Yves ROCHAT, ACF, WASH Advisor / Paris

To: Mission / Zimbabwe

Pool desk Zimbabwe / Paris

WASH sector / Paris

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS 2

1 OBJECTIVES 2

1.1 General objective: 2

1.2 Specific objectives: 2

2 SCHEDULE & ACTIVITIES 3

3 A3B 4

3.1 Questions & Answers 4

3.2 Recommandations 7

3.3 Action Points 12

4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 13

4.1 ACF strategy 13

4.2 WASH support to CTC 14

4.3 PHHP 16

4.4 Water points repairing 17

4.5 Hygiene kits 18

4.6 SWOT analysis 19

4.7 Organization of the response and teams 19

ANNEX

Annex 1 TOR

Annex 2 Minutes of meeting with MSF-B

Annex 3 SWOT Analysis of the ACF cholera interventions

Annex 4 Rope & washer pump (or Elephant pump) by Pump Aid / Zimbabwe

Annex 5 Various photos for the field visit

acronyms / abbreviatioNS

APR Activity Progress Report

Co Coordinator

CTC Cholera Treatment Centre

CTU Cholera Treatment Unit

E Emergency

E-WASH Co Emergency WASH Coordinator

EHT Environmental Health Technician

GI Galvanized iron

HH Household

HOM Head of Mission

HP Hygiene Promotion

HQ Headquarter

INGO International Non Governmental Organisation

IV Intravenous

MoH Ministry of Health

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MvT Mvuramanzi Trust

ORS Oral Re hydration Salts

P Co Program Coordinator

PDM Post Distribution Monitoring

PHHP Participatory Health and Hygiene Promotion

PM Project Manager

RRT Rapid Response Team

SWOT Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Treat

TOR Terms of reference

VHW Village Health Worker

VIDCO Village Development Committee

WASH Water, Sanitation, Hygiene

WASH Co WASH Coordinator

WP Water Point/s

WPC Water point committee

WS Water & Sanitation (WatSan)

WT Water trucking

Zim Zimbabwe

ZINWA Zimbabwean National Water Authority

1  OBJECTIVES

1.1  General objective:

Understand the current WASH issues/challenges of the mission and advice on future development

1.2  Specific objectives:

·  A3B

Ø  Where we stand?

Ø  Visit of projects/activities

Ø  Problems and recommendations

·  Emergency programs

Ø  Where we stand?

Ø  Visit of projects/activities

Ø  SWOT analysis

Ø  Problems and recommendations

·  HR

Ø  Meeting/training with WASH staff (A3B + emergency) in Masvingo

Ø  Individual meeting with each key WASH staff (PM + co)

·  Meeting with some WASH partners:

Ø  WASH Cluster coordinator

Ø  ICRC

Ø  MSF Luxemburg + Spain

Ø  ZIMWA

·  Collection of data and documents to be used for the revised PAD in Paris (maps, pictures, files, etc.)

·  Discussion about the 2010 strategy

2  SChedule & activities

3  A3B

After re reading carefully the A3B proposal, the following questions have raised by the WASH Advisor. Intensive discussions with A3B key staff and in particular the PM have allowed answers and recommendations to be proposed.

3.1  Questions & Answers

1)  Project documents

·  Has the “field study on mainstreaming HIV/AIDS within ACF programs” been done (from Jul to Nov 2006?)? If yes, what results and recommendations?

It seems that the study has been cancelled. The only reference document is “Water and HIV: Working for positive solutions” which is available at the mission level. The mission must reconsider whether such a study has to be carried out or whether existing information can be collected among partners in Zimbabwe.

·  Do we have “Zimbabwean standards for water quality”?

A3B PM has a copy.

·  Do we have the national guidelines for water points?

A3B PM has a copy of the national guidelines for water points + manual for Bush pumps + latrines + “Well Sinking guide” + Peter Morgan’s book (in Harare).

2)  Purchases

·  “Purchases of the whole necessary items must be done ASAP”. What has been done/planned?

Order for training materiel (stationeries, food, etc.), order of 60% of the spare part (the remaining 40% are part of the co funding) + order for tools kits have been placed.

No order for head works/upper ground masonry because it is budgeted on a co funding budget which is not yet approved (see Recommendations: Admin issues).

3)  Selection of beneficiaries

·  What has been done?

Selection for water points in only one ward (where 8 C-Bush pumps have been installed).

·  How are the most vulnerable HH selected? (construction of 230 pit latrines)

MvT will do it (MvT has a tool for selecting vulnerable HH). MoU signed (to be confirmed). MvT supposed to start in Feb (but has to be revised).

·  How have HIV/AIDS people been identified?

Check and validate the MvT “tool”.

·  Have schools and rural health centres been identified? (construction of 470 pit latrines + access to safe drinking water)

In process (see below).

·  How many schools + rural health centres are going to be targeted?

Get monthly data (of patients) over a year time. Produce graph and determine min, max and average monthly patients. Select “your limit” and justify. Calculate daily visit (by dividing by 30) and calculate the number of pit latrines to be built. Prioritize health centres over schools in relation to the cholera crisis.

Chivi + Mberengwa: Mid-March (Chivi + Mberengwa data and report)

Gutu: End of April (Gutu data and report + finalize selection)

Start work in May.

4)  Coverage

·  How is the coverage calculated?

Population per village (given by Authority and confirmed at community level) + number of WP (F&NF). In 12 out of 25 wards, existing and maximum potential coverage can be calculated (without considering new WP). A base coverage can decided (60%?) and define priority work and start implementation. Analysis & proposition for first rehab work done by A3B PM by end of Feb. Validation Harare + Paris before communication and implementation (see Recommendation: Rehabilitation of water points).

·  Can the expected coverage achievement (100%) be turned into how many water points and latrines must be installed per ward?

See above.

·  Do we have the total number of water points per wards? Have they all been assessed?

12 out of 25 wards completed.

·  Do we have a mapping of the water points? Schools? Rural heath centres? Coverage?

No but a mapping officer must be recruited ASAP at Harare level. He/she will map A3B, previous WASH projects (A1F + A1G + other ECHO projects if data are still available at Harare level) + Emergency data.

5)  KAP surveys

·  Has KAP 1 been completed?

Ongoing: data collection will finish on 20/02/09. Final report expected by mid-Mach for Chivi + Mberengwa. Gutu report by end of March + Final report covering all the 3 districts by the end of the first week of April. Validation Harare + Paris by mid-April.

·  Are we still planning to conduct KAP 2 and 3?

KAP 2 & 3 have been cancelled.

·  Have water analysis been done at HH level? If yes how much and what are the results? Yes in the 12 completed wards. Represent results for E.Coli, type of storage containers and lid or not + short interpretation. Work to be done by the M&E team. Validation A3B PM + WASH Co and send results to Paris no later than final KAP survey report. In addition, take pictures of water containers + devices for taking water out from the storage containers and add them to the reports.

6)  Alternative technologies + spare parts + water storage

·  Has a mobile family latrine been developed by Mvuramanzi Trust?

No, we don’t know what it is. Ask MvT! But this activity is not important and can be cancelled.

·  Have rope pumps been installed/tested/monitored by ACF?

No. Selection of sites will start in May during the dry season and implementation will follow until end of August. MoU has to be signed ASAP (see Recommendations: Rehabilitation of water points).

·  Is it realistic to plan manufacturing rope pumps at ward level (25 wards)? Won’t it be better to have a more centralized production (198 rope pumps)?

Rope pumps are going to be produced and installed by Pump Aid. Pump Aid will advise on manufacturing spares for the pumps (where? who? how?)

·  Is it realistic to plan repairing/manufacturing B-Bush pumps spare parts at ward level? Won’t it be better to have a more centralized approach?

A study will be launched. A TOR is going to be prepared and validated by end of Feb by Harare and Paris. Methodology will be chosen according to expected outputs (done by the mission? External consultant? Additional HR provided by HQ? Zimbabwean student? Etc.). See Recommendations: Pumps spare parts components.

·  The specific objective states that “water is properly stored”. What is done/going to be done in relation with water storage?

Promotion of safe storage and practices during HP.

See what can be done to include distribution of water storage containers? (additional budget related to cholera crisis ?). A possibility would be to prioritize the selection of the A3B cholera affected wards for the distribution of the hygiene kits budgeted by ECHO (A1I). Issue to be discussed between E-WASH Co, WASH Co and A3B PM.

7)  Water points management

·  What are the recommendations coming from the review of previous ECHO programs?

Report almost finalized.

·  Does the “creation of an operation and maintenance fund” still be promoted?

Yes. Since 1st of Feb, some foreign currencies (Rand, USD, Pula and British Pound) are authorized to be used as trading currency in Zimbabwe. The WPC fund can thus be created with a “stable” currency which would allow savings over a long period of time.

·  What has been done regarding the creation of IGA related to water points sustainability? What ideas and recommendations?

Baseline survey done and feasibility study will start in Feb in project areas according to the agreed methodology: random selection of one WPC per VIDCO represented by 2 members (one male + one female), focal group discussions a ward level with VIDCO members (separate discussions with females and males followed by a common meeting). Since they are between 5 and 6 VIDCO per ward and 25 targeted wards, the sampled WPC will represent at least 16% of the overall targeted WPC (800). The sample size can thus be considered as representative. The purpose of such a feasibility study is to get an idea of the possible IGA which could be proposed. Then the yearly running cost (budget) of a WPC has to be established including all usual operation and maintenance and savings for unusual expenses. In addition to that, the earning of the committees members must be estimated (they must earn some money in order to remain committed and dedicated). After estimating the targeted benefit (business plan) which a given IGA must produce (in order to remain profitable and sustainable), each IGA must be designed and sized accordingly. Each IGA will then need to be budgeted (how much would it cost to the project to set up the identified activities?). To assess feasibility, the cost estimates will then be compared to the available budget (260,000 € = average of 2,600 € for each IGA but all IGA must not necessarily worth the same amount). After the identification, cost estimation and distribution of the 100 IGA and selection of the WPC (according to criteria combining motivation and geographic distribution), implementation could start. The entire process prior to the establishment of the first IGA is going to be quite long and the activity schedule must be revised accordingly. It is expected with all the described steps and the description of the proposed methodologies/approaches by end of March (for action: IGA supervisor)

See Recommendations: IGA component.

·  Is the proposed model for repairing water points still valid? (access to spare parts + communication lines)

Can be revised after proposed study (see above)

·  What is the role of the local craftsperson (private sector)? Have they been identified and trained?

Not clear yet. The role/existence of the craftsperson must be clarified after the study on spare parts management and recycling.

8)  Community based approach

·  Is the list of local/community based stakeholders still valid?

Yes it is still valid, except for the “craftsperson” whom we are still designing TOR for.

·  Is the proposed model for communication and capacity building of stakeholders still valid?

Yes, but however there is need to reinforce the issue of reporting of WASH Activities by the Ward Councillors to the District. The question is: Is it practical? How often are they supposed to report & through which meetings (Full Council meetings or Committee Meetings)? Is it the councillor who should write these reports or it’s the VHW/WPC?