The WASH Bottleneck Analysis Tool (BAT)

IRC Symposium 2013Monitoring WASH Services Delivery

Addis Ababa, 9 April 2013

Theme 6: Building Coherence in Global-Regional-National Monitoring

Andrew Trevett, Senior Adviser WASH, UNICEFGuy Hutton, UNICEF consultant

Peter Harvey, Regional Adviser WASH, UNICEF

Why ‘Bottleneck’ Analysis?• Analysis of ‘bottlenecks’ brings focus to

critical, priority issues to address• Multiple constraints at several levels make it

hard to explain lack of progress• Bottleneck: a factor constraining the delivery

of goods or services to a target population, and the sustained consumption of that service

• Bottleneck analysis is not new – it forms the basis of CSOs, GLAAS, MAF

• However, these tools only go ‘so far’

Why a Bottleneck Analysis Tool?• ‘So far’…?• Limited continuity over time (every 2-4 years)• Scoring systems do not capture marginal changes• Process of reaching consensus on scores• Scoring system does not proceed to identify a

bottleneck and how it will be removed• Costs of removing bottlenecks focus on infrastructure

costs, not enabling environment• No mechanism to agree priorities• Limited formal integration into

sector review process

Aim of WASH Bottleneck Analysis Tool

• Increase WASH sector resources and efficiency to achieve more sustainable and equitable outcomes, via:– Promoting dialogue, awareness and coordination– Providing rational, evidence-based approach for

formulating an investment strategy and understanding impacts of investment choices

– Facilitating dialogue with sector financiers, in particular Ministries of Finance and donors

– Tracking progress in bottleneck removal over time

The Intended Audiences of the BAT

• Main user: line ministries responsible for WASH, with the support of external partners

• Other major types of user expected are:– Ministries of Finance seeking to understand

alternative ways in which additional funds can be utilized and the impact they have

– External partners who want to separately make their own analysis of how their funds should be best spent.

– Sub-national levels, including service providers• Modular approach lends flexibility

The Process of Tool Development

Tool (version 1.0) roll-out in priority countries

Workshop for roll-out strategy (May 2013)

Second pilot: Sierra Leone case study (March 2013)

Software development

Urban tool development

First pilot: Ghana case study (March 2012)

Rural tool and manual development

Expert Workshop, Nairobi (October 2011)

Literature Review and Initial Concept Development

The Initial Vision (Nairobi)• Separate modules for

Detailed assessment of sector enabling factors Identification of bottlenecks and activities for their

removal Costing of activities and available funds allocation Prioritisation, planning and sequencing Impact of removing bottlenecks

Urban Water Rural Water Urban Sanitation

Rural Sanitation

National Sub-national Service provider

Community Household

Scoring the enabling factors

Identifying bottlenecks, their causes and activities to remove them

Entering the costs and funds available

Prioritizing the activities

Allocating additional funds

Assessing impact on sector coverage

Example of Tool Outputs• Enabling factor scores – e.g. national level, water

Example of Tool Outputs• Summary report – e.g. national level, water

Outputs of the Pilot tests• Brought together different stakeholders: time

to reflect - open atmosphere of honesty, not the usual pressure - consensus emerging

• Motivated participants to identify what they could be doing better as institutions and individually, and inspired them to go away and make a greater difference

• The BAT universally seen as a crucial resource• Tool developers given their homework

What the BAT does not do

• Provide key performance indicators - i.e. benchmarking of service

• Estimate the funding gap to reach coverage targets

• Advise on technology choice• Build a business strategy

Can the BAT meet country and global monitoring needs?

• Issues for country monitoring– Regularity of tool application – could it be annual?– How can it feed in to official review processes?– Hundreds of indicators: need to select priority ones– Further flexibility to meet country-specific needs?

• Additional issues for global monitoring– Can indicators selected be standardized? Which?– Reporting mechanism – who collects and compiles?– Number of countries – will take time to roll out; not all

countries reporting to GLAAS will wish to apply tool

With thanks to

- Experts participating in Nairobi workshop- Sector stakeholders in Ghana- Sector stakeholders in Sierra Leone- UNICEF regional and country staff

DevInfo: software tool development

Andrew Trevett and Paul Edwards, UNICEF