Voice for Change Partnership : roles of CSOs in achieving SDG6
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•276 views
The Voice for Change Partnership (V4CP) programme is a capacity development programme for civil society organizations (CSOs) in six countries across four areas including water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). VCP is a partnership between DGIS, SNV, IFPRI (International Food Policy and Research Institute) and CSOs. The capacity development activities focus on evidence creation and dissemination, and evidence-based advocacy. In Kenya, the V4CP WASH component supports CSO advocacy for improved stakeholder participation and coordination, increased budget allocation, and influencing policy review and development. CSOs used evidence from GIS mapping and the water testing to convince county governments to take action to improve sanitation. The data collected was also used to advocate for increased sanitation investment participatory budgeting. The presentation concludes with challenges and lessons learnt from the Kenya the V4CP WASH component. Presented at the WASH Debate “Dialogue and dissent: Looking at the role of civil society in achieving SDG 6 by 2030”, in The Hague, the Netherlands on 26 June 2019.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Voice for Change Partnership : roles of CSOs in achieving SDG6
Similar to Voice for Change Partnership : roles of CSOs in achieving SDG6 (20)
More from IRC
More from IRC (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Voice for Change Partnership : roles of CSOs in achieving SDG6
- 1. Roles of CSOs in achieving SDG6 1 Voice for Change Partnership 26-06-2019 Sharon Roose sroose@snv.org
- 2. V4CP: What we do Capacity development Evidence creation and dissemination Evidence based advocacy • Workshops & training • On-the-job support and coaching • (Tailor made) Evidence and solutions • Access to portals and networks • Support in design and implementation of advocacy plans We strengthen CSOs to: • Voice their views (by joining meetings, creating alliances, and taking part in negotiations) • Advocate for changes in the enabling environment (pro-poor policies, regulations, laws, better services)
- 3. 3 Ensuring a voice on the table in discussions Claiming the human rights to water and to sanitation Holding government to account for their role as duty bearers
- 4. Evidence & Advocacy 4 • CSOs need evidence to tell a compelling and true story • Research was undertaken o On the effects of poor sanitation on public health, the environment and well-being. o On current budget allocation and (possible) spending on sanitation.
- 5. Ensuring a voice at the table 5
- 6. Holding governments to account 6
- 7. Lessons learnt • Local data enhances awareness of the state of sanitation at the County and National level • Strengthening CSOs has revived the County WASH Forums resulting in increased accountability mechanisms • Buy in from County governments and other stakeholders results in enacting of policies/laws 7 Challenges • Moving from “ensuring a voice at the table” to “holding governments to account” • Uptake and understanding of evidence by CSOs • Accessing policies and budgetary information related to sanitation remains difficult
Editor's Notes
- V4CP: Facts & Figures Evidence based advocacy 6 countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America Partnership between DGIS, SNV, IFPRI (International Food Policy and Research Institute) and the CSOs Across 4 focus areas: FNS, Resilience, Energy and WASH (mainly sanitation) Reason we have chosen to focus on 4 focus areas: Important focus areas towards the future (SDGs) Focus areas in which (in)equality is at stake High on policy agenda in 6 countries of this programme SNV has expertise in these focus areas
- The Voice for Change Partnership programme is a capacity development programme for CSOs. Where we strengthen CSOs to: Voice their views (by joining meetings, creating alliances, and taking part in negotiations) Advocate for changes in the enabling environment (pro-poor policies, regulations, laws, better services) The programme consists of 3 components: Capacity development Evidence creation and dissemination Evidence based advocacy The three program components support the CSO’s
- When we look at the different roles CSOs play in achieving SDG6: Claiming the human rights to water and to sanitation Holding government to account for their role as duty bearers in WASH service delivery and water resources management Ensuring a voice on the table in discussions on access to and allocation of WASH resources. We can see here in the ToC for Kenya, that the V4CP programme focusses on all the above roles. But these roles change over time or the focus changes. So initially it was important to get CSOs at the same table as government staff or other stakeholders. This to get their advocacy issues tabled with the right people (this of course with a well thought through story, which was not always easy as not all CSOs were advocates by heart and focused on implementation selection of CSOs: capacity development). The current stage of the project focuses more on “holding governments to account”. Currently we are for example: providing alternative budget memos; doing social audit exercises; monitoring of rolling out sanitation plans. We do this with using evidence from researches we initiated. But, if advocacy topics change over time and sometimes become more delicate or difficult, it might mean we need to again ensure “a voice on the table”. Regarding “claiming the right WASH”: this covers everything we do. It is all about the final impact, improved sanitation service delivery. In all discussions or fora, the ‘story’ always starts with a reference of water and sanitation as a human right, and in some cases also referenced as a constitutional right. All organisations, CSOs, NGOs and government themselves, do talk quite a bit about it as a human right and reference the constitution in all discussions as the basis to act and prioritise. And sometimes the issue is raised whether using water and sanitation as a basic right is helping to prioritise the topic or whether it is just the thing everyone does and therefore we do it. It is as if we state it as a moral obligation which should make us act but in reality is often not enough to make us act. Duty bearers pay more attention and consideration to allocate budget and prioritise if they can see benefits e.g. saving money used for curative care, a better understanding of the reality and seriousness of issues e.g. through research, respond to the needs and demands of their population e.g. a bit of noise made by different stakeholders at different levels. Under V4CP WASH in Kenya CSOs advocate for improved stakeholder participation and coordination, increased budget allocation, and to influence policy review and development. And the different roles of the CSOs run throughout our ToC. So for example the Kenyan ToC is as you can see here. And you can see the different roles at different points in time. The WASH advocacy issue CSOs are focusing on in Kenya: Enhanced awareness of civil society actors and national and county governments on the state of public investment in sanitation Enhanced access and improved service delivery to improved sanitation Budgetary prioritization in sanitation by National and County Governments Increased budgetary allocation to sanitation services by county and national governments Improved implementation of Sanitation Acts and County Sanitation Investment Plans pegged on county CIDPs/ADPs Increased CSO participation in sanitation multi-stakeholder engagements through Technical Working Groups, stakeholder forums and public hearings at the national and county Enhanced accountability mechanisms in sanitation service delivery chain at the national and county level Increased CSO influence on agenda setting with national ministries (MoH, MoENR, MoWI) and county governments (CEC for Health, finance and MCAs) on investment in sanitation Improved collaboration between CSOs and National and County government officials Improved commitment and political will to adopt County Sanitation Investment Plans and sanitation bills by county governments and National Improved inter-ministerial coordination at the national and county level
- Under V4CP WASH in Kenya CSOs advocate for improved stakeholder participation and coordination, increased budget allocation, and to influence policy review and development (at county level). For our advocacy activities to be effective (and their different roles to be successful) CSOs need: The capacity to articulate and voice their views, this is done through the capacity development trajectory (focusing for example on communications, policy analysis, advocacy tools) But they also need evidence to convince policy makers, government staff and other stakeholders of the need to invest in sanitation. For this we commenced research. One of them in Kenya focuses on the effects of poor sanitation on public health, the environment and well-being. Another one on current budget allocation and (possible) spending on sanitation. Here it is important to note that CSOs need to be trained on the use of evidence in advocacy. They need to own the evidence, and the evidence need to be translated into ready made advocacy products to ensure that results are communicated in a way that can lead to action. One study was done by CPHRM (Centre for Population Health Research & Management) looking into the effects of poor sanitation on public health, the environment and well-being in Kericho, Homa Bay and Elgeyo Marakwet counties in Kenya. And this resulted in clear advocacy products for the CSOs to work with.
- For example a GIS mapping was done, showing that diarrhoea prevalence is highest in areas with latrine coverage suggesting underground water contamination or poor hygiene practices after latrine use or poor treatment of drinking water. So alongside the mapping water testing was done. With the findings of the GIS mapping and the water testing CSOs had several meetings with county government staff and with the evidence provided were able to convince county governments to start moving. In Homa Bay County this resulted in: Deputy CPHO requested information on how to use GIS maps to capture sanitation data for advocacy purposes in Kericho County. GIS Maps will help to show case where prevalence of cases of diseases are more thus help to advocate for resource allocation or areas of intervention. But also on where to target their behavioural change campaigns. In Kericho County this resulted in: Water quality and water testing was put on the agenda as an priority issue. This was followed up with connecting a private company offering portable water testing kits solutions and the county government who have planned for a budget for the same. And after several meetings/discussions, Kericho County also allocated KES 5,000,000 for sanitation for the FY 2018/2019 where previously no budget was specifically allocated for sanitation activities.
- The data collected was also used in the drafting of a sanitation budget brief that was done by IEA. The sanitation budget brief provides a picture on the public investment on delivery of sanitation services (in the 3 Counties we are working in). This again provided information for the CSOs. And this information was used at the beginning of the year when county governments published their County budgets for the year (CDIP). CSOs submitted alternative budget memo’s trying to influence county government decisions in investing in sanitation. And this will be monitored on a yearly basis. But it also provides an opportunity for deepening participatory budgeting (given the legal basis for public participation in government planning and budgeting processes). Since country transited into devolved system of government, it is envisaged that through the IEA-Kenya pre-budget hearings and Budget memo, there is likelihood of increased civil society engagement with county government planning and budgeting. (Also here there is quality control of the evidence used. So the proposals submitted were consolidated and synthesized by the IEA according to the various Medium Terms Expenditure Framework (MTEF) sectors largely based on their feasibility, whether they make economic sense and whether they are in line with the county priorities of the government. As part of capacity development).
- Challenges: Moving from “ensuring a voice on the table” to “holding governments to account” Building relationships take time and effort: importance of engaging multiple stakeholders to push for inclusive sanitation policies. Uptake and understanding of evidence by CSOs Challenge of access to information: accessing policies and budgetary information related to sanitation remains difficult Low reporting on sanitation: CLTS data in the Counties is unavailable Opportunities (what is going well) There is a need for local data used by local CSOs to create political will. This local data enhances awareness of the state of sanitation at the County and National level. Triangulating primary and secondary data in developing the advocacy products increases credibility of the products and compelling story to tell Integration of advocacy agenda into the county’s work plans and CIDPs (County Integrated Development Plans) Buy in from Counties, Policy makers (MCAs) and other stakeholders. Enacting of policies/laws And is an enabler of sanitation programmes Integration of advocacy agenda into the County’s work and development plans Allocation of resources for routine water testing kits. Initiation of a monthly water quality surveillance in the Counties Strengthened Counties WASH Forums